The markets were on a roll. New companies were being listed every few days. Germany had a new currency, and its mighty exporters were doing business around the world. Greece had merged its currency with that of France and Italy in a bold experiment in monetary union. A massive new continental economy was flooding the world with cheap goods, disrupting old industries. And new technologies were creating global markets, where money and information zipped from bourse to bank virtually instantaneously. Until the crash came, it seemed as if everyone would keep on getting richer and richer forever.
You could be forgiven for thinking that was a description of New York in 2008. Or London in 2000. Or Shanghai right now. But actually it is Vienna in 1873.
Advertisement
In that year, the Austrian capital was the epicenter of one of the great bubbles of the Victorian era. Money was flooding out of the new, unified German economy, and much of it landed in the lightly regulated Vienna bourse. Over the course of three years, more than a thousand companies joined the market. Preparations for the 1873 World Exhibition in Vienna led to a massive building boom. The Austrian rail network doubled in just five years. Over six months, the Vienna market tripled in value. Then, in May 1873, it all crashed spectacularly. The market plummeted and had to be temporarily closed. The panic quickly spread to Germany, leading to what became known as the Gründerkrach, or “Founders’ Crash,” because it came so soon after the Gründerzeit, or “Founders’ Boom,” that had followed unification.
By November, it had spread to Wall Street, sparking a collapse that started when Jay Cooke & Company, a bank that had been one of the main financiers of the American Civil War and was among the most prominent finance houses on Wall Street, suspended payments on its bonds. “The brokers stood perfectly thunderstruck for a moment, and then there was a general run to notify the different houses of Wall Street of the failure,” reported the New York Times the next day. “The brokers surged out of the Exchange, stumbling pell-mell over one another in general confusion.”
The crash marked the start of what economic historians refer to as the long depression. During Edwardian times, it was actually known as the Great Depression, but rather like the Great War of 1914–18, it had to be renamed once a worse catastrophe came along. Either name would do, however; the slump was both long and great. It lasted from 1873 to 1896, and over that period output crashed, unemployment increased, prices fell, and migration soared. Most of today’s German population in the U.S. is descended from Germans who migrated here during the years after the crash, trying their luck in Cleveland and Milwaukee after they were laid off in the Ruhr.
The long depression was, for many years, of interest only to a small band of economic historians. Right now, however, it seems full of lessons for our own times. The parallels are almost spooky. In the 1870s, Germany had recently reunified, just as it has now. A currency union had been formed in Europe but was struggling to stay together. There was a new form of instant communication, the telegraph, that was more revolutionary than e-mail in the time saved over the technology it replaced. There was a new continental economy, and the U.S. was flooding the world with cheap grain just as China now floods the world with cheap computer chips. There was even a wave of financial innovation. In the years leading up to 1873 crash, new industrial banks such as Deutsche Bank had been formed, and the global bond market was fueling the railway boom. And, of course, there was an epic financial bubble that suddenly blew up. The question is whether we are going to witness another two-decade slump like the one that followed the 1873 crash.
Unfortunately, it is starting to look as if we might. The U.K. is already experiencing its longest depression since records began: The current downturn has lasted longer than the slump of the 1930s. Europe is heading for a deep depression next year as the austerity regime that will be needed for the euro to survive starts to bite. The U.S. will struggle to grow significantly. We are used to short, sharp recessions, because those were what we experienced for most of the 20th century. But it is now more than three years since the crash of 2008, and things are getting worse, not better.
When the markets blew up in 2008, policymakers rushed to make comparisons with the 1930s. True, that was a terrible depression, but one that was over quite quickly. The Great Depression was caused by a sudden collapse of demand and shrinking money supply. Now, as then, policymakers assumed that if the government expanded its deficits and central banks printed lots of money, that would fix the problem. It hasn’t, and it should be clear by now that it isn’t going to.
Why not? Because what we are really dealing with is a structural depression. In reality, the global economy is facing not one crisis, but three.
There is a debt crisis. The developed world has been building up debts on a spectacular scale for three decades. According to McKinsey data, global debt now stands at $158 trillion; that is up from $77 trillion in 2000. Put another way, global debt amounts to 266 percent of global GDP now, compared with 216 percent a decade ago. While economists used to think that debt was largely neutral — on the grounds that once person’s borrowing is another person’s loan — we are now discovering that borrowing on that scale is unsustainable.
Then there is a currency crisis. For most of the post-WWII period, the dollar was the anchor of the global economic system. That worked when the U.S. was the overwhelmingly dominant economy. It doesn’t work anymore. The dollar is now down to 60 percent of reserves, as central banks diversify away from a currency falling in value. At some point we will come up with a new core currency — perhaps the Chinese renminbi, perhaps gold. But until we do, there will be more chaos ahead.
And finally, there is the euro, perhaps the most dysfunctional monetary system ever created. Welding together the currencies of 17 very different economies, without any kind of fiscal union to compensate for the differences between them, was always a high-risk experiment. By now we can surely agree that it has failed. The euro was meant to promote faster growth and greater stability. It has become instead a cause of depression and volatility. Until it is dismembered, there is little chance of the global economy’s returning to stability.
This is a structural depression — just as the long depression of the 19th century was. And it won’t be over until we have fixed the way the economy works.
The trouble is, none of those tasks can be accomplished easily. The euro will take several years to restructure, and if it falls apart chaotically, it will plunge the world into a deep depression. Any replacement for the dollar will take a decade to establish itself. We don’t even have much idea what it might be yet: Historically, the reserve currency has always been either gold or the currency of the world’s dominant economy, but China is not ready to assume that role yet, and the shiny yellow metal has a long way to go to reclaim its place as the ultimate store of value, even if it is taking a far larger share of anxious investors’ portfolios. Only once those things are achieved will we be able to start reducing our debt to manageable levels.
The great 19th-century depression lasted for more than two decades. On the same reckoning, this slump will last until 2031. That may be too long a time scale: The old joke that economists make forecasts only to give the weather guys someone to laugh at should stop anyone from making predictions for decades ahead. But the lesson of the long depression is that a downturn can last a very, very long time — and it’s already clear that this one isn’t going to be over soon.
Great article and interestingly enough to reiterate that history does have a bad habit of repeating itself time and time again. You'd think by now we would have learned not to continually repeat the same mistakes over and over but unfortunately there appears to be just a small minority of citizens who realize our country's demise is more invevitable than ever. Until we find a way to get past liberal circumvention of the truth to the majority we can only expect to see Marley's ghost pay us another visit while we are hiding under our covers.
There are other doomsayers who, like Mr. Lynn, predict a long period of economic difficulty. One thing they seem to have in common is the desire to sell their books. Tht aside, however, it is clear the the U.S. must right itself and this cannot happen as long as the Democrats control the White House and until entrenched members of Congress from both parties are thrown out of office. Only then can we address runaway spending, reform of social security and medicare and true tax reform, which would abolish the corporate income tax.
MW, I think you've invalidated your "doomsayer" pejorative when you write, " .. it is clear the the U.S. must right itself and this cannot happen as long as the Democrats control the White House and until entrenched members of Congress from both parties are thrown out of office."
In the normal course of events, this will require several election cycles. There is no historical precedent that suggests we have the time for the political process to work this out before the consequences of ignoring reality converge upon us. I would offer two more points:
* Enumerate the number of nations whose debt to equity ratio exceeded 100% whose leadership actually retired that debt. Short list? Length greater than zero?
* There is every reason to believe the political class has calculated it stands to gain more by presiding over a collapse than to actually do something to prevent it.
"* There is every reason to believe the political class has calculated it stands to gain more by presiding over a collapse than to actually do something to prevent it."
I am not quite ready to except this analysis, but the evidence increasingly points to it.
Another analysis might be that the political class is not smart enough to know what to do to prevent it.
I do not believe all politicians are bad and/or stupid(perhaps because I do not want to depress myself too much). However, for whatever reason, as a group, they sure are not doing their jobs.
NobodyInParticular, I appreciate your desire to find some good in the political class. Surely there are a few individuals in politics who are invested in doing well by the nation, at least until they are seduced by the power and the perquisites.
"Another analysis might be that the political class is not smart enough to know what to do to prevent it. " There is some merit in this hypothesis, but anyone who has run a political campaign has some idea that the books have to eventually balance, even if they are borrowing from their relatives to retire campaign expenditures after an election. The behavior of the political class regarding government spending is strikingly at odds with this simple truth, and the assumption we can operate perpetually in increasing debt is criminally negligent or an artifact of insanity. We could argue whether the Keynesian model of central planning is criminal or insane. I tend to favor the former because I believe it was purposefully formulated to facilitate the Fabian Socialists' plan to incrementally achieve their goals.
I've been aware of politics from the time I was a little tyke observing the 1956 conventions and associated campaigns. Over the years, I have come to the realization that whatever level of cynicism I've harbored at any time, it has in retrospect been shown to be insufficient.
The simple truth is the hardest for the political class to grasp. If the real goal is prosperity and freedom as opposed to power and influence, the political class has merely to *LET GO*. In other words, those goals would be self-fulfilling if the political class will loosen its grip upon individuals, get out of their pockets, let States and localities tend to social issues, disband some bureaucracies, play a lot of golf, and periodically convene to repeal some laws and regulations.
When pondering long term economic forecasts you have to consider the source. The rosy forecasts usually come from analysts or institutions that have a vested interest in selling - why would they want to scare investors into going all cash? Lynn's analysis coincides with others that aren't biased by self interest. For instance, the Federal Reserve of San Francisco recently published a study that estimates the S&P market bottom in 2022 - 2027 at the point when the majority of baby boomers are retiring and cashing in their stocks en masse. Another analysis found in the book "Ashes to Riches" by John Carlucci presents a chart of S&P cycles over the past 100 years that shows we're not even half way through the current bear market, it too predicts an S&P bottom of 450 by 2022 - 2024. When oyu stop to consider the ramaficiations of the Euro collapse such forecasts seem all too plausible.
The San Francisco Fed published a study in Aug. 2011 that came to the same conclusion, but from a different analytical approach. The baby boomers will be cashing in their stocks en masse in 2022 - 2027 driving the S&P to a bottom in the range of 450. Another book along these same lines is "Ashes to Riches: The Economic Collpase of 2012 to 2022" by John Carlucci. Good luck, don't forget to turn out the lights.
The SF Fed analysis is assine at a 50,000 foot level because the baby boom population is not that significantly different than other birth years (look it up). The birth rates did not drop much when the boom ended and it recovered by the late 1980's and these people will be in there 30's and 40's by then. Also, many BB's (myself included) will still be holding a lot of stock in the 2030's. Moreover, its more important that the population continues to grow not the birth rates.
The unprecedented number of individuals in their 40's, the prime earning and stock-buying years, drove the S&P through the roof from 1982 to 2000. These same people will be retiring in equally unprecedented numbers in 10 years, largely selling their stocks and having the inverse effect.
Why would people be "cashing in their stocks" when they can/are living on the dividends produced by those stocks? If I retire today and financial plan for the next 30 years of retirement, shouldn't I still have some longterm investments, and not just all cash? If I plan to leave some of my savings to my children and grandchildren, doesn't that lengthen my timeline and wouldn't stocks be a good long term investment for that now 50+ year financial plan?
They're not going to cash in everything all at once. However, they are going to start selling which will put downward pressure on stock prices. Up to retirement age you're more likely to buy and hold stocks. After retirement age you're more likely to sell. That's the overall trend, multiplied by tens of millions of people. The echo-boomers don't make up for the slack, they're in their 30's in ten years and not at prime earning or stock aquisition age.
This is a very bizarre article implying that the entire 1870's, 1880's, and 1890's were part of a "Long Depression".
That sure is not the received view of the 1880's. Plenty of more historically knowledgeable people here than me, but here's Wikipedia:
"After the short-lived panic of 1873, the economy recovered with the advent of hard money policies and industrialization..the U.S. economy grew at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly.[1] For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%."
Mr. Lynn may only be talking about Germany. If so, he needs to make that clear.
Unfortunately, Lynn proves his ignorance by stating that economists used to think borrowing was neutral. Only a consumption based Keynesian would think that. The "structural" problems he lists are simple side effects of other problems. Yes, debt is a problem, especially when derived from governments. It's an artificial prop for the economy that must end at some point. But the biggest problems are the causes of these bubbles that keep bursting and universally, it is government and the constant inflation of monetary supplies and artificially low interest rates set by faulty central planning.
This article is a waste of electrons. NRO should do a better job of vetting articles before posting them. I'll start to loose trust in their judgment if they don't.
In the 1970's, New York City was $2 billion in the red, and Senator James Buckley was drafting legislation for an expected municipal bankruptcy. Then the economy improved unexpectedly. Sales tax revenues flooded into Albany, wiping out the City's deficit within months, and showing yet again how our free market economy has produced a standard of living unparalleled in history. Gloom and doom from the dismal science and investing in gold are not the answers. Cut the size of government, encourage private investment, and then stand back and watch what freedom can do. Happy New Year.
jpdell makes a lot of sense. That is the problem, a logical approach to addressing our woes is almost surely not going to get past the filters that shield the political class from reality.
What passed for 'deficit reduction negotiations' over the past year were exercises in absurdity, yielding, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, in infinitesimal alterations that are far less than rounding errors when dealing with multi-trillion dollar expenditures.
We currently stand at a debt-to-GDP ratio of a hair over 100%. The most radical proposal on the table, that attributed to Mr. Ryan, will not balance the budget until somewhere after 2020, when we would have trillions more in debt to service.
Even if the economy were to dramatically improve, there is every reason to believe the folks in charge in DC will spend every dollar of additional receipts on more programs. Can anyone can cite any instance where a nation with comparable levels of debt actually retired the debt and set itself aright, avoiding fiscal collapse?
We have run out of margin. Any interest rate appreciably above zero will bring down the house of cards by forcing Congress to choose between servicing the debt, completely devaluing the currency, or curtailing the entitlement State. There is every reason to believe the political class would rather deal with a fiscal implosion that to actually stop spending.
jpdell makes a lot of sense, but such messages fall on absolutely deaf ears.
I do understand people's irrational attachment to current U.S. map. For a nation born in secession, with election map after election map covered with vast swaths of red and dense pockets of socialist blue, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to continue to go down with the ship just because the folks in the blue regions are. It's a country - not a religion.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...