In The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008, Paul Krugman warns us that America’s gloomy future might parallel those of other countries. Like diseases that are making a stronger, more resistant comeback, the causes of the Great Depression are looming ahead and much more probable now after the great housing bubble in 2002. In his new and revised book, he emphasizes even more on the busts of Japan and the crises in Latin America (i.e: Argentina), and explains how and why several specific events--recessions, inflationary spiraling, currency devaluations--happened in many countries. Although he still does not give us any solid options or specific steps to take to save America other than those proposed by other economists, he thoroughly examines international policies and coherently explains to us average citizens how the world is globalizing--that the world is becoming flatter and countries are now even more dependent on each other.
The main ideas in Krugman’s book revolve around the “Keynesian Compact” or the “neoclassical consensus”. Krugman suggests five general solutions based on the economist, John Maynard Keynes’ theories: put more capital into the banking system to unfreeze the markets, make a program for the government to lend money, work hand-in-hand with other countries, use government stimulus plans, reform and regulate the capitalistic market system.
Just as John Stuart Mill did in the Principles of Political Economy, Paul Krugman in The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008 felt that the government should not only help American businesses gain profits, but also play a major role in protecting the people against big businesses and moguls. Krugman believes that the average citizen cann...
... middle of paper ...
...flation. The big possibility that corporations will fight the inflation by increasing prices and wages and thereby increasing the cost of supplies will detract from the demand-side advantages. As a result, Krugman strongly calls for governments of all countries, including America, to moderate their economy quietly without decreasing confidence and triggering or risking expectations in the general population. Governments should try to make their changes as natural and as low-key as possible, especially in the case in which the plan does not work because then the confidence of the nation will spiral downwards even faster. This idea of “arcane imperii” is also very Keynesian of Krugman. Krugman is hoping that the advantages to the government’s playing with inflation will be greater than the consequences in the supply side and the risks in moderating inflation.
In conclusion, the Great Depression of October 1929 caused several countries worldwide to have bouts of economic decline. In Argentina, the Concordancia and Import Substitution Industrialization policy aided the repair of the damaged economy. Through the countering of Irigoyen’s deficit repair and isolation tactics, the economy was eventually able to return to a healthy and stable form.
Rather than progressing and remaining active for the betterment of America, the country continues to dwell in the past by surrounding itself with fictional stereotypes and overwhelming confidence. Krugman’s tone shifts to a more concerned viewer, as he stressed the importance of relying on factual evidence opposed to cultural biases. America’s formation of a French caricature inevitably backfires when statistical evidence (a chart) reveals about how untrue the nation’s ‘facts’ are about the employment rates in the European country. As shown on the graph, France’s employment rate has grown steadily over the years, while America’s rate has continuously declined, resulting in a substantial gap between the two countries. If America is not willing to improve itself as a nation and a world power, it will no longer be respected by the rest of the world. Its famous reputation as a world power would stripped, leaving it helpless and bare to harsh judgement and criticism of the Earth’s citizens. Although laughing and poking fun at a country’s past mistakes is comfortable and natural for America, it only proves of how distracted we are about the reality of America’s idleness. If we do not take ourselves seriously, who
...ith this next statement: "The flexible hybrid of Capitalism and the welfare state pioneered in the United States had proven capable of military triumph over Germany, Italy, and Japan. Despite widespread fears and dark prophecies that the depression would return once the war was over, the economy weathered the transition away from the controlled economy of wartime with relative ease." The businessmen of the time continued to fight for conservatism even when liberalism seemed to be at its finest. This quote from the author made the businessmen of the day to once again seem as of they were out of though with the majority of society and were only seeking what benefit them and their bank accounts.
Amity Shlaes tells the story of the Great Depression and the New Deal through the eyes of some of the more influential figures of the period—Roosevelt’s men like Rexford Tugwell, David Lilienthal, Felix Frankfurter, Harold Ickes, and Henry Morgenthau; businessmen and bankers like Wendell Willkie, Samuel Insull, Andrew Mellon, and the Schechter family. What arises from these stories is a New Deal that was hostile to business, very experimental in its policies, and failed in reviving the economy making the depression last longer than it should. The reason for some of the New Deal policies was due to the President’s need to punish businessmen for their alleged role in bringing the stock market crash of October 1929 and therefore, the Great Depression.
Because the economy was unstable, Franklin Roosevelt imposed many programs to boost the economy both helping and hindering American citizens through banking and financial reformation with government regulation. After declaring the “bank holiday,” Roosevelt created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in order to put confidence back in the citizens and their ability to trust banks to keep their money. By also separating commercial banks from investment banks, the government was trying to keep the flow of money uniform. This idea is radical in form because of the new government imposed restrictions, and conservatives may argue this movement shows signs of socialism. Many people saw implications that free enterprise was disappearing; Herbert Hoover specifically mentions in his Anti-New Deal Campaign speech that he proposes to “amend the tax laws so as not to defeat free men and free enterprise.” The threat to free enterprise challenged the American economy because u...
During the 1920’s, America was a prosperous nation going through the “Big Boom” and loving every second of it. However, this fortune didn’t last long, because with the 1930’s came a period of serious economic recession, a period called the Great Depression. By 1933, a quarter of the nation’s workers (about 40 million) were without jobs. The weekly income rate dropped from $24.76 per week in 1929 to $16.65 per week in 1933 (McElvaine, 8). After President Hoover failed to rectify the recession situation, Franklin D. Roosevelt began his term with the hopeful New Deal. In two installments, Roosevelt hoped to relieve short term suffering with the first, and redistribution of money amongst the poor with the second. Throughout these years of the depression, many Americans spoke their minds through pen and paper. Many criticized Hoover’s policies of the early Depression and praised the Roosevelts’ efforts. Each opinion about the causes and solutions of the Great Depression are based upon economic, racial and social standing in America.
From the many economy-related books available I read The Return of Depression Economics by Paul Krugman. This book was written during the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990’s. Many say that Krugman wrote this book much too quickly to be fully correct on every issue that he wrote about in this book. Krugman mainly focuses on financial crises of the 1990’s and mostly on the Asian financial crisis. This book was very interesting to read even though I did not fully understand every issue he covered. In this book Krugman laid out the basic fundamentals of global economy and the choices we had to get ourselves out of the Asian financial crisis. With the Asian financial crisis done and over with, many of Krugman’s thoughts and choices are now out-of-date. Even though there were an option at the time but now dated, they were interesting and I agreed on many of his points. Krugman believes that Mexico’s crisis was a three-act play with Mexico as act one, Asia as number two and us finishing off as act three.
I find that many of the arguments Krugman raises infringes on the right to an individual’s property. He argues that the rich are undeserving of their praise as “economic heroes.” While I agree that there is an injustice in the influence of the minority rich over the majority, these individuals have taken advantage of what they were given, and worked themselves into this position. It would be wrong to take that away.
During the 1920's America experienced an increase like no other. With the model T car, the assembly line, business skyrocketed. Thus, America's involvement in World War II did not begin with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Starting in October 1929, the Great Depression, the stock market crashed. It awed a country used to the excesses of the 1920's. These are the events that lead up to the crash.
middle of paper ... ... In summation, I am more of a Keynesian thinker than a classical thinker. Although it might be true that having a free market is the right way of having a stable economy, unemployment will still be high and might be increasing which is still one of the problems that governments face today. Plus, what happens if recession hits or even worse we go back to 1930’s where there was the great depression, it was proved then and will be proved again if it happens that the only way to solve a sort of crisis is by government intervention (basically spending).
John Maynard Keynes was born in Cambridge, where he went to King’s College and earned a degree in mathematics, in the year 1905. He stayed for another year, studying under Alfred Marshall, influencing him to write “Tract in Monetary Reform”. For two years he joined the civil service and returned in 1908 to work as a lecturer in Cambridge. He proceeded to work and in 1919 was the British Treasury’s representative at the conference in Versailles, following World War 1. He left because he disagreed with the conclusion of blaming Germany for WW1, inspiring him to write his book on economics “The Economic Consequences of Peace”. Keynes was for the idea that Governments should step in to fix short run macroeconomic problems, challenging ideas of the classical economists who believed that the market corrects itself. In recession times the government should increase their spending to increase the GDP, and keep the income flow flowing, and in good times were GDP is at its maximum level governments should cut back on spending and reduce the GDP, to prevent price levels to shoot up past what is a good level for the majority. Keynesian Economics is a demand focused economics, and focus on solving the short-term problems. A well-known example of this is the actions taken to solve the problem of the Great Depression, where Governments used a “stimulus package” to increase Aggregate Demand and increase the flow of economy, so it wouldn’t be stuck in a recession. Keynes believed that wages were “sticky”, resistant to change, which is why AD must shift, because employment won’t change over time.
There is perhaps no other political issue in our contemporary society that is more pertinent, pervasive, and encompassing than a nation’s economy. From the first coins used in Greece and the Asia Minor in the 7th century BCE, to the earliest uses of paper money, history has proven time and time again that the control of a region’s economy is absolutely crucial to maintaining social stability and prosperity. Yet, for over a century scholars have continued to speculate why the United States, one of the world’s strongest and most influential countries, has one of the most unstable economies. Although the causes of this economic instability can be attributed to multiple factors, nearly all economists agree that they have a common ancestor: the Federal Reserve Bank – the official central bank of the United States. Throughout the course of this paper, I will attempt to determine whether or not there is a causal relationship between the Federal Reserve Bank’s monetary policies and the decline of the U.S. economy. I will do this through a brief analysis of the history and role of this institution, in addition to the central banking system in general. In turn, I will argue that the reckless and intentional manipulation of the economy by the Federal Reserve Bank, through inflation and the abolishment of the gold standard, has led to the current economic crisis in the United States.
The Great Depression was the worst period in the history of America’s economy. There is no way to overstate how tough this time was for the average worker and there was a feeling of desperation that hung over the entire country. Current political wisdom leading up to the Great Depression had been that the federal government does not get involved in business or the economy under any circumstances. Three Presidents in a row; Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover, all were cut from the same cloth of enacting pro-business policies to generate a powerful economy. Because the economy was doing so well during the “Roaring 20s”, there wasn’t much of a dispute
The United States faced the worst economic downfall in history during the Great Depression. A domino effect devastated every aspect of the economy, unemployment rates were at an all-time high, banks were declaring bankruptcy and the frustration of the general public led to the highest suicide rates America has ever encountered. In the 1930’s, Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the New Deal reforms, which aimed to “reconcile democracy, individual liberty and economic planning” (Liberty 863). The New Deal reforms were effective in the short term but faced criticism as it transformed the role of government and shaped the lives of American citizens. A competitive market makes a country stronger, but without regulation it can threaten the country’s democracy.
My research in Classical Economics and Keynesian Economics has given me the opportunity to form an opinion on this greatly debated topic in economics. After researching this topic to great lengths, I have determined the Keynesian Economics far exceeds greatness for America compared to that of Classical Economics. I will begin my paper by first addressing my understanding of both economic theories, I will then compare and contrast both theories, and end my paper with my opinions on why I believe Keynesian Economics is what is best for America. Classical Economics is a theory that suggests that by leaving the free market alone without human intervention equilibrium will be obtained. This theory was the first school of thought for economists, and one of the major theorists and founders of Classical Economics was Adam Smith.