Panics and Politics

Panics and Politics
John Steele Gordon
Oct 22, 2008

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/
october-10-08/panics-and-politics

How often have U.S. financial crises been followed by major political realignments?

Will the current financial crisis spur a major political realignment? If history is any guide, the answer is probably no. America has experienced recurrent financial meltdowns since its birth in the late 18th century. Indeed, there were severe credit crunches and Wall Street collapses in 1792, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, 1929, 1987, and now 2008. Most of these panics have not been followed by seismic political shifts. To be sure, President Martin Van Buren, who took office a month before the stock market crash of 1837, lost badly when he ran for reelection in the depression year of 1840. But Van Buren was an unpopular and ineffective president, and his defeat did not signal a realignment.

Two post-crisis elections, however, in 1896 and 1932, were focused overwhelmingly on economic issues stemming from a depression. In each case, the victorious party became the dominant force in American politics for a generation.

In the post-Civil War era, there were a number of close elections. The 1876 election wasn’t settled until shortly before inauguration day in 1877. In 1888, Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College to Republican Benjamin Harrison. Four years later, Cleveland defeated Harrison, becoming the only president to serve two non-contiguous terms.

The 1896 election ended the era of evenly balanced parties. It followed the Panic of 1893, which had triggered a deep and painful depression. The urban working class that had been expanding rapidly as the country industrialized was dependent on wages and was bearing the brunt of high unemployment. GDP had declined by 12 percent in the year after the market crash. Unemployment had increased from 3 percent in 1892 to 18.4 percent two years later. Fifteen thousand companies had failed, as had 491 banks.

Two post-crisis elections, in 1896 and 1932, were focused overwhelmingly on economic issues stemming from a depression. In each case, the victorious party became the dominant force in American politics for a generation.

With the 1896 election, the Republicans became the majority party; they would win every presidential election from 1896 to 1932, with the exceptions of 1912 and 1916. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt split the GOP and Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected with only 41.8 percent of the popular vote. In 1916, Wilson barely won reelection despite having the advantage of incumbency and a very dangerous foreign situation.

By the early 1930s, America was experiencing its most profound crisis since the Civil War. The economy had begun slowing in the spring of 1929, and the stock market had crashed that October. Then a series of disastrous policy mistakes turned an ordinary economic downturn into the unique calamity of the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates high when it should have lowered them dramatically. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raised tariffs to their highest level in U.S. history and sparked a trade war that crippled global commerce. In the summer of 1932, as the depression worsened, Congress passed an enormous tax hike in hopes of balancing the budget.

Although President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, tried his best to quell the crisis and did more than any previous president to relieve economic suffering, he failed miserably in his 1932 reelection bid. Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt won a landslide and went on to become one of the most consequential presidents in U.S. history. FDR remade American politics, forging an alliance between Southern whites and Northern blue-collar workers that guaranteed Democratic dominance for nearly 40 years. Only when his equal as a politician, Ronald Reagan, rose to power did the Republicans return to being the dominant party.

Will the Panic of 2008 bring about a new shift? If the financial markets calm down and prudent reforms are enacted, probably not. American politics has always been the politics of the center. It’s a good bet that it will remain that way for the foreseeable future.

John Steele Gordon is the author of An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power (HarperCollins).

Is the 2007 U.S. Sub-Prime Financial Crisis So Different?

Is the 2007 U.S. Sub-Prime Financial Crisis So Different?
An International Historical Comparison*
Carmen M. Reinhart
University of Maryland and the NBER
and
Kenneth S. Rogoff
Harvard University and the NBER
Feb 5, 2008

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/
Is_The_US_Subprime_Crisis_So_Different.pdf (PDF, 40 KB)

As a benchmark for the 2007 U.S. sub-prime crisis, we draw on data from the eighteen bank-centered financial crises from the post-War period, as identified by Kaminsky and Reinhart (1999) and Gerard Caprio et. al. (2005):

These crisis episodes include:

The Five Big Five Crises: Spain (1977), Norway (1987), Finland (1991), Sweden (1991) and Japan (1992), where the starting year is in parenthesis.

Other Banking and Financial Crises: Australia (1989), Canada (1983), Denmark (1987), France (1994), Germany (1977), Greece (1991), Iceland (1985), and Italy (1990), and New Zealand (1987), United Kingdom (1974, 1991, 1995), and United States (1984).

The "Big Five" crises are all protracted large scale financial crises that are associated with major declines in economic performance for an extended period. Japan (1992), of course, is the start of the "lost decade," although the others all left deep marks as well.

The remaining rich country financial crises represent a broad range of lesser events. The 1984 U.S. crisis, for example, is the savings and loan crisis. In terms of fiscal costs (3.2 percent of GDP), it is just a notch below the "Big Five". Some of the other 13 crisis are relatively minor affairs, such as the 1995 Barings (investment) bank crisis in the United Kingdom or the 1994 Credit Lyonnaise bailout in France. Excluding these smaller crises would certainly not weaken our results, as the imbalances in the run-sup were minor compared to the larger blowouts.

Did You Ever Think A Financial Crisis Would Feel Like This?

Did You Ever Think A Financial Crisis Would Feel Like This?
By Vadim Pokhlebkin
Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:00:00 ET

http://www.elliottwave.com/freeupdates/archives/2008/08/29/
Did-You-Ever-Think-A-Financial-Crisis-Would-Feel-Like-This.aspx

The credit crunch has already been more damaging than any of the financial crises of the past two decades.

But it's amazing how fast the seeming normalcy of our present situation disappears once you scratch the surface. Just try typing "great depression" into Google News. Then, you get:

"Slowdown echoes Great Depression, says Bank's deputy chief."
"S&P on track for 4th-most volatile year since Great Depression."
"...the US housing market currently suffering the worst downturn since the Great Depression."

And these are just the most recent news reports. On top of that, take a look at this chart The Economist published in its May 15 article, "Paradise lost":

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11325347

It's a real eye-opener, isn't it: Through April of this year, the credit crunch had already caused more monetary harm than any of the notable financial crises of the past two decades, including the proverbial stock market crash of 1987 and the dotcom bubble!

One estimate for the damage from the ongoing liquidity crisis says that, "The global financial crisis could lead to losses of 1,600 billion dollars for financial institutes." (SonntagsZeitung)