Stopping the insanity

Seizing the window of opportunity in 2009

We are caught in an economic and environmental storm. Looking to the past, we see that history repeats itself. Are we prepared to learn from history and make fundamental changes?

The most immediate concern is the economic storm. The year 2009 is the 80th anniversary of the stock market crash that signalled the start of the Great Depression. As the famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith said, “What is necessary for a new disaster is only for memories of the last one to fade.” Therefore, we should refresh our 1929 memories.

The roaring ’20s saw the beginning of a blissful marriage between mass production and advertising. A new innovation called credit instalment rounded out the threesome. With credit in hand, mass advertising convinced people to buy the goods that were mass produced. The result was that washing machines, radios, cars and other goods were often bought on credit. Over the 1920s, household debt, factoring in inflation, increased 100 per cent. Prosperity and economic growth was said to be unlimited. Unfortunately, reality set in. Wages were unable to keep pace with the buying spree. High debt load was one of the main causes of the Depression.

The problem now, is that we are more in debt than we were in the 1920s. As a percentage of gross domestic product, household debt loads are now 90 per cent higher. Savings rates today are just barely above zero. With wages stagnant over the last 25 years, growth in our economy has been achieved mainly through the expansion of debt.

Increases in the price of stocks and housing created the equity to finance this debt, but it looks like this party could be over. In 2008, the stock market in Toronto went down 35 per cent. Back on October 28 and 29, 1929, the stock market in New York tanked 25 per cent. By July 1932, the stock market was down 89 per cent from its high in 1929. Only the future knows how bad the hangover will be this time.

A larger problem today is the possibility of a housing crash. Speculators went on a house-buying get-rich-quick binge. The result was that the price of housing in Calgary increased 68 per cent from the beginning of 2006 to the end of 2007. About 50 per cent of us have some money in the stock market, whereas about 70 per cent of us own our homes. The ramifications of a housing crash could be devastating, because its impact is twice as large as a stock market crash. Thus far, Calgary’s housing market hasn’t crashed. The median price of a home in 2008 decreased only four per cent. As we’ve seen with the price of oil, though, what goes up real quick can come down real quick.

Even the positive assurances offered to the public in both eras are eerily similar. Days before the 1929 stock market crash, the market experienced extreme volatility, but the president of the Toronto Stock Exchange stated that, “Fundamentally, conditions are sound in Canada.” These are almost the exact words that Prime Minister Stephen Harper used during the most recent federal election. This is not very reassuring.

What is reassuring is the acknowledgement of the need of government intervention. The Canadian government has purchased $75 billion in mortgages and has loaned out $4.2 billion to the auto industry. This is in stark contrast to prime minister Mackenzie King’s adamant refusal in 1929 to go into a deficit because of his strong belief that the market would naturally sort things out.

The 1920s was the golden age of belief in the free market system. This belief was shaken to the core when the unemployment rate climbed to over 32 per cent by 1933. With today’s governments actively intervening in the economy, we are unlikely to reach these same lows, but the shakeout could still be painful.

What is the solution? Extending more credit and bailing out businesses will just delay and inflate the inevitable bust. Albert Einstein once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” To prevent such a scenario, we need to start living within our and the Earth’s means. Our savings need to be invested in eco technologies and superior public services.

A democratic transformation must occur. Instead of people serving the economy, the economy must serve the people. In addition, the quest for unlimited economic growth must stop. Mindless, unfulfilling and ecologically destructive consumerism needs to be replaced with a more co-operative, equitable, sustainable and meaningful way of living.

This is a time not of crisis, but of opportunity. It is time to dream out loud and unleash the potential of humanity.

David Wilson is an activist working for a more equitable and sustainable Calgary and works for a community economic development organization.


Comments: 8

Outthere wrote:

Having a film services buisness and actually scooping Vancouver for a documentary is proof that there is a chance to shine now. We even have interest from another production to use our sevices in the next year!
We even have found that there has been more opportunity here in the Crowsnest Pass than in Calgary.
So I guess "Pigs can actually fly..." (with a little help from a catapult)

Dan Stoddart, Scarecrow Propshow.

on Jan 17th, 2009 at 9:10am Report Abuse

shorbay wrote:

Wow, you just don't get it do you David?

Even in your article you are contradicting yourself. You are against government intervention in the marketplace apparently, but are for government intervention in industry, blame the free market for the failings in the economy yet admit government intervention in that same economy.

Seriously, I wouldn't so passionately deride your opinions if these types of uneducated viewpoints didn't do so much harm to society. One of the biggest intellectual problems we are facing in our country today is the confusion over who has represented capitalism. I'm sorry, but were you under the dellusion that for the past 80 years we've ever practiced anything that has resembled free-market capitalism?

Just start reading ok?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=10

on Feb 10th, 2009 at 9:48am Report Abuse

fang wrote:

shorbay,

If only it were that easy. If only everything that was out there to be read supported your point of view (and supported it logically), then yes, "just start reading ok?" would be the answer.

The problem being that most of the articles that support your point of view (including the one that you linked to) do nothing more than encourage me to believe unsubstantiated claims that "Laissez-faire" IS the ONLY and TRUE way to fix the problem.

Despite the obvious fact that I don't believe this rubbish claim, I'd REALLY like to read something that backed it up. The article you linked to, expected me to buy 3 books and read them as its proof. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Coming from someone who's had to do ACTUAL research and publish it in peer reviewed journals - you can't simply reference a paper and then make a bunch of claims based on those assumptions and expect your reader to have made the same conclusion. Rather, you must carefully construct an argument based on the work that came before - but the argument MUST be logically laid out and supported WITHIN your paper.

Your article does support your claim that the media is confused about the exact nature of Bush's government. But unless you've left you're brain at the door and decided to religiously believe "Laissez Faire" is the ONLY way to govern, none of the other claims in there are substantiated. Aside from linking to books sold by a publisher who's stated purpose is to further your viewpoint - yeah, that's objective alright.

on Feb 11th, 2009 at 7:33am Report Abuse

shorbay wrote:

Fair argument about the way I should make an argument fang, however...

Within a paragraph I certainly didn't intend prove the logic and knowledge behind of all my personal objections to government intervention in the economy! Neither is the short article I referenced an attempt to spell out all of the learning that you need to engage in to understand the situation. My comment to "start reading" was an admittedly bold suggestion that those who actually believe we have experienced free-market capitalism, and therefore cite it as a the reason for our failed system need to study their misconception.

Disect the New Deal. Understand the Great Depression. Study the role of Central Banks. Learn about Fiat money. Question the fractional reserve system. Read about the history of banking. Realize that modern conservatives are not Laissez-faire capitalists. Recognize the institutions that are responsible for our failed system.

I am very much aware of the failings and limitations of a completely libertarian free-market notion. My brief point I have made by making a comment here at fast-forward is that the article writer does not express an understanding of what constitutes a true free-market system and therefore offers only a damaging influence by suggesting that the idea of free-market capitalism is somehow linked with or responsible for the crisis we are facing today.

A few questions worth asking:

Do the IMF and World Bank protect the interests of free-market capitalism, or is their very existence a hinderance to free-market ideals?

Does central banking and manipulation of interest rates constitute central planning?

Who benefits first from government intervention in the market?

Does the injection of imaginary credit into the money supply constitute an indirect tax?

Are there different schools of free-market capitalists?

Is the legal status of a corporation inherent in the ideal of free-market capitalism?

Obviously there are many more questions that should be asked, but if you cant answer those few simple ones than I'd suggest you should forget about your peer reviewed journals, read the three books the article suggested, read three more that disagree with them and then read 30 more just for good measure.

on Feb 11th, 2009 at 7:19pm Report Abuse

shorbay wrote:

Edit: "...by suggesting that the idea of free-market capitalism is somehow linked with the SYSTEM that is responsible for the crisis..."

on Feb 11th, 2009 at 8:41pm Report Abuse

fang wrote:

Shorbay,

I find this subject fascinating and think the best piece of advice that I can gather from your comment is:

"I'd suggest you should forget about your peer reviewed journals, read the three books the article suggested, read three more that disagree with them and then read 30 more just for good measure. "

That is exactly how I feel. Peer reviewed journals are just a way to get (typically balanced) points of view. It doesn't even always work. I've just started looking for books on the subject and if I can find 3 books that disagree with those three, then I'll definitely read all 6 - it's probably the best way to get a more balanced viewpoint outside of having an objects peer review.

Got any books that you'd recommend that disgaree with the 3 recommended in the article? I'd love to hear about them if you do.

on Feb 12th, 2009 at 7:56pm Report Abuse

shorbay wrote:

fang,

Admittedly I'm not entirely sure your response was without sarcasm, but I'll assume you genuinely want some advice on books I've read or had suggested to me that would help to explain this economic quagmire were in.

I would definitely suggest you read Rothbard's take on the great depression, and then dig into the story of the Federal Reserve. I have heard that the "Creature from Jekyll Island" is a phenomenal book, but I haven't yet read it myself. If you want to check out a really simple run down of monetary history, it would be worth while watching "Money as Debt" (it can even be found in parts on youtube). For a more serious look at it, try "The Ascent of Money" by Niall Ferguson. An understanding of how the money system works is a key factor in all of this. If you do a bit of general research (and I am not sure exacty what books best point to this), you will find that one of the primary concerns of the founding fathers was a fear of banks and the potential that big government would end up in bed with the lending institutions.

Contrary to these ideas about the importance of freedom (both socially and in the marketplace) is of course the notion that government (or worse) an independent, unregulated private organization like a central bank can be trusted to intervene only for the benefit of the people. Milton Friedman, primarily in a "Monetary History of the United States", points to monetary policy mistakes of the Federal Reserve in the 1930s as the problem, but wouldn't necessarily agree that meddling which created bubbles in the 20's was of primary concern.

Keynes is the hero of the day in 2009. Obama and his ilk are all strictly following this man's views, despite the fact that it his theories had been momentarily discredited up until Reagan stepped forth in the 1980s pretending to represent something other than interventionist policies. The fact that Reagan and those who have come after him are a false symbol of free-market ideology was the main reason for my original post and a big reason for the resurgance of Keynsian economics. Most economists bringing home Nobel prizes and advising governments are now those from the Keynes school of thought, so you should read John Maynard Keynes' main work "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" (I can't help but wonder if even he would have advised debt into the trillions!) I haven't read Paul Krugman, but he is a high profile modern interventionist, so you might want to check him out as well.

Clearly, unreigned capitalism has many flaws. Watch "The Corporation" or read someone like Naomi Klein to affirm your beliefs in the imbalances created by certain court rulings, the fight against unions, the race to the bottom, monopolization and many other important factors. The lack of regulation in the financial markets is another tricky area - one that I know little about and am hoping to read more on soon.

All of this leads us to believe that rampant freedom is the problem, but it could more easily be argued that the special interests who tinker with the model of freedom are what is causing the system to fail. The collusion of large corporations, the banking industry, international bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, along with government is a nefarious interplay akin to Eisenhower's idea of the military-industrial complex.

Joseph Stiglitz, a very readable whistler blower from the World Bank, and Clinton advisor wrote "Globalization and its Discontents", exposing the way in which the IMF and World Bank interference does nothing to promote free-trade but rather operates (either intentionally or unintentionally) to keep developing nations indebted and unable to compete in the global market. This is the kind of intervention libertarians and true free-market economists would loath.

There is actually much common ground between libertarians and activists from the left. Each side identifies most of the same enemies. It is just that the right wing idealists tend to follow the chain of responsibility one step further. Yes, a corporation can be destructive, but who allowed them to be? Yes, wall-street profited off of a housing bubble and didn't have a self regulating mechanism to stop the train wreck, but what policies promted lenders to take these risks? Yes, the rich are getting richer, but what loopholes, methods and lobbying tools are they employing to ensure that the system works only for them?

I sincerely hope this helps.

on Feb 15th, 2009 at 1:36am Report Abuse

fang wrote:

It was without sarcasm - I appreciate the advice I'll see if I can make some time to read the books you suggested. :)

on Feb 17th, 2009 at 7:56am Report Abuse


Post comment: (Login or Register)


All Content Copyright © Fast Forward Weekly 1995-2011

About Us Contact Us Careers Privacy Policy Terms of Use