Saturday, 24 September 2011

Testimony of Marriner Eccles to the Committee on the Investigation of Economic Problems in 1933

Below are excerpts from the testimony of Marriner Eccles to the Senate Committee on the Investigation of Economic Problems in 1933. It is an historic document – laying out the future terms of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the management of money supply nationally through open market operations, the Bretton Woods Accord on currency stability, mortgage refinancing as monetary stimulus, and reforms of the Federal Reserve System to eradicate the excesses of untamed capitalism and financial dominance of Wall Street. He proposes higher income and inheritance taxes as essential to promote economic growth, curb inequality and forestall political instability. He encourages federal regulation of child labor, unemployment insurance, social security and other farsighted reforms. And he avows himself a capitalist throughout.

Although he was a titan of industry - with banks, railroads and corporations spanning the American west - Eccles was born the son of an illiterate, bigamist, Mormon, Scottish immigrant. He was about as far as you could get from the Eastern elite ranks that ran US banking on Wall Street. But he sure understood money, economics and trade, and had the personal drive and charisma to carry his point with the president and with Congress.

Following his testimony, the Utah banker was invited by Franklin Roosevelt to come to Washington to spearhead legislation to enact his proposed reforms. Within two years he had drafted and enacted the Securities Act of 1933 and the Banking Act of 1933(a.k.a., The Glass-Steagall Act, which separated investment and commercial banking and established the FDIC) and the Banking Act of 1935 (which created the modern Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Federal Open Market Committee). He served as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 1934 until 1951.

Read this and know that just one person, with vision and principles, can make a difference to the world in a time of crisis, establishing the basis for decades of prosperity and growth.


[page 8]

Before effective action can be taken to stop the devastating effects of the depression, it must be recognised that the breakdown of our present economic system is due to the failure of our political and financial leadership to intelligently deal with the money problem. In the real world there is no cause nor reason for the unemployment with its resultant dsestitution and suffering of fully one-third of our entire population. We have all and more of the material wealth which we had at the peak of our prosperity in the year 1929. Our people need and want everything which our abundant facilities and resources are able to provide for them. The problem of production has been solved, and we need no further capital accumulation for the present, which could only be utilised in further increasing our productive facilities or extending further foreign credits. We have a complete economic plant able to supply a superabundance of not only all the necessities of our people, but the comforts and luxuries as well. Our problem, then, becomes one purely of distribution. This can only be brought about by providing purchasing power sufficiently adequate to enable the people to obtain the consumption goods which we, as a nation, are able to produce. The economic system can serve no other purpose and expect to survive.

If our problem is then the result of the failure of our money system to properly function, which today is generally recognised, we then must turn to the consideration of the necessary corrective measures to be brought about in that field; otherwise, we can only expect to sink deeper in our dilemma and distress, with possible revolution, with social disintegration, with the world in ruins, the network of its financial obligations in shreds, with the very basis of law and order shattered. Under such a condition nothing but a primitive society is possible. Difficult and slow would then be the process of rebuilding and it could only then be brought about on a basis of a new political, economic and social system. Why risk such a catastrophe when it can be averted by aggressive measures in the right direction on the part of the Government?

* * *

[page 9]

We could do business on the basis of any dollar value as long as we have a reasonable balance between the value of all goods and services if it were not for the debt structure. The debt structure has obtained its present astronomical proportions due to an unbalanced distribution of wealth production as measured in buying power during our years of prosperity. Too much of the product of labor was diverted into capital goods, and as a result what seemed to be our prosperity was maintained on a basis of abnormal credit both at home and abroad. The time came when we seemed to reach a point of saturation in the credit structure where, generally speaking, additional credi was no longer available, with the result that debtors were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin to apply on the reduction of debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds, bringing about what appeared to be overproduction, but what in reality was underconsumption measured in terms of the real world and not the money world. This naturally brought about a falling in prices and unemployment. Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus bringing about a continuing decline in prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds – decreases in wages, salaries, and time of those employed.

[page 10]

The debt structure, in spite of the great amount of liquidation during the past three years, is rapidly becoming unsupportable, with the result that foreclosures, receiverships and bankruptcies are increasing in every field; delinquent taxes are mounting and forcing the closing of schools, thus breaking down our educational system, and moratoriums of all kinds are being resorted to – all this resulting in a steady and gradual breaking down of our entire credit structure, which can only bring additional distress, fear, rebellion, and chaos.

* * *

As an example of Government control and operation of the economic system look to the period of the war, at which time, under Government direction, we were able to produce enough and support not only our entire civilian population on a standard of living far higher than at present, but an immense army of our most productive workers engaged in the business of war, parasites on the economic system, consuming and destroying vast quantities produced by our civilian population; we also provided allies with an endless stream of war materials and consumption goods of all kinds. It seemed as though we were enriched by the waste and destruction of war. Certainly we were not impoverished, because we did not consume and waste except that which we produced. As a matter of fact we consumed and wasted less than we produced as evidenced by the additions to our plant and facilities during the war and the goods which we furnished to our allies. The debt incurred by the Government during the war represents the profit which accrued to certain portions of our population through the operation of our economic system. No Government debt would have been necessary and no great price inflation would have resulted if we had drawn back into the Federal Treasury through taxation all of the profits and savings accumulated during the war.

* * *

[page 11]

How was it that during the period of the prosperity after the war we were able in spite of what is termed our extravagance – which was not extravagance at all; we saved too much and consumed too little – how was it we were able to balance a $4,000,000,000 annual Budget, to pay off ten billion of the Government debt, to make four major reductions in our income tax rates (otherwise all of the Government debt would have been paid), to extend $10,000,000,000 credit to foreign countries represented by our surplus production which we shipped abroad, and add approximately $100,000,000,000 by capital accumulation to our national wealth, represented by plants, equipment, buildings, and construction of all kinds? In the light of this record, is it consistent for our political and financial leadership to demand at this time a balanced Budget by the inauguration of a general sales tax, further reducing the buying power of our people? Is it necessary to conserve Government credit to the point of providing a starvation existence for millions of our people in a land of superabundance? Is the universal demand for Government economy consistent at this time? Is the present lack of confidence due to an unbalanced Budget?

What the public and the business men of this country are interested in is a revival of employment and purchasing power. This would automatically restore confidence and increase profits to a point where the Budget would automatically be balanced in just the same manner as the individual, corporation, State, and city budget would be balanced.

[page 12]

During the past three years there has been such tremendous liquidation and scaling down of debts that extraordinary measures have had to be taken to prevent a general collapse of the credit structure. If such a policy is continued what assurance is there that the influences radiating from a marking down of the claims of creditors will not result in a further decline of prices? In other words, after we have reduced all debts through a basis of scaling down 25 per cent to 50 per cent, what reason have we to expect that prices will not have a further decline by like amount? And then again, the practical difficulties of bringing about such a adjustment on a broad scale seem to be insurmountable.

The time element required would indefinitely prolong the depression; such a policy would necessitate the further liquidation of banks, insurance companies, and all credit institutions, for if the obligations of public bodies, corporations, and individuals were appreciably reduced the assets of such institutions would diminish correspondingly, forcing their liquidation on a large scale. Nothing would so hinder any possibility of recovery. Bank and insurance failures destroy confidence and spread disaster and fear throughout the economic world. The present volume of money would diminish with increased hoarding and decreased credit and velocity, making for further deflation and requiring increased Government support without beneficial results until we would be forced from the gold standard in spite of our 40 per cent of the world’s gold, and, at that point, an undesirable and possibly an uncontrolled inflation with all its attendant evils would likely result, and thus the very action designed to preserve the gold standard and re-establish confidence would destroy both.

[page 13]

We have nearly one and a half billion currency more in circulation at the present time than we had at the peak of 1929, and under our present money system we are able to increase this by several billion more without resorting to any of the three inflationary measures popularly advocated. There is sufficient money available in our present system to adequately adjust our present price structure. Our price structure depends more upon the velocity of money than it does upon its volume.

* * *

In 1929 the high level of prices was supported by a corresponding velocity of credit. The last Federal Reserve Bulletin gives an illuminating picture of this relationship as shown by figures of all member banks. From 1923 to 1925 the turnover of deposits fluctuated from 26 to 32 times per year. From the autumn of 1925 to 1929 the turnover rose to 45 times per year. In 1930, with deposits still increasing, the turnover declined at the year end to 26 times. During the last quarter of 1932 the turnover dropped to 16 times per year. Note that from the high price level of 1929 to the low level of the present this turnover has declined from 45 to 16, or 64 per cent.

[page 14]

I repeat there is plenty of money today to bring about a restoration of prices, but the chief trouble is that it is in the wrong place; it is concentrated in the larger financial centers of the country, the creditor sections, leaving a great portion of the back country, or the debtor sections, drained dry and making it appear that there is a great shortage of money and that it is, therefore, necessary for the Government to print more. This maldistribution of our money supply is the result of the relationship between debtor and creditor sections – just the same as the realtion between this as a creditor nation and another nation as a debtor nation – and the development of our industries into vast systems concentrated in the larger centers. During the period of the depression the creditor sections have acted on our system like a great suction pump, drawing a large portion of the available income and deposits in payment of interest, debts, insurance and dividends as well as in the transfer of balances by the larger corporations normally carried throughout the country.

[page 15]

The maladjustment referred to must be corrected before there can be the necessary velocity of money. I see no way of correcting this situation except through Government action.

[page 21]

Mr Eccles: Of course, the way I look at this matter is that we have the power to produce, just as in the period of prosperity after the war demonstrated when we had a standard of living for a period from 1921 to 1929 which, of course, was far in excess of what it is now. Yet in spite of that standard of living we saved too much a I have previously tried to show.

Senator Gore: You have got Foster in the back of your head?

Mr Eccles: I only wish there were more who had. We saved too much in this regard, that we added too much to our capital equipment. Creating overproduction in one case and underconsumption in the other because of an uneconomic distribution of wealth production. . . . Of course, we are losing $2,000,000,000 per month in unemployment. I can conceive of no greater waste than the waste of reducing our national income about half of what it was. I can not conceive of any waste as great as that. Labor, after all, is our only source of wealth.

[page 22]

There could be no waste in post offices or in roads or in schools. You would have something to show for it. With war all you have left is the expense of taking care of maimed and crippled and sick veterans. That is what is left from war. And it is all wastage.

Senator Gore: You have touched the point. The real cause of the existing trouble was the war, with destruction of over 300 billion dollars of wealth in four years. We are paying the price now. The boys paid the price in blood on the field. We are paying the economic price today. And you may just as well pass a resolution to raise the dead that fell in France as to try to pass laws to avert the inevitable consequences of that war.

Mr Eccles: It is true we are suffering the consequences of the war, but there is no reason why we should be suffering from the consequences of the war if it had not been for the international or the interallied debt that resulted from it. WE are suffering from a debt structure. We are not suffering from the waste, because after all, we know today that we have the power and the facilities to produce certainly all that the people of this country need and want.

* * *

We now see, after nearly four years of depression, that private capital will not go into public works or self-liquidating projects except through government and that if we leave our “rugged individual” to follow his own interest under these conditions he does precisely the wrong thing. Each corporation for its own protection discharges men, reduces pay rolls, curtails its orders for raw materials, postpones construction of new plants and pays off bank loans, adding to the surplus of unusable funds. Every single thing it does to reduce the flow of money makes the situation worse for business as a whole.

[page 24]

I am talking about private credit. If it is credit we need why do not say 200 of our great corporations controlling 40 per cent of our industrial output that are in such shape that they do not need credit – they have great amounts of surplus funds – if it is credit that is needed why do they not put men to work? For the very reason that there is not a demand for goods, that we have destroyed the ability to buy at the source through the operation of our capitalistic system, which has brought about such a maldistribution of wealth production that it has gravitated and gravitated into the hands of – well, comparatively few. Maybe several millions of people. We have still got the unemployment and have got no buying power as a result.

[page 25 – proposal of bank deposit insurance and failed bank resolution]

[page 27 – laying out the basis for what was later to be the FDIC]

However, there is always this danger about that class of thing [Government guarantee of bank deposits]. It encourages bad practices and bad management. It may put a premium on them, which of course we do not want to do, and if it is done there must be rules and regulations for the proper conduct of banks requiring eligibility, and if they fail to meet the eligibility they would be suspended after so much notice, and the fund would be drawn upon to take care of any loss.

[page 31]

Farm mortgages at present are possibly the most undesirable and frozen of all loans, and frozen loans are preventing, to some extent, the necessary expansion of credit. The plan I have proposed [to refinance existing farm mortgages at new lower rates] will very effectively and immediately make liquid billions of dollars of assets for which there is no market today, while at the same time it will bring about a reduction of at least one-third of the average annual payments on the farm debt now required to be made by farm mortgage debtors without requiring any financing or loss by the Federal Government, thus bringing about the necessary relief in the farm mortgage field. This plan has the advantage, as a result of the Government guarantee of the Federal land bank bonds, of diverting surplus funds carried in the great creditor sections into the indirect financing of farm mortgages where it is impossible even at a high rate of interest, which farmers can not pay, to attract those funds directly.

* * *

No program designed to bring this country out of the depression can be considered apart from the relations of this country to the rest of the world unless a policy of complete isolation is adopted and an embargo put on gold exports and our domestic economy adjusted to meet such a condition.

Our international problems are far more difficult and will be slower to work out because of our inability to control the action of other nations. These problems can be met only through international conferences over a period of time. The most important of these problems and the one which must be settled before any progress can be made in the meeting of our domestic or other foreign problems is the problem of interallied debts.

There is a great demand on the part of the public and most of the press of this country that these debts be paid. It seems to me that our political leaders have lacked the courage to face this problem in a realistic manner. This has greatly contributed to prolonging the depression. The public, generally speaking, is not fully informed as to the impossibility of our foreign debtors complying with these demands, which cn only be complied with at the expense of our own people.

[page 32]

It is elementary that debts between nations can ultimately be paid only in goods, gold, or services, or a combination of the three. We already have over 40 per cent of the gold supply of the world – that is not true; it is between 35 and 40 per cent – and as a result most of the former gold standard countries have been forced to leave that standard and currency inflation has been the result. This has greatly reduced the cost of producing foreign goods in terms of our dollar and has made it almost impossible for foreign countries to buy American goods because of the high price of our dollar measured in the depreciated value of their money. This naturally has resulted in debtors trying to meet their obligations by producing and selling more than they buy, thus enabling them to have a favourable balance of trade necessary to meet their obligations to us. If this country is to receive payment of foreign debts, it must buy and consume more than it produces, thus creating a trade balance favourable to our debtors.

* * *

We must choose either between accepting sufficient foreign goods to pay the foreign debts owing to this country, or cancel the debts. This is not a moral problem, but a mathematical one.

[page 33 – the outline of what later became the Bretton Woods Accord]

Cancellation, or a settlement of the debts on a basis which would practically amount to cancellation, in exchange for stabilisation of the currency of the debtors, together with certain trade concessions and an agreement to reduce armaments would be a small price for this country to pay as compared with the great benefits which the entire world, including ourselves, would derive therefrom. Without a stabilisation of foreign currencies it will be difficult, if not impossible, in my opinion, to substantially raise the price level in this country as long as we stay on a gold basis. Our debtors will default and we will likely be forced to abandon gold and depreciate our currency in relation to that of other countries in order to raise our price level in this country and to meet foreign competition unless we are instrumental in inducing foreign countries to stabilise their currencies on a gold basis, or gold and silver basis if action is taken internationally to remonetise silver.

[page 33]

Senator Shortridge: Then I take it you would have the tariffs reduced?

Mr Eccles: No. Debts cancelled. Then I think with the prosperity that you would get in this country you can collect more than that in income and inheritance taxes when you stop this loss of $2,000,000,000 a month through unemployment. You start the process of wealth, and even a capitalist is far better off. I am a capitalist.

* * *

The program which I have proposed is largely of an emergency nature designed to bring rapid economic recovery. However, when recovery is restored, I believe that in order to avoid future disastrous depressions and sustain a balanced prosperity, it will be necessary during the next few years for the Government to assume a greater control and regulation of our entire economic system. There must be a more equitable distribution of wealth production in order to keep purchasing power in a more even balance with production.

If this is to be accomplished there should be a unification of our banking system under the supervision of the Federal Reserve Bank in order to more effectively control our entire money and credit system; a high income and inheritance tax is essential in order to control capital accumulations (this diversion of taxes should be left solely to the central government – the real property and sales tax left to the States); there should be national child labor, minimum wage, unemployment insurance and old age pension laws (such laws left up to the States only create confusion and can not meet the situation nationally unless similar and uniform laws are passed by all States at the same time, which is improbable); all new capital issues offered to the public and all foreign financing should receive the approval of an agency of the Federal Government; this control should also extend to all means of transportation and communication so as to ensure their operation in the public interest. A national planning board, similar to the industries board during the war, is necessary to the proper coordination of public and private activities of the economic world.

Such measures as I have proposed may frighten those of our people who possess wealth. However, they should feel reassured in reflecting upon the following quotation from one of our leading economists:

It is utterly impossible, as this country has demonstrated again and again, for the rich to save as much as they have been trying to save, and save anything that is worth saving. They can save idle factories and useless railroad coaches; they can save empty office buildings and closed banks; they can save paper evidences of foreign loans; but as a class they can not save anything that is worth saving, above and beyond the amount that is made profitable by the increase of consumer buying. It is for the interests of the well to do – to protect them from the results of their own folly – that we should take from them a sufficient amount of their surplus to enable consumers to consume and business to operate at a profit. This is not “soaking the rich”; it is saving the rich. Incidentally, it is the only way to assure them the serenity and security which they do not have at the present moment.

[page 35]
I feel that one of two things is inevitable: That either we have got to take a chance on meeting this unemployment problem and this low-price problem or we are going to get a collapse of our credit structure, which means a collapse of our capitalistic system, and we will then start over. And I therefore would like to see us attempt to regulate and operate our economy which today requires more action from the top due to our entire interdependency than it did in our earlier days.

The quote I have bolded is my favorite part of this testimony, though it is not Eccles' own words. I would be grateful for anyone who can track down a proper citation for the quote. Eccles thought it was either Stuart Chase or William Trufant Foster.

If you've made it this far, you might also enjoy: Fisher's Debt Deflation Theory of Great Depressions and a possible revision

25 comments:

david mckibbin said...

An extraordinarily prescient piece. The problems then were basically the same as we face now. Whether the political will is there to listen to the likes of Marriner Eccles I sadly doubt.

Anonymous said...

Someone is making exactly the same point today. Read this book:

The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future.

free pdf at http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com

It makes *EXACTLY* this point…and argues that information technology is the most important force driving income inequality, stagnating wages and weak consumer spending.

In the future, a basic, guaranteed income will be the only way to maintain sufficient consumption to drive the economy. Read the book!!

bigcatt said...

In the early 1920's the going wage for an automobile worker was $2.50 a day. Henry Ford doubled the wage to $5.00 a day. When asked why, he replied, "I want my workers to be able to buy one of my cars."
American wages have stagnated since 1970. Without huge household debt and Mom and Pop both working, nobody can buy anything.

Phil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil said...

@bigcatt

"Mom and Pop both working" was not the norm until the 70s. See Elizabeth Warren's take on the impacts of this change in her March 2007 talk The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

aletheia33 said...

For a citation, see Arthur M. Schlesinger, The Crisis of the Old Order, 1919-1933 (Mariner Books, 1957), chapter 23, "The Agenda of Reform," first few pages, which contain an interesting discussion of William Trufant Foster. Note 5, to section III, seems to indicate the source of Foster's statement that you have quoted to be W. T. Foster, "When the Horse Balks," North American Review, July 1932. This can all be found on the Amazon listing/search inside for this book. Good luck. Google books advanced search for the lines you quote turns up several histories that seem to include passages from this quot. as well as some sources in the 1930s. i chose Galbraith's as the earliest book-length history likely to be searchable and provide a reliable citation.

Average Jane said...

Congratulations, LB. Yves Smith over at Naked Capitalism cross-posted this. You've hit the Big Time!

aletheia33 said...

sorry, incomplete citation. should include:
vol. 1, The Age of Roosevelt, 1919-1933.

shargash said...

"Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it."

Why do we have to relearn this? I suppose it is inevitable that we will forget, which is the point of Mr. Kondratiev's Winter.

London Banker said...

Cheers, Aletheia33! Glad to have the cite to Foster confirmed. I may have to revive Foster's work as I once did for Irving Fisher.

PeterJB said...

@ LB

A very good post and delightfully interesting. However, I believe that the ethical fibre today in leadership and commerce, and all that hangs off them is too far gone to even consider such wise and insightful recommendations; but as I said, interesting and relevant.

Scintillating!

Wisdom Seeker said...

Fantastic and very apropos quotation!

Here is a quick quantification of why the quote matters today:

In the U.S., it's simply mathematically impossible for 76 million Baby Boomers, representing 1/4 of the population, to save 16-25 times their accustomed (final, peak) annual income and retire on "savings" by drawing out 4-6%/year. Such "savings" would have to amount to well over 4 to 5 times U.S. GDP... well over 60 to 75 TRILLION dollars. This value, 60,000,000,000,000 exceeds by at least $20 trillion the total wealth of the country! And that would leave no room for either older or younger generations to own anything!

Retirement in any civilized form simply cannot be funded by any credible "stock" of real "savings"... it must be a "flow" of goods and services provided by the increasingly productive young to the increasingly numerous elderly.

The same issue applies to China, Japan, and Europe, all of which are now facing similar demographics.

This issue is exacerbated by our credit-based approach to everything, in which very few people stockpile years worth of food, gasoline, etc. in advance in order to survive old age. In a purely tangible sense, the retired, unemployed and wealthy cannot consume more than the surplus produced by the workers.

The economically-dependent can, however, politically squeeze the workers' share of consumption, in order to have more for themselves!

Interestingly, if one imagines persistent zero interest rates and negative real yields, the financial incentive to stockpile goods should start to impact behavior. Hopefully this will provide the stimulus to restore full production, because otherwise it must result in yet another squeeze on current consumption.

Bukko Canukko said...

LB, good to see you writing on your blog again. I used to read you when I lived in Australia, then you shifted your energies to whatever other platform you were on (Minyanville? Don't remember which...) I lost track after that. I learned a bit about the ways of finance from your explanations in the 2007-2008 time period. You, Jesse of the Cafe Americain and a scant few others are people with an ability to explain and without an overt ideological axe to grind. I am but a wandering refugee from the United States, trying to see behind the curtain of criminality that has enveloped the financial world, in order that I might dodge the blows that are raining down upon us little people. I appreciate what you do to shed light on the dark machinations of the money masters. Now that you seem to be active again, I will have to visit this site more often.

JCE said...

I think Mr Eccles just became my new (intellectual) hero...

rahuldeodhar said...

fabulous post LB. I am a subscriber hereafter.

Knute Rife said...

Hard to believe orthodox pillars of the LDS Church used to talk like that. Today all you get are the likes of Mike Lee and Jason Chaffetz.

Ron Paul 2012 said...

What a load of statist drivel and what a bunch of Roosevelt worshiping sycophants. I'll bet Krugman and the entire Nobel prize committee would love this post too.

Knute Rife said...

@Ron Paul 2012
Here, let me help you back to your chair in front of your TV that's permanently parked on Fox, before you hurt yourself.

Anonymous said...

You might want to take a look at a book by Robert A. Heinlein For Us,The Living written in 1934,not published til 2001..this is a quote
"Cathcart grinned. "He got the cash money the same way we
have gotten all cash money since Roosevelt put the gold back in
the ground-right off the printing presses. But he didn't have to
print much of it. The checks were issued at the Bank and the
merchant and a great many others had accounts at the Bank and
very little cash money changed hands. The bulk of it was mere
bookkeeping entries, made by the bank clerks. Holmes had
implemented what the bankers had known for centuries but
were barred by LaGuardia from doing-taking money out of an
inkwell. What's the matter, son? Still not satisfied?"
"Well, I don't know. Everything you have said seems okay,
but how about this? If you keep pouring money into a country
indefinitely, you are bound to get inflation, fixed prices or no
fixed prices."
"You don't pour it in. You add just enough to keep it running.
Each fiscal period the additional amount is the closest possible
approximation of the amount necessary to prevent a spread
between consumption and production, based on the value of the
nation's inventories."
"But why do you have to keep adding money all the time?"
"I said I would stay away from theory but I'll give you this
hint to chew over: the amount necessary to add each period is
theoretically equal to the amount of savings invested as capital in
the preceding period. And one more hint: Doesn't it take more
money to run the country's industry now than it did when
George Washington was President?
"

Anonymous said...

A more detailed quote;
"We discussed before the cause of economic depressions and I asked you to take on faith the idea that the only thing that caused depressions was a financial system that automatically caused a spread between goods to be bought and money to buy them, or 'over-production' as it was
euphemistically called. I'm not going into the mathematical theory
even now. Youcan take it up later with an economist or in several
books I can recommend. But President Holmes was one of
the few men to occupy the White House who had sufficient
insight and mathematical ability to see the trouble, the reasons
behind it, and to devise a cure. He had a powerful weapon to
work with, the Bank of the United States, and he had the free
intellect necessary to do what needed to be done without clouding
the issue with a lot of moralistic tape. In fact he helped to formulate
a realistic social ethic that justified his new departure.

To begin with he saw the 'over-production' or, as he looked at it,
under-consumption or shortage of purchasing power. He directed
a staff of actuaries to supply him with approximate figures showing
the percentage of under-consumption and its dollar value
for the past year. Then he undertook to make up the missing purchasing
power by literally giving away through the Bank of the
United States the necessary amount of money. He was aware
that to do so without some control over prices would result in
inflated prices and a new spread between production and consumption.

So he held back about half of the newly created purchasing
power and used it to control prices in the following
manner: All of the retailers of consumption goods in the country
were invited to join in the New Economic Cycle. If a dealer
joined he agreed not to raise his prices over what they were when
the new regime started. On the contrary he was to sell all his
goods at a ten per cent discount, and the Bank of the United
States would hand him the difference on presentation of his sales
records. Then Holmes proceeded to give away through the Bank
twenty-five dollars per month to anybody who would take it.

Naturally business boomed. Prices didn't go up because all of the
business went to the merchants who had joined the agreement.
Presently all the other merchants joined, too, in order to get in on
the rush of business. Factories re-opened, labor was needed and
unemployment disappeared like snow in July. The country
hummed. And that is a thumbnail sketch of the present situation,
Perry.No unemployment, plenty of well paid work for anybody
that wants a job, and enough credit issued every month to anybody
that wants it to keep body and soul together in decency." .
Perry looked bewildered. "Wait a minute. It looks fine at
first glance, but where did he get the money? Not from taxes,
surely,with the country already broke. And not from the private
bankers, They were ruined in the war."*

Robert A Heinlein

scandia said...

@PeterJB, on the slippery slope of moral hazard your " ethical fibre " has become " ethical oil ".

personal loans home loans in chennai loans in chennai banks india said...

I have read this post. This post is a nice one that similar to loans in chennai , personal loans in chennai , home loans in chennai . That I will inform about your post to my friends and all the best for your future post..

Derryl Hermanutz said...

Heinlein is describing CH Douglas' "social credit" financial system which included, among other measures described by Heinlein, paying producers and retailers to sell below cost. Douglas was a contemporary of Irving Fisher but I have read pretty much everything that both of these monertary reformers published and have found no indication that they were aware of each other's existence. Douglas was a British engineer who focussed his reformist message on Canada and Europe, while Fisher wrote exclusively about the US system, which may explain their lack of awareness of each other. Douglas' 1935 address to the king and government of Norway, "Money and the Price System", is available online as a free pdf. It's a concise summary of Douglas' thinking.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting, a great piece of wisdom.

Aaron said...

Thanks for this piece--however, as someone who lives two doors down from the Marriner Eccles house in Ogden, Utah, I disagree with a historical fact. Eccles wasn't born to a "an illiterate, bigamist, Mormon, Scottish immigrant".

David Eccles, Marriner's Father, was well educated. He was a polygamist. A proud Mormon. And a Scottish immigrant. He started the companies that helped build the West. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eccles_(businessman)