3. Lawyer then active in NY politics
5. 1918 Narrowly won Governorship of NY,
Another story goes like this. France was already ahead of the game, or further along an economic development trajectory, when it set its exchange rate following the first world war. Entrepreneurs really didn't have many opportunities to improve resource organization, so extending credit to them would not have increased productivity. It would only have increased inflation in France by dragging productivity down. Other banking systems needed to extend credit anyway, leveraging (and thus risking) their gold reserves more, but they didn't, because they were more concerned with protecting established proprietors than with catching up with the French. The French presumably told this story at the time.
6. 1920 - VP Candidate with James A. Cox
The Great Depression and world turmoil lead to upheaval in world governments. Dictators begin to take over. The rise of dictators leads to greed and evil. World War II introduces a whole new pain into the world in the largest and deadliest war ever seen.
PowerPoint " World War II Part 1"
As well, on a microeconomic scale there were many dumb decisions being made both in the 20's and now (e.g loans to people who couldn't pay if the stock market crashed or mortgages to people without proof of income). I'm curious, are the bad marcroeconomic decisions sufficient cause for a crash or do there also have to be concurrent microeconomic abnormalities? Or do you think the macroeconomic policies lead to poor microeconomic decision making? For example, the downward pressure on bond interest rates could result in the perceived need to take greater risks by financial institutions.
PowerPoint "World War II Part 2"
Outstanding podcast!! I too am wondering if Professors Irwin and Roberts see parallels with China and France. I remember Greenspan (and I hope I'm reflecting his comments accurately) stated that there were considerable downward pressures on bonds as a result of a large influx of investment dollars from China. In the 20's France's policies led the rest of the world to follow contractionary policies. However, Greenspan did not follow a contractionary policy and has been criticized for not. Does the experience of the 20's mean the outcome would have been the same for us even if Greenspan had raised interest rates....(I'm a Greenspan fan and am skeptical of his ability to have prevented the meltdown)?