Tag: American History

  • List of Posts By Topic

    List of Posts By Topic

    The Beginning of the Industrial Revolution

    The theme of the following four sections of the blog is that innovation, not price competition, is the basis for understanding economic growth, competition, and analysis.

    Basic Concepts and Theory

    Market Behavior and StructureMarket

    Dynamics and Information:  How Markets Work

    Economic Theory and Markets

    Corporate Strategies

    There is beginning a historic change in future populations and their demographics. This will interact with other variables and have a serious, maybe profound, effect on future economic growth.

    Demographics and Economics

    China

    Geopolitics and the Global Economy

    American Economic History

    Management

    The world seems to be in the midst of radical political and social change. Where are we going? Can studying past periods and countries facing disrupting change help us navigate our times? Maybe.

    History

    American History

    World War I:  The Beginning of the 20th Century

    The Roman Republic and America – Differences and Some Possible Parallels

    Economic and Fiscal Policy

    Financial Markets and Investment Strategies

    Foreign Exchange Markets
    The United States
    American Foreign Policy and International Relations
    Geopolitics and the Global Economy
    Geopolitics of Oil and Natural Gas

    Visionaries

    Humor, Satire, WhimsyI Heard the News Today
    Higher Education

    THE BEGINNING OF THE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONThese posts analyze the factors behind the start of the Industrial Revolution in England and America.  Pre-conditions were important. They illustrate some of the reasons why, in the long run, America was able to continue industrializing better than England, and why England fell behind.
    England in the 1600s: The Beginning of England’s Rise to Global Power and Wealth
    The Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in EnglandAdam Smith’s Pin Factory

    Josiah Wedgwood, the Wedgwood Pottery Company, and the Beginning of the Industrial Revolution
    The Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in AmericaInnovate or Fall Behind. A Cautionary Tale – England and the Industrial Revolution
    BASIC ECONOMIC CONCEPTS AND THEORY

    Introduction to Economic Theory

    Economic Development and Economic GrowthDemographics and Economic Growth

    Modern Production Functions and Global Supply ChainsDemand Analysis

    You, Your Brain and Credit Cards

    Critique of Basic Economic Theory
    The following post was contributed by Dennis Schuchman.
    Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Real Intelligence (RI)

    MARKET BEHAVIOR AND STRUCTURECompetition:  Strategies and Structure

    Imperfect Competition: Large Companies and Oligopoly

    A Stylized Model of Innovation:  The Dynamics of Capitalism

    Corporate Growth Strategies

    Case Study:  Parker Hannifin

    Bilateral Oligopoly

    Examples of Bilateral Oligopoly
    MARKET DYNAMICS AND INFORMATION:  HOW MARKETS WORK
    This group of posts emphasize the dynamics of economic growth and development, They highlight the role of information in the functioning of modern markets.

    Introduction to Information and Economic Structure

    How Markets Work:  Transaction Costs and Market-Makers

    Asymmetric Information and Market Prices

    The Market for Companies:  Acquisitions and Asymmetric Information
    ECONOMIC THEORY AND MARKETS

    A Stylized Model of Innovation:  The Dynamics of Capitalism
    Inconspicuous Consumption in the Age of Affluence

    CORPORATE STRATEGIES

    Corporate Strategies:  Basic Concepts and Management

    Corporate Strategies:   Mergers and Acquisitions

    Corporate Strategies:  Marketing and Price Discrimination

    Corporate Strategies:  Organizational Change in the Future

    Corporate Growth Strategies

    DEMOGRAPHICS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
    These six posts present the latest long-run demographic and population projections, and the implications for economic growth and public policy. Read together, they provide a framework for the future geopolitical competition and tensions among different regions of the world.
    Introduction to Demographics and Global Population Projections
    Demographics, Immigration and Future Economic Growth of the United StatesDemographics and Population Projections of JapanGlobal Demographics and Population ProjectionsDemographics and Economic Growth
    Nigeria:  A Case Study
    CHINAChina’s Development StrategyThe Strange Political Economics of the Chinese Auto IndustryChina’s Economy, Politics, and Demography

    China’s Economic Statistics

    Robots. “It’s Alive”GEOPOLITICS AND THE GLOBAL ECONOMYEngland in the 1600s: The Beginning of England’s Rise to Global Power and WealthThe English East India Company:  Trade with AsiaThe English East India Company:  Model for Future Multinational Corporations?

    AMERICAN ECONOMIC HISTORYThe Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in America
    How America Industrialized and Became Wealthy
    Introduction to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Start of the Great Depression
    The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Beginning of the Great Depression

    Alice in Wonderland and the Origins of Silicon Valley
    AMERICAN HISTORY
    Why Study History? Lessons for Americans
    American Colonial History, 1607-1775Revolution and the New Country:  American History, 1775-1790A New Nation, America from 1789 to 1860

    The American Civil War

    Berkeley in the 60s:  A Personal Reminiscence

    Alice in Wonderland and the Origins of Silicon Valley
    Nonprofits in the American Economic SystemNonprofits II:  Issues, Costs, and BenefitsReligion and American Politics: A Historical PerspectiveWhat Now?  The Crisis of America’s Middle Class

    MANAGEMENT
    The 10 Minute MBA– Almost Everything You Need to Know to Manage Organizations, People, and YourselfManage Yourself
    Alan Turing, Computers and Strategic Management

    The Limits of Negotiation:  A Little Applied Game TheoryWORLD WAR I – THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY
    Bismarck and the Origins of World War I
    The Beginning of the Twentieth Century:  The Path to World War I
    Wealth and Power in Pre-World War I Europe 
    The Austro-Hungarian Empire Before World War IEurope on the Brink of World War IWhy Germany Lost World War IThe Immediate and Long-Run Historical Consequences of World War IRelated studies by Professor Andrea Dragon.The Maxim Machine Gun and Smokeless Powder

    New Jersey Artillery Explosives Production in World War I

    KELP IS ON THE WAY: How American Kelp Helped Save the English Explosives Industry in World War I

    THE ROMAN REPUBLIC AND AMERICA – DIFFERENCES AND SOME POSSIBLE PARALLELSThe Roman Republic Commits Suicide:  A Cautionary Tale for AmericaThe Roman Republic and America

    ECONOMIC AND FISCAL POLICYTrump’s Tariffs and Their ConsequencesGovernment Finance 101:  Fiscal Policy. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland.

    Government Finance 102:  Monetary Policy. The Red Queen’s Race President Obama Tries to Save American Capitalism and America’s Global Influence

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Forecasts the Future

    FINANCIAL MARKETS AND INVESTMENT STRATEGIES
    The Economics of Financial Markets
    Explaining Derivatives – An Analogy

    FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKETS

    Foreign Exchange Markets I:  Appreciating Dollar, Commodity Prices and the American Economy

    Foreign Exchange Markets II:  The Global Economy

    THE UNITED STATES

    The Prince in a DemocracyPresident Obama Learns Some Game Theory

    Fear and Loathing in America
    How to be Elected President

    AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

    American Tariffs and the Economic War with ChinaPax Americana:  America as a Global Power

    Pax Americana:  The World America Made

    Breaking Away:  Britain and the European Union

    The Economy After the 2016 Election

    Implementing Foreign Policy:  President Obama Learned to Think Like an Economist

    American Foreign Policy Since 1991

    VISIONARIES

    John von Neumann, Alan Turing, and Claude Shannon (creator of information theory) knew each other, knew of each other’s work, and discussed their ideas with each other.
    John von Neumann Sees the Future

    Alan Turing, Computers, and Strategic Management
    Martin Luther King

    HUMOR/SATIRE/WHIMSY
    Trump’s World:  A Little Bit of Gentle Satire

    The Sayings of the Don, the Capo Maga of Washington Future News

    Egg Smuggling:  EGG-TRA, EGG-TRA READ ALL ABOUT IT!

    Ribbit Wins a Ribbon

    I HEARD THE NEWS TODAY
    Tariffs and America’s Economic War with China

    Tariffs, The American Auto Industry, and Tesla

    HIGHER EDUCATION

    The High Cost of Higher Education

    School for Scandal:  An Insider’s Look at How and Why Colleges Rip Off Students, Parents, and Taxpayers

    Taking a College Course:  What are You Buying?
    Putting a Price on Professors
    The Costs of Athletic Scholarships

    How to Pay for College

    How to Succeed in CollegeGLOBAL ECONOMICS AND POLITICS,2010-2020

    This essay, published in 2018, discussed many the issues that are central to the current EU crisis.

    Breaking Away:  Britain and the European Union(2018)
    Background on the current crisis.
    Ukraine and Russia  (2014)

    Ukraine – Background, Outline, and Scenarios(2014)
    The Crimea, Russia, and U.S. Options  (2014)

    The issues discussed in the following essay are still important today.
    Arab Spring, Arab Autumn  (2012)

    Why and how China has avoided the mistakes Russia made after the fall of Communism in 1991.
    Russia and China – Contrasts  (2011)

    Discusses the options the United States had, and still has, following the al Qaeda attack in 2001. 

    Superpower:  The United States and Terrorism

    (2010)GEOPOLITICS OF OIL AND NATURAL GASThe geopolitics of oil will continue to remain important until the switch to substitute renewable resources and EVs.
    Energy and Geopolitics I: The United States(2015)

    Energy and Geopolitics II: The World ex-United States(2015)Note on the Current Global Oil Market  (2015)
    Saudi Arabia, Oil and Geopolitics (2015)

    The $100 a Barrel Solution  (2012)

    Surprisingly, some of the comments in the following essay may be somewhat relevant to the United States, more dependent on fracked oil and lagging in innovating substitutes that drive future economic growth and development.

    The Oil Curse  (2010)

  • The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Beginning of the Great Depression

    The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Beginning of the Great Depression

    Before You Begin

    If you don’t know the background of this complicated story, you might want to first read a shorter version that introduces some of the key factors explaining the Crash and the Depression. See,

    Introduction to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Beginning of the Great Depression

    Before reading this essay, I strongly recommend you see the PBS video on YouTube. Type in Stock Market Crash 1929. Look for US – The Crash of 1929 (PBS), ALLHISTORIES – PLAYLIST. 

    Documentary broken into 6 parts to show commercials. Or buy the video on Amazon Prime. Great documentary with wonderful photos, videos, and scenes from movies of the 1920s and the crash. Shows what a crazy time it was.

    The video is also a great introduction to Andrew Ross Sorkin, 1929:  Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History – and How It Shattered a Nation. This book concentrates on the roles played by a small number of key men; the video also focuses on these men and their social environment.

    The following quote that introduces this essay is from Mr. Sorkin’s book.

    The stock market is a mirror whose function it is to provide an image of the underlying or fundamental situation. Cause and effect run from the economy to the stock market, never the reverse. An unstable economy can be disturbed by all kinds of incidents that on the surface appear extraneous.

        Jesse Livermore

        Famous stock market speculator 

    INTRODUCTION

    The usual reason given for the Great Depression – the stock market crash in October 1929 and the later collapse of the banking system – does not tell the whole story. Available economic data (there were no national income accounts in 1929) indicate that a recession had already begun before the stock market crash. The crash of October and November of 1929 was a catalyst that made the recession worse, but the partial stock market recovery in early 1930 did not end the recession. Industrial production continued to fall quickly and unemployment rose rapidly in 1930. As the economy sunk lower into depression and unemployment reached catastrophic heights, continuing farm and businesses failures over the next two years wiped out thousands of small rural banks and threatened total financial collapse in early 1933.  

    For a fuller explanation, we have to go back to the 1920s to see additional reasons for the stock market crash of 1929 and the rapid decline in output at the beginning of the Great Depression. We have to look at the international financial situation and how it contributed to America’s depression, including the attempt after World War I to reestablish the pre-war gold standard.

    Economic Growth in the 1920s:  Industrial Production and the Real Economy

    There was a spectacular increase in industrial production starting in the 1870s and continuing into the 1920s. The 1920s were a decade of economic growth and development. The large increase in manufacturing output in this decade was driven by innovation in new and greatly expanding industries and companies.

    The structure of the economy changed in the 1920s, with consequences for the stock market and financial markets in general. Industrial production, especially of large corporations, were a larger and more important part of the total economy. In contrast, agriculture stagnated in the 1920s. In 1920, agriculture accounted for 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP, a measure of total output); by 1929, agriculture’s share had fallen to 12%. 

    The foundations of the new economic structure were corporations building large-scale manufacturing plants with electricity replacing steam as the power source, new steel machinery, lower transportation and information costs, increased productivity (output per worker), and lower unit cost.

    The drivers of economic growth were the new and developing technologies.

    • consumer durables, especially autos, electrical appliances, and radios. 
    • electricity utilities.
    • mass communication (phones) and entertainment (radios, phonographs, movies). 
    • mass-produced consumer nondurables such cosmetics, toiletries, processed food, and cigarettes.

    Steel was the basis for the new auto industry, modern machinery, and skyscrapers. The amount of railroad track increased eight times from 1870. Thousands of miles of paved roads were built in the 1920s. The telephone system became ubiquitous and transcontinental with an increase in transmission bandwidth.

    The 1920s was a decade of economic growth and development but it was uneven. It began with a severe deflationary (prices going down) recession as the economy adjusted from the World War I wartime economy to a peacetime economy. Economic growth began in 1922. The stock market grew rapidly in 1922 and 1923, and kept growing until late in 1929. But in 1927 and 1928, the economy hardly grew at all. Growth for the two years was about 1% per year. One reason for the 1927 stagnation was the bursting of the Florida land boom bubble (in video). This bubble showed large numbers were willing to speculate on something they knew nothing about but thought they would get rich quick. (See Marx Brothers movie Cocoanuts. Groucho was wiped out by the market crash. The movie, ironically, was released in 1929.)

    Another reason was the total shutdown of Ford in 1927. Henry Ford finally scrapped the Model T and retooled his plants to produce an entirely new auto. He laid off 60,000 workers. There were spillover effects on other major industries such as steel, tires, and glass. Full production was not reached until 1929.

    But strong economic growth returned in 1929. The annual growth rate was 6%. Industrial output grew faster. This strong growth was led by increased production of autos, radios, electrical appliances, and new consumer goods.  

    The economic expansion of 1921-1929 was based on the development of new technologies like radio and the expansion and sales of consumer durables like autos. The urban and regional buildout of the electric grid (and lower rates) led to demand for new electrical appliances and large productivity gains in mass production. Car ownership increased from about 7 million in 1919 to 27 million in 1929, on average about one car per household. This created demand for complementary products and services such as steel alloys, refined oil products, gas stations and mechanics, paved roads, and motels. 

    Radio (RCA) and others went from selling hobby kits in 1919 to sales of $60 million in 1922 to sales of $426 million in 1929. (Figures on car and radio sales are from digital history.uh.edu, “The Consumer Economy and Mass Entertainment.”)

    Auto production was an important part of the industrial economy in the years leading up to the stock market crash. The auto industry produced approximately 4 million cars in 1926, fell to 3.1 million in 1927 because of the Ford shutdown, recovered in 1928, and reached a record 5.4 million in 1929. 

    Sales of these products was greatly enhanced by a large increase in consumer credit. General Motors started its own credit operation in 1919. Sears quickly followed by offering installment plans on appliances and other products. (Singer Sewing Machine Company started an installment payment plan in the 1800s.) Hundreds of new consumer credit companies were started in the 1920s. 

    New industries were created or greatly expanded in new types of passive entertainment (movies and phonographs) and mass consumption products like packaged food, cigarettes, toiletries, and cosmetics. Marketing and advertising encouraged consumption.

    Economic growth and industrial production helped to create and expand a new middle class including managers, engineers, accountants, and lawyers. So did the expansion of the financial sector. This middle class had rising income and savings. They provided many of the new speculators in stocks in the 1920s.

    Industrial Corporations and Stock Markets

    Starting in the late 1800s, new and rapidly-growing industrial corporations needed large amounts of investment and expansion capital, far more than what they could generate from internal cash flow. Capital was needed to take advantage of scalability (economies of scale).

    The stock market, and the financial sector in general, had become increasingly important to the American economy during the 60 years leading up to the crash of 1929. In the 1920s, the financial sector doubled as a percent of the national economy. Its growth paralleled the financial requirements of new and growing companies. New, capital-intensive, large, and growing corporations needed investment capital far in excess of what company founders and rich backers could provide. The solution was the creation of the publicly financed, limited liability corporation. The canals starting in the 1820s, the railroads starting in the 1830s and then the industrial corporations starting in the 1870s issued stocks and bonds to the public to finance their capital requirements. In an expanding economy, investors could expect to collect dividends and watch their stocks appreciate in price.  

    Equity capital (stock) had the advantage over bonds that the corporation was not obligated to buy back the securities. Or pay a fixed amount of interest. But investors were “locked-in.” This might have limited the attraction of equity investment except that investors in public companies could exit by selling their stock to others in “secondary” markets like the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).

    So large companies and stock exchanges were connected, complementary, and grew together.

    The Stock Market Crash of 1929

    In the 1920s, the “stock market” meant the New York Stock Exchange. This is where the shares of most large companies were bought and sold. 

    The New York Stock Exchange was a private company, owned by its members. Until the 1920s, most stock traders were full-time professionals. There were no rules or laws. Traders lied, cheated, and deceived among themselves. In the 1920s, they could now also do this to naïve small investors. They viewed small investors as sheep to be shorn.

    In 1929, there were 1,334 companies whose stock was traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This was a tiny percent of all the farms and businesses in America. But these were most of America’s largest companies. They accounted for much of the economic growth in the 1920s.

    Many of the companies on the NYSE dominated their industries and markets. They had exhibited large increases in sales and profits over time, which led to high expectations for rapid future growth in company sales and profits.

    The impression that “everyone” was playing the stock market is an exaggeration. By 1929, fewer than one out of ten families had money in the market. They were about half of all families with financial assets. Stocks, like consumer durables, were often bought on credit, or “margin,” by some of the speculators. About half of small investors bought on margin. Typically, the investors put up 10 – 20% of the value of the stock and borrowed the other 80 – 90% from the broker. The stock was collateral for the loan. The broker, in turn, borrowed the money from banks and other institutions with spare cash. Brokers’ loans (also known as “call money” because they were overnight loans and could be “called” in one day) increased  about $1 billion in 1920 to $4.4 billion in early 1928 to $8.5 billion in October 1929. 

    About 80% of the brokers loans came from sources outside the banking system, including overseas, so Fed pressure on member banks not to make call loans had little effect. The loans seemed safe as long as the stock collateral increased in value. Interest rates were higher than alternative short-term loans.

    Small investors leveraged their bets even more by using margin to buy stock in new investment trusts. Investment trusts were similar to today’s mutual funds except they were also leveraged – selling both shares to investors and floating bonds. Then leveraged investment trusts bought shares in other leveraged investment trusts. Alas, leverage also worked on the downside; owners of shares in investment trusts were wiped out even when the shares of the underlying companies still had some value.

    The speculative bubble, when stock prices rose much faster than earnings and earnings per share, began in March 1928. As measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average, stock prices doubled and reached an all-time high the day after Labor Day,  September 3, 1929. The Dow Jones index went from 200 to 390. The total value of stocks had gone from $25 billion to over $50 billion, in an economy of $100 billion.

    By 1929, investors had high expectations about the percent increase in stock prices. Based on the yearly increases from the beginning of 1928 to September 29, conservative investors who paid cash and bought a diversified portfolio of stock like the Dow Jones index, expected returns of 50%/year. If they bought stock on 20% margin, they expected to make over 200% a year; on 10% margin, over 400% a year.

    Investors who bought leveraged investment instruments like investment trusts with margin expected an even higher yearly return.

    Speculators bet on companies like Radio (RCA). RCA was up 500% since beginning of 1928.

    There were also short-term bets based on rumors about big pools of capital going into a stock. Often a big speculative pool started buying a stock. They paid for a lot of publicity, including bribing financial journalists to hype their stock. As more small speculators piled in, the pool started selling. Small investors were left holding a bag of stocks with rapidly falling prices. (See video)

    While corporate profits were going up, stock prices were going up even faster. This led to record high stock price/earnings per share (P/E) ratios. This was viewed as an indication of rising confidence that the market would continue to go up. But the market’s P/E ratio would have to continue to rise if the market continued to go up at 50% a year.

    The Dow Jones index reached its high on September 3, 1929. The market slowly declined for a few weeks and then crashed at the end of October. The market was down nearly 13% on Monday, October 28. The climax, in massive volume, was the next day, October 29 (Black Tuesday), when the market fell 12%. The total drop from its September high to the end of October was 40%.

    By the end of November 1929, the stock market had fallen 50% and had wiped out all of the speculative gains since early 1928. In early 1930, it reversed direction and regained 40% of its 1929 losses. Volume was high. But in April commodity prices started to fall again. Industrial production continued to decline all through 1930. Unemployment rose quickly. The market turned down again. By late 1930, the stock market had fallen below its November 1929 lows.

    The entry of large “pools” of outside speculative capital and small investors into the stock market was one reason for the bubble. This was something new; until the 1920s, stock market participation was an insider’s game of professional speculators. But now insiders and investment managers of outside capital could manipulate stock prices at the expense of small investors.

    Partners of the largest investment banks, market analysts, government officials, congressional committee hearings, and Fed officials had private doubts or warned the public of the dangers of the “over-priced” market. But their messages were drowned out by reassuring and optimistic statements of market boosters like Charlie Mitchell of National City Bank who had done much to encourage margin buying by new small investors. Negative comments were ignored by speculators caught up in the frenzy. Instead, they listened to advisors like the foremost astrologer of the day, who predicted the market would go up forever. Presumably to the stars (see video).

    The stock market crash of October 1929 did not come as a surprise to everyone. Some of the biggest speculators like Jesse Livormore and investment bankers like some of the partners at J.P. Morgan sold their positions before the crash. Livormore shorted the market (bet it would go down); when he came home on the worse day of the crash, he told his wife he had made more money that day than any other day in over 20 years of speculating. 

    Before World War I, about a half a million shares were traded on a typical day. In 1928 and 1929, volume was rising rapidly, averaging about five million shares a day. On October 29, volume hit an all-time high of 16 million shares. Stock prices were on average six times higher than earlier in the 1920s, so that the combination of more speculators, and more of them acting like short-term traders, led to a huge increase in the dollar value of the stock market.

    Investors’ and large speculators’ margin of 10%-20% was wiped out in just two days, October 28 and October 29. Margin calls for more cash went out; if not provided immediately, the broker tried to sell the underlying stock, increasing supply. Banks and other providers called their loans. All this led to a cascade of hitting stop-loss orders and more margin calls.  In the fall of 1929, about $2 billion of brokers’ loans were pulled out or wiped out.

    Large investment pools, like the one controlled by Billy Durant (who put together General Motors and then drove it into bankruptcy), speculated on margin and also lost heavily in the stock market crash. When stock prices fell, they doubled down – buying more stock – only to see their losses increase. Durant personally lost $18 million. One of the richest men in America (on paper) in 1929, he never recovered and finally declared personal bankruptcy in 1936. Jesse Livermore, probably the most successful individual speculator in the 1920s, made a series of bad bets in the 1930s and committed suicide in 1940. 

    The large, sharp decline in the stock market had an immediately negative impact on aggregate (total) demand, especially demand for consumer durables usually bought on credit and luxury goods and services. Expectations of rising personal wealth and a higher standard of living from rising stock prices were shattered.

    After the bubble burst, the New York Fed reacted quickly. In the six months after the crash, the New York Fed injected $500 million of liquidity into the banking system. It cut its rediscount (loan) rate to banks from 6.0% to 2.5%. New York banks, in response, took over $1 billion in brokers’ loans. No major New York bank failed. The market rallied in the first half of 1930. It appeared the crash had been contained. It wasn’t.

    It was not because of:

    • the weaknesses in the American economy, especially the farm sector.
    • the fragile international financial system, based on the gold standard, constructed after World War I.
    • the fragmented American banking system watched over by passive regional Fed banks.
    • the rising importance of the financial sector, and how it interacted with the real economy.

    The Farm Economy

    The period from the mid-1890s to 1918 has been called the “Golden Age of American Agriculture.” Expansion into new areas, rising demand from American and European urban areas and industry, rising prices, and World War I (large food exports to England) all led to prosperity for the farming sector. 

    In addition to the usual seasonal loans, farmers went deeper in debt to expand acreage (the average size farm increased) and buy large amounts of new equipment, including tractors, to increase productivity and lower unit cost. They also bought new cars (mostly Model T Fords) with borrowed money. During this period, thousands of new banks were started in rural areas to finance this expansion.

    Agriculture was still a major part of the economy. In 1920, the farm population was 30% of the total U.S. population.  Almost 50% of Americans lived on the farm or in towns with fewer than 2.500 people, many of them in rural areas dependent on agriculture.

    The farm economy went into recession during the price deflation after World War I and remained stagnant during the 1920s. Farm prices fell in half after World War I and then slowly declined as American farmers lost their European markets. European demand fell because of the violence, chaos, and disruption caused by the war. 

    Attempts by the Hoover Administration to stabilize farm prices through purchasing surpluses failed. In 1930, the market price of wheat fell in half.  Further large decreases after 1930 in farm prices and the “Dust Bowl” collapsed the agricultural sector, farmers defaulted on loans at a rate of 1,000 a day, resulting in the bankruptcy of thousands of small, rural banks. 

    Eight rural states set up deposit insurance programs before and during the 1920s. All failed by 1929. Depositors (savers) were ruined along with the banks since there was no federal deposit insurance before 1933.

    Large industrial corporations created and dominated markets. The raising of large amounts of financial capital fueled buying the more efficient capital equipment and industrial expansion. Large industrial companies employed factory workers, office workers and new types of professionals like engineers, chemists, accountants, and managers. Combined with the stagnation of the rural sector, America became an urban, industrialized society.

    Investors in corporate stock did not always understand why stock prices were rising. Mass production processors and assemblers had high fixed costs in capital equipment. Some of it was financed with debt, creating financial leverage. Companies had to run at a high percent of rated capacity to make a profit. A small increase in sales (output) resulted in a leveraged increase in profit. Stock prices rose with rising profits; expectations of future increases in profits led to higher stock price to earnings (P/E) ratios, also increasing stock prices. This worked in reverse, starting in late 1929. Decreases in sales led to leveraged decreases in profits. Stock prices fell. Expectations of further decreases in profits lowered P/E ratios causing even lower stock prices.

    Real incomes rose in the 1920s. But, like today, income and especially wealth was concentrated.

    One estimate is that about one-third of all income was going to the top 5%. Sales of luxury goods and services soared. In contrast, farm families experienced a fall in total real income. 

    Demand for many consumer durables was partly paid for with a large increase in consumer debt called installment loans (buy now, pay later). As an expanding urban middle class and working class financed their rising standards of living partly through increased borrowing, household debt rose faster than income. By 1929, about 60% of cars and 75% of all radios were bought on credit. (A top-of-the-line radio cost as much as the average cost of a car!) Total consumer debt doubled in just four years, going from $1.4 billion in 1925 to $3.0 billion in 1929. Hundreds of new banks and finance companies were started to provide consumer credit.

    Home ownership financed by new forms of mortgage debt rose rapidly. Mortgage debt rose over eight times from 1920 to 1929. Hundreds of new “saving” banks were started to supply mortgages. 

    Household balance sheets were leveraged with consumer debt and mortgages backed by illiquid assets as collateral that quickly lost market value starting in the fall of 1929. Even as savings were being wiped out, families still had to make installment and mortgage payments.

    By October 1929, the economy was already in recession. Railroad car loadings and steel production had been falling since summer. The Fed’s Index of Industrial Production was also declining. Auto inventories were rising. But a general recession wasn’t recognized and declared until late in 1929. These numbers had little influence on analysts or investors.

    1930

    The recession was sudden and severe. Industrial production fell about 5% in October and another 5% in November. The contraction continued into 1930; industrial production fell another 30%. Unemployment doubled, from about 1.5 million (3% of the workforce) in the summer of 1929 to about 3 million (6%) in the spring of 1930, and then rose to about 5 million (10%) at the end of 1930. At least 25% of American families – a higher percent of non-farm families – were hit by unemployment sometime before the end of 1930. About half of the Great Depression’s total decrease in industrial production and about half of the increase in unemployment had already occurred by late 1930. Families experiencing unemployment couldn’t meet loan payments. (Most urban families were one-income families. Also, there wasn’t unemployment benefits like today.)

    In 1930, farmers were hit with lower prices, the Dust Bowl (huge dust clouds), loss of deposits in local failed banks, and inability to make loan payments on equipment. Farmers started to lose their farms; banks foreclosed on about 100,000 farms in 1930. (See the movie and/or read the book about this – The Grapes of Wrath.) The Dust Bowl continued until 1940, helping to wipe out many more farmers (see PBS video on the Dust Bowl; the dust clouds are unbelievable).

    Demand for consumer durables was especially hard hit. Car sales were 5.4 million in 1929, falling about one-third to 3.4 million in 1930. (At the bottom of the depression, auto production would fall by 90%.) Sales went from $3.5 billion in 1929 to $0.8 billion in 1932. Repossessed and used cars glutted the market. (Good for my grandfather; he bought a used truck in the 1930s for $30 to start a small business. The seller had to teach him how to drive.)

    AFTER 1930 – A QUICK SUMMARYAs the Great Depression got worse, stock prices kept going down, about 5,000 more banks went under wiping out depositors, unemployment rose to catastrophic heights, families couldn’t meet loan payments and lost their houses and cars.Eventually, almost half of all mortgages were in default.When the worse was over, real GDP fell by about 25% and nominal GDP went from about $100 billion in 1929 to about $50 billion in 1932. In 1929, corporations made total profits of about $10 billion; in 1932, they lost about $3 billion. Business investment disappeared.The depression and consequent disappearance of corporate profits (earnings) had consequences for stock prices. Using valuation metrics like price/earnings (P/E) ratios, there was no support level, no bottom, for stock prices. The other support for stock prices – dividends – also fell drastically as profits disappeared. Trading volume fell, from an average around 10 million shares per day in October 1929 to around a half a million shares per day in 1932.By 1932, market indexes had fallen 80-90% from October 1929.The negative reinforcing feedback effects between the real economy and the financial sector created the Great Depression. Again, the size of the total economy was about $100 billion in 1929. Between 1929 and 1932, stocks (and stockholders) lost about $30-$40 billion in value. Total bank credit fell $20 billion.

    WAGES AND PRICES

    Wages and prices acted differently at the beginning of the Great Depression compared to earlier recessions. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) went down only 2.6% in 1930. Nominal (current dollar or money) wages in the large industrial corporations, and other large companies, stayed virtually constant in 1930. Industrial prices also did not decline. Instead, large manufacturing firms laid off employees and cut production, watching sales and profits plummet. Investment stopped, hurting the capital goods sector. The question all this raises is:  Why didn’t large companies quickly cut wage and prices, as in prior recessions?In a series of conferences in November and December 1929, President Herbert Hoover urged the leaders of the largest companies not to cut wages. Many corporate presidents agreed, including the presidents of General Motors, Ford, General Electric, Westinghouse, Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, Du Pont, Firestone, and Goodrich. The idea was that by not cutting the wages, and therefore income, of their workers, they were helping to limit the fall in overall (aggregate) demand. Keeping wages and thus prices high probably contributed to the large decreases in demand for consumer durables. As demand and output fell, these companies laid off workers, contributing to the rapid increase in unemployment. It was only in late 1930 and 1931 that large companies began cutting wages.In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt had Congress pass the National Recovery Act (NRA), an economy-wide, mandatory version of President Hoover’s voluntary program.


    FINANCING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE 1920S
    The financial sector as a whole was a growing part of the economy in the 1920s. Finance doubled as a share of GDP with most of the growth coming in the second half.The raising of large amounts of financial capital fueled the economic expansion, not just on the supply side but also on the demand side.An expanding urban middle class financed its rising standard of living partly through increased borrowing; household debt rose faster than income. In addition, mortgage debt rose rapidly. Household balance sheets were leveraged with debt backed by illiquid assets that quickly lost market value starting in the fall of 1929.The purchase of consumer durables such as autos, radios (some cost as much as cars), furniture, and some electrical appliances was usually financed with debt, often with money borrowed at the new consumer finance companies. Miss one payment and the product was repossessed. One of the largest banks that specialized in car loans, controlled by Henry Ford’s son Edsel, went under. 

    THE AMERICAN BANKING SYSTEM AND THE FED

    At the beginning of 1929, the United States had 25,000 banks. Most, about two-thirds, were outside the Federal Reserve System (the Fed). States and the federal government had passed laws to protect local banks from competition from larger banks by limiting the geographical reach of banks. The small rural banks depended on the health of the local farm economy. It should have been an alarm bell as thousands went under in the decade before the crash.Between 1929 and 1933, the U.S. banking system – unregulated, fragmented, without deposit insurance – went through waves of bankruptcies as farmers, businesses, and consumers defaulted. In the two years 1929 and 1930, about 10% in of the total number of banks failed. About a third of all banks would disappear during the Great Depression. Depositors lost their savings. Farmers and processors could not repay loans and small, local banks went under. Solvent farmers could not get credit to produce. Urban and suburban banks started to go bankrupt as consumers, local businesses, and homeowners defaulted on loans. At the depth of the depression, half of all mortgages were in default.

    Why did not the Fed save the banking system from collapse?  One of the Fed’s powers was to be the “lender of last resort” to member banks. Banks in a liquidity squeeze could borrow at the rediscount window at the Fed banks. This was limited since one-third of banks were members of the Federal Reserve System. But they were the larger banks; smaller banks typically held part of their reserves at larger banks. As the economic crisis deepened, small, local banks began asking for their deposits at the larger banks. This reduced reserves at the larger banks which were not balanced by new liquidity from the Fed.

    Through all this, the eleven regional Fed banks outside of New York and the governing board in Washington did virtually nothing. Controlled by local bankers and manufacturers, they did not believe it was their responsibility to save the banking system. Their governing boards limited the types of collateral they were willing to accept from borrowing banks at the discount window. They did not actively encourage local banks to apply for funds. The exception was the sixth regional located in Atlanta. They faced the first regional banking crisis and successfully contained it.  

    This attitude of letting the economy and its banks to go to hell was shared by Andrew Mellon, Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury, who believed a major recession was good for the health of the economy. (He was too busy adding to his fabulous art collection by secretly and illegally buying art from the Soviet Union, which needed hard currency to finance its spying operations. These paintings, taken from the Hermitage, are now in the National Gallery collection in Washington. The spies later stole America’s atomic bomb secrets.)

    By the spring of 1933, the American banking system was near total collapse. Over half the states had declared a “bank holiday,” closing all the banks in their states to see which ones could be saved. This meant that depositors could not withdraw their savings. The new Roosevelt Administration’s first act in March 1933 was to declare a national bank holiday. Roosevelt’s second act was to take the United States off the gold standard. 


    INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS
    In the 1920s, New York had become the center of the global financial system. This was a consequence of World War I and its aftermath. During the war, England and France partly financed their war effort with substantial borrowing from New York banks. England and France could not borrow from the American government because Wilson was afraid isolationists could help defeat him for reelection in 1916. During the 1920s, Germany borrowed large sums from New York banks to restart its economy and pay war reparations to England and France.Central bankers and large investment banks spent the 1920s trying to rebuild the global financial system shattered by World War I. They saw the pre-war gold standard as a control mechanism to overcome the economic dislocation and instability caused by the war. The key, as they saw it, was to fix the value of national currencies in gold and thus, to each other. By 1929, almost all currencies, including the dollar, were on the gold standard. (In a bit of bad timing, Japan went on the gold standard in January 1930.)The gold standard depended critically on the pound sterling and London before the war, and the dollar and New York after the war. The New York Fed chairman (Benjamin Strong) worked closely with the chairman of the Bank of England (Montagu Norman) and other central bankers to coordinate policy, primarily changes in interest rates to influence currency and gold flows. Central banks and investment banks, mostly American, would also loan money to foreign governments to ease pressure on their currency. But America’s commitment to reforming the global financial system was limited. There were three major problems:1) Entente (Allies) war debts and German reparations. The Entente countries, including England and France, had borrowed over $10 billion in America to help finance the war. After the war, the Allies imposed reparations on Germany, payable mostly to England and France. These two countries relied on payments from Germany to meet the interest and principal payments on their debt to the United States. But the German economy had a hard time recovering from the war and taxing its people to raise reparation funds. Instead, Germany depended on borrowing from private banks in New York. Some of the funds would then go to London and Paris, to be cycled back to New York. Towards the end of the 1920s, more of the loans were short-term (“hot money”) rather than the usual long-term credits. The system functioned as long as American bankers were willing to lend to Germany, that is, to roll over rather than call short-term loans. 

    2) England went back on the gold standard in 1925 at the pre-war parity. It overvalued the pound compared to other currencies. English exports were priced out of global markets; imports were relatively cheap. As a consequence, the English economy had a hard time recovering from the war, experiencing deflationary stagnation. England ran a trade surplus before the war but a trade deficit after the war. Defending sterling’s price in gold meant high interest rates to attract foreign funds, low economic growth, deflation (with pressure on wages), and high unemployment rates.

    The New York Fed often changed American interest rates to accommodate the Bank of England’s attempts to deal with England’s economic and financial problems.

    3) Central bankers would change interest rates to influence cross-country capital and gold movements. But changes in interest rates also affected domestic economies. Interest rates in New York were actually lowered at the beginning of the stock market boom to encourage money flows to England. But lowered rates also reduced the cost of call money and brokers’ loans to speculators, fueling the stock market bubble.Gold was also “high-powered” money, a part of the banking system’s reserves. An influx of gold allowed a country’s banking system to created money by creating new loans. Throughout the 1920s there was a net inflow of gold into the United States. American banks could increase the amount of loans to American consumers, stock market speculators, farmers, and corporations.

    Just when it seemed the global financial system was stabilizing, it started to unwind. Germany went into recession in 1928. The head of Germany’s central bank threatened to stop paying reparations. Money flowed out of Germany. American bankers stopped expanding short-term loans to Germany. The American government refused to reduce Allied war debts; England and France could not reduce debt payments to private American banks. By 1929, Germany had reduced paying war reparations and the crucial cycle of American loans to Germany, German reparation payments to England and France, and their war debt payments to American banks began to unravel. American banks were now sitting on billions of dollars of bad loans. A delegation of American bankers went to Europe to renegotiate the repayment timetable of German reparations.
    A slowdown in economic growth in the industrialized countries led to a large decrease in global commodity prices (inelastic demand). Countries that depended on commodity exports went into recession and were the first countries to leave the gold standard.

    The U.S. economy went into recession and the stock market crashed. One consequence was that American banks started calling in German loans, deepening the German recession. There was a large and sudden increase in German unemployment. This contributed to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, which received only 2.6% of the vote in 1928 but over 35% in 1930. The Nazi Party was the largest right-wing party, making it almost inevitable that Hitler would become Chancellor as conservatives tried to form an effective government to counter rising left-wing support. In office in January 1933, Hitler quickly renounced all reparations payments.


    By 1931, the English government realized that England would not get out of long-term stagnation without eliminating the deflationary effects of the gold standard. England and 20 trading partners left the gold standard. The English pound sterling depreciated (went down in value) against the dollar, making America’s recovery more difficult.

    THE GOLD STANDARD AND DOMESTIC POLICY


    The Hoover Administration’s and the Fed’s commitment to the gold standard limited domestic policy options. Budget deficits, lower interest rates, or increasing the money supply through Fed lending to banks would have tempted foreign central banks and depositors to withdraw gold. This was one reason the Fed did not use gold as part of the monetary base to expand credit through its discount window. Another reason:  the Fed might lose gold and contracted credit would also happen if Americans used dollars to buy gold. This was legal until President Roosevelt took America off the gold standard in early 1933. 

    The worsening recession and the gold standard led to deflation. Deflation led to the higher real cost of debt to borrowers, and then defaults as incomes and asset prices fell. The banking system weakened. Banks failures rose dramatically in 1931 and 1932. Seeing the deep recession and the weak financial sector, foreigners began pulling gold out in 1932. The Fed raised interest rates to keep the gold in the U.S. The Hoover Administration raised taxes to reduce deficits and signal “fiscal responsibility.” Again, by early 1933, the entire U.S. banking system was approaching total collapse.

    THE SMOOT-HAWLEY ACT OF 1930

    At the beginning of the Great Depression, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill of 1930 to protect farmers. Of course, everyone in Congress added their favorite worthy group of constituents who wanted protection. Tariffs went up to 60%. 1,000 economists, a rather conservative bunch in 1930, warned of the negative consequences of the bill.

    The main target was Canada, America’s largest trading partner. The more anti-American party won the next Canadian election. 

    Anti-American boycotts of American products started in Europe. American exports to Europe and Japan fell.

    England walled off its Dominion countries and colonies from American imports; France and Holland did the same with their colonies. Since imports and exports were a small percent of the American economy, about 5% in total, the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill was probably not a major cause of the Great Depression. Both imports and exports fell by about $1 billion, so the Act had little net macroeconomic effect. But, on the margin, it probably contributed somewhat to the length and depth of the Great Depression. 

    Tariffs and other barriers to trade reenforced America’s isolationism. To keep America out of the looming European war (on England’s and France’s side), a strong America First movement arose. Some of its members, including Charles Lindbergh and a future president of Yale, were pro-Hitler. The organization effectively disbanded in December, 1941.

    A LONGER VIEW OF THE STOCK MARKET CRASH OF 1929

    By the end of 1929, the Dow Jones Index was back to the beginning of 1928. It was only 17% lower than the beginning of 1929 – a year of above-average gains followed by larger losses. So any investor who bought stock for cash at the beginning of 1928 or earlier, was about even. Anyone bought stock at the beginning of 1929 was even by the end of the first quarter of 1930, before the market turned down again. Only speculators who bought stock on margin were wiped out. This included many large speculators. Of course, anyone who held their stock until the end of 1932 lost almost of the value anyway. And anyone who bought on “dips” between 1929 and 1932 lost money.

    It is likely that many families who still had stock after 1929 were later forced to sell because of some combination of unemployment, lose of savings in a collapsed bank, and to meet installments on borrowings for consumption and maybe a mortgage on their home.

    Anyone who bought at the top in September 1929 and held onto their shares had to wait until 1954 to break even.

    Since 2000, there has been three market contractions of similar magnitude to October 1929. The last two could have led to a prolong depression. But they didn’t. The difference is that the federal government stepped in with massive fiscal stimulus and support for failing companies.

    SUMMARYIt is a mistake to see the stock market as separate from the rest of the economy. It was part of the financial sector, which greatly expanded in the 1920s and became a more important part of the economy. The financial sector helped finance the economic growth and new products of the 1920s, especially demand for the new consumer durables. Gains from the stock market helped to finance the flamboyant life-style of a small percentage of consumers, symbolized when wealthy Americans on luxury trans-Atlantic steamers could radio their brokers in New York with stock orders. The boom in buying consumer durables and housing was made possible by the expansion of consumer loans and home mortgages. Increases in consumption and consumer loans were tied together. In contrast, small local banks were tied to the stagnant, leveraged agricultural sector. Although the bottom of the Great Depression came over three years after the start, over half the fall in output and real income occurred in the first year, by the end of 1930. This was a large and rapid decline. The stock market crash was a catalyst; it accelerated the decline in income, wealth and the demand for goods and services through feedback effects between the financial sector and the real economy.The stock market crash of 1929 was not the only reason for the depression. Many of the systemic risks were due to global and domestic problems caused by the First World War and its aftermath. There were continuous feedback effects between the real sector and the financial sector. What changed was the size and importance of the American financial sector – as an international lender, as a raiser of capital, as a provider of household credit, as a seller of financial instruments. 

    The continuous feedback effects also help explain why the depression lasted so long and was so deep. Waves of bank failures, loss of savings and assets, lack of the Fed’s responsibility as “lender of last resort” all contributed to lengthening the depression and making the recovery difficult

    Many of the government recovery programs of the Hoover Administration and the early Roosevelt Administration were substitutes for a financial sector that had ceased to function.  

    The American economy in the 1920s became not only larger but also more complex. There were more “fault lines.” Recent studies of “complex adaptive systems” indicate they can go from seemingly stable to unstable very quickly. New potential fault lines were added in the 1920s – stock market speculation,  agricultural stagnation and debt, consumer durables bought with loans, and America’s involvement in international finance. 

    The structure (including rules and lack of rules) of the financial sector when the crisis hit was important. The banking structure and much of the rest of the financial markets had not adjusted to the economic changes of the 1920s. Fragmented domestic banking, the gold standard, lack of information and analysis, absence of oversight, and widespread manipulation and fraud all contributed to a financial sector that was ill-prepared to handle the stresses beginning in 1929. Changing the rules – increasing the confidence of depositors, borrowers and investors – was an important part of the New Deal.
    The depression was made worse by the antiquated mentalities of those in power. They were faced with the instabilities and dislocations of an international financial system radically changed by World War I. Their response was to revert back to the rigidity and deflationary pressure of the gold standard. American officials and the three Republican presidents in the 1920srefused to decrease Allied war debt, a necessary condition to stabilize the international financial system. In America, an increasingly industrialized, mass consumption economy fueled by financial capital and consumer debt depended on a fragmented banking system of small, local banks designed for a decentralized agrarian economy. Fed and government officials strongly believed in market competition and laissez-faire, which was ill-suited to an economy dominated by large, mass production corporations and a greatly expanded financial sector.

    CONCLUSION

    The real economy was growing rapidly, probably around 6% in 1929. This growth rate was unsustainable. Part of it was because of pent-up demand for autos; many consumers had waited for Ford to get back to full production. There was a big increase in the purchase of autos and other consumer durables during this period. A high percent of consumer durables were bought on credit.Rising domestic optimism was behind the big increases in both output and the stock market. Employment levels were high. This optimism is hard to quantify but it was pervasive outside of some rural districts. (See video)Recessions start with an unexpected shock. They are often outside of economic models used at the time of the shock. In 1929, the stock market decline was mostly independent of the real economy recession. In 1930, stock market recovered 40% in first quarter, indicating investors believed the decline was a “correction” and stock prices were cheap. But the real economy continued its rapid deterioration. When recognized, investors realized their optimism was misplaced and the stock market turned down again. The recession of 1930 does not show up in financial figures except for the stock market and more than the usual number of small banks failing. As the buying of consumer durables and other mass-produced consumer products declined, profits fell. Investment in manufacturing declined, as the reason for increasing capacity disappeared. The government did not make up any of the loss of income in 1930 through welfare programs or fiscal deficits. (Even during the 1930s, Roosevelt’s budget deficits were much smaller than the decline in private incomes and corporate investment. A misguided policy to balance the budget in 1937 led to a severe recession that wiped much of the output and employment gains of the prior four years.)The structure of the economy had fundamentally changed since the last depression that occurred in the 1890s. New economic and financial fault lines appeared in both rural and industrial America. The situation was made more dangerous as the global economy struggled to recover from World War I and its chaotic aftermath. Only the New York Fed and large New York banks worried about international instability and its possible consequences. Eventualy, all Americans would become aware of the consequences of post-WWI overseas problems, the stock market crash of 1929, and the beginning of the Great Depression in 1930. On December 7, 1941.


    ======================================================
    The best introduction to the 1920s and the stock market crash is Frederick Lewis Allen, Only Yesterday; An Informal History of the 1920’s. This is a wonderful popular history of the 1920s and the crash. It shows how the economic, social, and psychological changes in the 1920s contributed to the speculative frenzy in the stock market. Allen lived through it all. You can skip some of the chapters the first time through; for example, skip Chapters III, VI, IX, And X.If all of this seems complicated and confusing (it is), you might want to see a summary:

    Introduction to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Start of the Great Depression

    For a look at the similarities and differences between the stock market falls in 1929 and 2020 (written in 2021), see

    The Stock Market:  Party Like It’s 1929! For a (hopefully humorous) explanation of the 2007-08 financial crisis, seeExplaining Derivatives – An Analogy
    AMERICAN ECONOMIC HISTORY
    The Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in America
    How America Industrialized and Became Wealth
    Alice in Wonderland and the Origins of Silicon Valley

  • Introduction to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Start of the Great Depression

    Introduction to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Start of the Great Depression

    INTRODUCTION

    Before reading this essay, I strongly recommend you see the PBS video on YouTube. Type in Stock Market Crash 1929.

    Look for US – The Crash of 1929 (PBS), ALLHISTORIES – PLAYLIST.  Documentary broken into 6 parts to show commercials. Or purchase video on Amazon. Great documentary with wonderful photos, videos, and scenes from movies of the 1920s and the crash. Shows what a crazy time this was. 

    I also recommend you read Frederick Lewis Allen, Only Yesterday; An Informal History of the 1920’s. This a wonderful popular history on the 1920s and the crash. It shows how the economic, social, and psychological changes in the 1920s contributed to the speculative frenzy in the stock market. The author lived through it all. You can skip some of the chapters the first time through; for example, skip Chapters III, VI, IX, And X.

    DEFINITIONS

    The Stock Market. In the 1920s, this meant the New York Stock Exchange. This is where most stocks (shares of part ownership of companies) were bought and sold. 

    Most of America’s largest companies were traded on the New York Stock Exchange. They accounted for much of the economic growth in the 1920s.

    Dividends. Some stocks pay dividends but they don’t have to. Not fixed like bond interest. Management can raise or lower or eliminate dividends.

    Bonds. When companies borrow money, they often issue bonds. Bonds pay a stated amount of interest. They also say when they mature (due date, when the lender gets paid back).

    Economic Growth. When total output of the economy goes up, as it did between 1921 and late 1929. Total output is now measured by a statistic called the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

    Recession and Depression. A recession happens when an economy’s total output goes down. Usually, unemployment goes up. A depression is a really, really, bad recession.

    OUTLINE

    This essay of the stock market crash of 1929 comes in three parts – the 1920s economy leading up to the crash, the crash itself (1928 – 29), and the immediate aftermath of the crash in 1930 (the beginning of the Great Depression).

    Part 1 – 1920s. EXTERNAL FACTORS – THE ECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF THE 1920s.

    American industrialization, urbanization and mass consumption goes into high gear. Agriculture stagnates.

    Part 2 – 1928-29. INTERNAL FACTORS – SPECULATIVE CLIMAX OF THE 1920S

           Speculative stock buying frenzy leading to the crash.

    .

           Trending enthusiasm leading to mass speculation.

                  FOMO – Fear of missing out.

    “Irrational exuberance” of ignorant speculators buying on margin (mostly with borrowed money).

                         Trend and herd mentality.

    Part 3 – 1929-30. THE BEGINNING OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION

           Continuous, deep recession of the real economy (total output).

           Conclusion – interaction of the real economy and the stock market.

    Part 1. ECONOMIC OVERVIEW OF THE 1920s

    From the bottom of the post-World War I recession in 1921 to the top of the stock market in September 1929, the stock market rose almost 500%.

    The external factors in the real economy had a strong influence on why the stock market had such a spectacular rise in the 1920s.

    There was a spectacular increase in industrial production starting in the 1870s and continuing into the 1920s. The 1920s were a decade of economic growth and development. The large increase in output in this decade was driven by innovation in new and greatly expanding industries.

    Some examples were steel, electricity, electrical appliances, chemicals, autos, processed foods, radio, movies, telephone, oil and gasoline, cosmetics, toiletries, cigarettes, and cameras.           

    This growth created large industrial corporations.

    They had a need for large amounts of investment and expansion capital.

    Advantages of companies issuing stocks over bonds. Companies did not have to pay fixed dividends, or no dividend at all. Did not have to buy back stock.

    Many of the companies on the NYSE dominated their industries and markets. They had exhibited large increases in sales and profits over time, which led to high expectations for future growth in company sales and profits.

    This strong past performance by industrial companies was the basis for expectations that the industrial sector of the U.S. economy would continue to grow at a rapid pace.

    Auto production was an important part of the industrial economy. The auto industry produced approximately 4 million cars in 1926, fell to 3.1 million in 1927 because of the Ford shutdown, recovered in 1928, and reached a record 5.4 million in 1929. Auto ownership went from 7 million in the early 1920s to 27 million in 1929. By 1929, there was an average of almost one car per family.

    The structure of the economy changed in the 1920s, with consequences for the stock market and financial markets in general. Industrial production, especially of large corporations, were a larger and more important part of the total economy. In contrast, agriculture stagnated. In 1920, agriculture accounted for 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); by 1929, agriculture’s share had fallen to 12%. 

    Much of this industrial growth was financed with debt (bonds) and new stock sales. Debt helped financed the large capital requirements of new manufacturing equipment and electric power plants and distribution, added to the large issuance of railroad bonds. Demand for homes and consumer durables were largely financed with mortgages and consumer borrowing. New financial institutions such as saving banks and building societies (now called savings and loans) and new forms of debt were created or were expanded. Financial institutions and markets became a larger part of the economy.

    1929 was an outstanding year for real economic growth. The economy grew at a rate of 6%. Industrial output grew faster. Auto production skyrocketed to new highs. Total profits, corporate investment, and dividends were up, raising expectations about future growth. Stock prices rose faster than corporate earnings. But toward the end of summer, part of the industrial economy stalled out and probably started contracting. Auto inventories grew as sales lagged production. Scattered data suggested a possible recession. But this negative economic news had to compete with a constant drumbeat of optimistic forecasts and stock market hype. The stock market had taken on a speculative life of its own, divorced from the underlying economic reality.

    Part 2.  THE STOCK MARKET BUBBLE AND CRASH OF 1929 AND 1930

    What caused the speculative frenzy? The PBS video shows part of the answer.

    Internal factors had a strong influence on why the stock market crashed so hard in late 1929.

    The Dow Jones Index was up six-fold from bottom in 1921 to top in September 1929, including almost doubling from the beginning of 1928 to the top in September 1929, going from 2000 to 3900.

    Every market “correction” (downturn) since 1921 was quickly followed by a return to upward price movement.

    The story of the stock market crash of 1929 starts in 1928. After a lull in 1927, stock market prices started going up again in March 1928. Between then and September 1929 prices rose on average about 50% a year. Millions of small investors piled into the market because all their friends and relatives were getting rich. FOMO psychology (fear of missing out). In August 1929, John J. Raskob (financial executive at General Motors) published a widely-read article in the Ladies Home Journal titled “Everybody Ought To Be Rich.”

    Daily volume rose during this period. New speculators came in at higher and higher prices.

    About 10% of American families owned stock by 1929. Many new individual (retail) investors got into the market in 1928 and 1929. About half bought on margin (with borrowed money). Margin loans rose from $4.4 billion to $8.5 billion.

    In addition, there were big leveraged pools of money and new types of leveraged investments. New investment trusts increased the leveraged demand for stocks.

    EXPECTATIONS

    New investors in 1928 and 1929 had high expectations of a rapid increase in stock prices over a short period of time. There was a big increase in volume – more investors, and maybe indicating more speculative short-term investing. Investors perceived the market as having a low risk of going down. As the market fulfilled these expectations, it strengthened expectations of a continued rise in stock prices and a lower risk of a “correction.”

    Investors who came into the market since the beginning of 1928 probably had minimum expectations of stocks going up 50%/year. Investors who bought on margin (borrowed money to pay for most of their speculating) or bought leveraged investment products had higherexpectations. If they bought stock with 20% down and borrowed the rest, they might expect to make 200% a year on their original investment.

    Families that invested in the stock market felt wealthy. They saved a smaller percent of wage income. They took out mortgages to buy homes. They borrowed more to buy more new cars, new furniture, new electrical appliances, and radios. (Believe it or not, a top-of-the-line radio cost as much as a new car.) Consumer credit doubled.

    Another problem was that over 90% of all banks were investing some of their capital in the stock market. When the stock market crashed, many banks, like individual investors, didn’t have the cash to meet obligations and expenses. This contributed to the bank failures in the Great Depression. (Also, some bank managers and owners embezzled bank funds to personally speculate in the stock market.)

    Who were the sellers? One source were the large pools of money from rich people. These pools routinely manipulated stock prices, as did insiders and professional speculators. They would buy into a stock, partly with borrowed money, start rumors about how great the stock was, and bribe journalists and analysts to recommend the company’s stock. Then, as more and more small speculators bought the stock at higher and higher prices, the pool began to sell. After they finished, the stock’s price often fell. The pool then moved on to a different stock. Or in the example of RCA, the hi-tech, high-growth company of the 1920s, the stock was manipulated more than once by the same group.

    Companies, seeing the increased demand for stock, issued a great amount of new stock to raise money for future expansion.

    SPECULATORS BUYING ON MARGIN

    The large increase in small investors borrowing to finance buying stocks contributed to the buying frenzy. Called buying on margin, this introduced an increased source of leverage (buying with borrowed funds) and financial risk into the economy.

    If the new investors had just converted cash, bank deposits and bonds into stock, there probably would not have been as great an impact when the market crashed. Stocks are a form of wealth that generates income from dividends and realized capital gains (the prices of stocks go up). About half of the new investors had bought stock on margin, that is, partly with borrowed funds. Typically, an investor put up cash for 10-20% of the cost of stock and borrowed the rest from the broker. The amount of borrowing (margin) doubled between the start of 1928 and October 1929.

    If on margin, as the value of their stocks went up, speculators could borrow more money to buy more stock. They would still be wiped out when the market crashed.

    THE STOCK MARKET CRASHES

    The stock market, according to the Dow Jones Industrial index (a weighted average of 30 stock prices), peaked on September 3, 1929. The market drifted lower for almost two months. Then, suddenly, it fell 30% in one week in October! There are some dramatic photos and other footage of the week of the crash in the video.

    When the market broke in 1929, margined investors were asked to put up more cash. If they didn’t immediately, the broker sold their stock, contributing to the selling pressure. So, for these accounts, the investors were wiped out. All others had lost about 50% of their stocks value in October 1929. They were to lose even more later. 

    After hitting new lows in November, the market partly recovered. By April 1, 1930, the market was back to levels reach in mid-1929. With a renewed retreat, the market in early June had fallen to levels in mid-1928. But by then it was obvious the U.S. economy was in a recession that was getting worse. The market continued to turn down. By the end of 1930, all the gains from 1928 and 1929 were wiped out; the market index was below the low reached in November 1929.

    Part 3.  THE RECESSION IN 1930

    After the 1929 crash, negative feedback began between the destruction of wealth (savings) from the fall in stock prices and the failure of banks (depositors lost their savings) on the one hand and the rapid and deep recession in the real economy on the other.

    Households’ balance sheets were leveraged by installment loans (buy now, pay later) to buy consumer durables. The immediate negative wealth effect hit households as savings were wiped out but consumer loan payments and mortgages still existed.  Total income fell because of a rise in unemployment. More and more families couldn’t meet the installment payments; their cars, radios, electric appliances, and furniture were repossessed.

    The recession in 1930 was severe. Real GDP – total output – fell about 8.5%. This was the second worst year in the entire Great Depression. Also, this was after the fall in output from late summer to December in 1929. Industrial production fell a greater percent, possibly as much as 25-30% from the highs of the middle of 1929. The price level fell about 6.4%. The unemployment rate went up from 3.2% to about 8.7%, tripling from about 1.5 million employees out of work to about 4.5 million by the end of the year.

    In 1930, auto production fell 40% to 3.3 million. A glut of repossessed and used cars sold by owners probably contributed to this large decrease.

    In 1930, farmers were hit with lower prices, the Dust Bowl (huge dust clouds), loss of deposits in local failed banks, and inability to make loan payments on equipment. Farmers started to lose their farms; banks foreclosed on about 100,000 farms in 1930. (See the movie and/or read the book about this – The Grapes of Wrath.) The Dust Bowl continued until 1940, helping to wipe out many more farmers (see PBS video on the Dust Bowl; the dust clouds are unbelievable).

    The number of bank failures were rising. Most were small, rural banks. When banks went under, their depositors (farmers and local businesses) lost most or all their savings in the bank; deposit insurance came later. 

    Total income fell somewhat more than 10%. Total consumer debt fell 10%, reflecting the fall in income and widespread defaults on consumer loans. Total mortgage debt stayed stable, implying no widespread mortgage defaults and loss of home ownership (that came later).

    For speculators who held onto their stock hoping for a recovery, the losses were on paper (unrealized). But their total losses got worse; by the end of 1932, the market was down 80-90% from the September 1929 high. 

    The severe recession of 1930 took the floor out of the stock market. The big runup of the market in the first eight months of 1929 was partly based on expectations of continued high economic growth, and high growth rates in profits. But the economy stalled out in late 1929 and started its contraction that continued even when the stock market rallied in the first quarter of 1930. Profits plunged. Expected dividend increases failed to materialize. Decreasing expectations led to lower price/earnings per share (P/E) ratios on falling earnings per share. The stock market was not driving the economy; the economy was driving the stock market. But there were feedback effects.

    Just as expectations of rising sales, earnings, and dividends in 1928 and 1929 helped create the bubble, the worsening economic news in 1930 stopped the stock market recovery and drove the market even lower than during the 1929 crash.

    The number of bank failures increased. During the 1920s, up to 1928, an average of about 700 banks failed every year, in total about 20% of the 27,000 banks in the U.S. Most were small, local banks in rural areas and small towns and cities. But the total number of banks increased as new banks, and new types of banks, were established. In 1929, the number of failed banks rose to 1,250; in 1930, the number was 1,350. While the total for the two years was about 10% of the total number of banks, they were mostly small, local banks. The loss in total deposits because of bank failures was substantially less than 10%. Total deposits for the entire banking system showed no decrease in 1930 compared to 1929. The big increase in bank failures and depositor losses would come later as the economy deteriorated further.

    The Federal Reserve System (the Fed) could have reduced the financial damage to the economy by providing liquidity (reserves) to banks. This would have limited bank failures and depositors loss of savings. With one exception, the Fed refused to do this.

    AFTER 1930

    As the Great Depression got worse, stock prices kept going down, about 5,000 more banks went under wiping out depositors, unemployment rose to catastrophic heights, families couldn’t meet loan payments and lost their houses and cars. Eventually, almost half of all mortgages were in default.

    The highest rate of U.S. unemployment was 24.7% in 1933. An unemployment rate of 25% meant that at any one time one-fourth of all workers were unemployed. There were no unemployment benefits.

    Unemployment remained above 14% from 1931 to 1940.

    Now the good news – booze was legalized. Two other industries that did well in the Great Depression of the 1930s – tobacco (cigarettes) and movies. By 1930, most movies had sound; by the end of the 1930s, some movies were in color. They were a cheap way to forget the grim reality of the Great Depression.

    CONCLUSIONS

    Overall, there was little evidence in 1930 of the severe weakening and collapse of the financial sector that later played a major role in turning the severe recession into the Great Depression. None of the other financial sector institutions exhibited the collapse of the stock market. This is not surprising; none were as directly connected to the sales and earnings of large public companies. Or based on such optimistic near-term expectations of these companies’ continued growth in sales and earnings.

    But the dynamics of the Great Depression had begun. Unemployment rose rapidly, meaning millions of families lost their incomes. Families with savings lost some or all of it in the stock market or as depositors in banks that went under. Although many families lost their income and savings, they still had to make mortgage payments and pay off consumer loans used to buy cars and other goods.

    Economic historians concentrate on financial reasons for the Great Depression. This is understandable because of the dramatic stock market crash of 1929. But the early and swift decrease in the real economy in late 1929 and during 1930 was internally generated; real economic factors mostly caused the early recession. Financial factors – the stock market crash, bank failures where depositors lost their savings, speculating on margin, families unable to pay on loans and mortgages – would help deepen and lengthen the early recession into the Great Depression.

    Sources and References

    If you would like to read a fuller discussion of this complicated topic, see my

    The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Beginning of the Great Depression

    For a (hopefully humorous) explanation of the 2007-09 financial crisis, see

    Explaining Derivatives – An Analogy

    AMERICAN ECONOMIC HISTORY

    The Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in America

    How America Industrialized and Became Wealthy

    Introduction to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Start of t

    he Great Depression

    The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and the Beginning of the Great Depression

    Alice in Wonderland and the Origins of Silicon Valley
    AMERICAN HISTORY
    Why Study History? Lessons for Americans

    American Colonial History, 1607-1775

    Revolution and the New Country:  American History, 1775-1790

    A New Nation, America from 1789 to 1860

    The American Civil War

    Berkeley in the 60s:  A Personal Reminiscence

    Alice in Wonderland and the Origins of Silicon Valley

    Religion and American Politics: A Historical Perspective

    What Now?  The Crisis of America’s Middle Class

    For all posts on this blog, with links, see 

    List of Posts by Topic

  • England in the 1600s: The Beginning of England’s Rise to Global Power and Wealth

     

     

     

     

    INTRODUCTION

     

    In 1600, England had been an insular and agricultural nation, trading primarily with nearby northern Europe. By 1700, England’s commerce was complex and global, as London competed successfully with Amsterdam for American produce and Asian luxuries.

     

    Alan Taylor,  American Colonies:  The Settling of North America, 258.

     

    A theme that runs through this essay is the global maritime rivalry with Holland. England and Holland became global trade rivals in the 1600s. They fought three wars that weakened Holland and eliminated it as a naval rival. 

     

    England’s main instrument in its rivalry with the Dutch in Asia was the English East India Company (EIC). In America and the West Indies, it was the Navigation Acts.

     

    By the end of the century, England was on its way to becoming a global maritime trading and naval power. The Dutch had lost out in North America but had established a vast trading network throughout Asia, centered in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia). It was generally not competitive with the main Asian trade of the EIC or competitive with England as a European political power.

     

    This essay on the spectacular economic progress of England in the 1600s also provides background and context for three other essays on this blog. 

     

    American Colonial History, 1607-1775

     

    This background essay helps explain the changing relationship between England and her North American colonies in the context of England’s expanding global trade. It emphasizes the importance of England’s Navigation Acts to the American colonies. The objective was to reduce the role of the Dutch in the American colonies and the West Indies and monopolize all trade with the American colonies and the British West Indies.

    The Dutch were instrumental in financing early sugar production in Barbados. They also dominated early financing and shipping of the tobacco industry in the Chesapeake (Virginia and Maryland). Dutch shipping rates were lower than those of the English. 

     

    The English sugar islands in the West Indies, mostly Barbados, was the largest source of English imports in the 1600s and an important source of import taxes. In the North American English colonies, England was able to take over the Dutch settlement at New Amsterdam, renamed New York, and using the Navigation Acts, to eliminate Dutch shipping that dominated the trans-Atlantic tobacco trade from the Chesapeake.

      

    NAVIGATION ACTS

     

    As part of its maritime rivalry with Holland, England passed the Navigation Acts.

     

    First enacted in 1651 and strengthened in 1660 and 1663, the Navigation Acts were aimed at the Dutch. All exports and imports of the American colonies and West Indies had to go through England, on English or American ships. Even foreign goods bound for the Americas had to pay custom duties in England. The only exceptions were American exports other than the main exports of tobacco, rice, and indigo. As sugar production in the West Indies, exploded after starting in the 1600s, most other American exports went to the British West Indies.

     

    England imposed high taxes (custom and excise duties) on American tobacco exported to England. During 1660s, new Navigation Acts regulations forced American tobacco growers to ship all their tobacco to England on English ships. Before that, Dutch ships controlled much of the tobacco trade because their rates were lower than English ships. This hurt the tobacco growers because this caused a tobacco glut in England, fewer ships competed for the tobacco trade, and now all tobacco had to go to England and pay high import taxes.

     

    The Navigation Acts were an important part of the mercantilist policies of England. According to mercantilism, the government had the right and the power to shape trade in the political interests of the country. This meant economic war, especially with the Dutch. 

     

    The Dutch and English waged three wars, in 1652-54, 1664-67, and 1672-74. The second war was triggered when an English fleet in 1664 conquered Holland’s American colony New Amsterdam, renaming it New York.

     

    ENLAND AND HOLLAND IN THE AMERICAS

    England’s main instrument in its rivalry with the Dutch in Asia was the English East India Company (EIC). In America and the West Indies, it was the Navigation Acts.

    This rivalry was part of the wider political and economic environment of the American colonies in the 1600s.

    In the 1600s, the West Indies became the most valuable part of the English colonial empire. Sugar from the West Indies was far more valuable than tobacco from the Chesapeake.

    In 1686, London imported West Indian produce worth £674,518, compared with £207,131 obtained from all the North American mainland colonies.  Sugar constituted £586,528 of the West Indian total, while tobacco accounted for £141,600 of the mainland produce.

    Taylor, 205

    In 1650, the main sugar island of Barbados had a greater white population than the Chesapeake and New England combined. 

    After failing to raise tobacco and cotton, Barbados struck it rich with sugar, starting in the 1640s. By 1660, Barbados accounted for more trade than all other American colonies combined.

    The sugar planters developed a strong lobby in England, partly because many wealthy sugar planters retired to England. They protected sugar imports from high import taxes. The tobacco growers along the Chesapeake were not so lucky. 

     

    In 1668-69 the West Indian sugar crop sold for about £180,000 after it paid about £18,000 in customs duty – compared with the £50,000 reaped (netted) by Chesapeake planters over and above their customs duty of £75,000.

    Taylor, 216

    This suggests a number of things about the Virginia tobacco growers. It was probably one reason the Barbados planters were wealthier than the Virginia planters, and why Virginia planters went into debt to buy luxuries and expand production (buy land and slaves). It is also intriguing to speculate that this was one reason American tobacco growers complained about being “slaves” to the English crown and merchants who lent them credit. Some of Virginia’s largest planters supported and led the American Revolution.

     

    By 1775, the American colonies were England’s largest trading (imports and exports) partner. 

     

    The new set of Navigation Acts in the 1660s made the economic situation worse for Chesapeake tobacco growers. One aim was to eliminate Dutch ships from buying and transporting Virginia tobacco. This drove down prices and worsened the tobacco glut in England.

     

    England and Holland became global trade rivals in the 1650s and 1660s. In the Americas and West Indies, the Dutch captured most of the carrying trade because they charged less than the English. England passed the Navigation Acts to prohibit American exports to use Dutch ships. In addition to being forced to use English and American ships, almost all produce had to go to England and, in the case of tobacco, pay high excise taxes.

     

    The English East India Company:  Trade with Asia

     

    THE START OF EUROPEAN TRADE WITH ASIA. PORTUGAL IN THE 1500s

     

    Spices and luxury goods from Asia were limited and prices went up after the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453. The last leg of trade with Asia was dominated by Venice.

     

    Before the seventeenth century, trade across Eurasia was mostly conducted in short segments along the Silk Road and maritime routes through the Indian Ocean. Business was organized by family firms, merchant networks, and state-owned enterprises. Trade was dominated by Chinese, Indian, and Arab traders. 

     

    In 1492, Catholic Spain, after a 400-year crusade, finally conquered the last Muslim area. Spain then bankrolled Columbus’ voyages, expecting he would bring back gold and silver from Asia. The national government expected to use this wealth to finance a continuation of its crusade by conquering Muslim North Africa. 

     

    After more than 80 years of trying, in 1497-8 a Portuguese fleet went around the bottom of Africa (Cape of Good Hope) and reached India. And returned laden with spices. It was a very profitable trip. Following voyages established Portuguese trading positions in India and links with Asia east of India. Portugal discovered and conquered the Spice Islands, which were the major source of Asian spices exported to Europe.

     

    Portugal had shown in the 1500s that long-distance voyages from Europe around Africa to India and beyond were both possible and profitable.

     

    But Portugal was a small and poor country. It had a small merchant class. Portugal, relying on a combination of state support (with political objectives) and charted private shipping (much of it foreign), was not able to fully exploit the profit potential of the trade. The number of trips were small, partly because financing was sporadic and inadequate. 

     

    Portugal’s Asian trade and Spain’s conquest of Latin America meant that rivalry among Europe’s nation-states was no longer confined to Europe and the Mediterranean. It was now global. Trade and conquest outside of Europe brought new wealth to European countries; the wealth could finance increased national power.

     

    The spice trade from Asia to Europe was both highly profitable and risky. By 1600, both England and Holland were ready to try.

     

    THE ENGLISH EAST INDIA COMPANY:  TRADING WITH ASIA

    England had defeated a Spanish attempt at invasion in 1588 and was thinking about how to become a colonial power. The country began thinking about colonies in North America and the West Indies. 

     

    The merchants of both countries realized that the traditional way to finance trading voyages – merchants and ship owners raising capital for each voyage separately and distributing profits and capital after the voyage – would be inadequate for the huge capital requirements of a sustained, large scale, risky trading venture in Asia. Merchants, investors, and shipowners would have to solicit outside investors to raise enough capital.

     

    They succeeded. For 200 years, the EIC and the VOC were the two largest private companies in Europe, based on book value (total capitalization).

     

    The instrument of England initiating trade with Asia in 1600 was the English East India Company (EIC), a government sanctioned trading monopoly. The goal throughout the century was to reduce or eliminate the competition from the Dutch East India Company (VOC). 

     

    Eventually, the EIC evolved into a quasi-state that ruled most of India. The EIC brought great wealth to England’s merchant class and helped develop new financial institutions.

     

     

    THE ENGLISH EAST INDIA COMPANY (EIC) AND DEVELOPMENT WITH TRADE WITH ASIA

     

    Why England and Holland both decided to make very large investments in the long-distance Asian trade at this time.

     

    • Both countries had a poor chance of becoming continental powers in Europe. 
    • Both countries had small populations compared to France, Spain, and Austria.
    • Both countries were Protestant, often at war with the larger Catholic countries of Europe.
    • Neither could compete with the Catholic countries in European continental wars.

     

    In contrast, both countries were maritime countries with a strong merchant class growing rich on maritime trade and finance.

     

    • ·      Holland was a republic dominated by its merchant class. 
    • ·      England was a constitutional monarchy where Parliament had to approve taxes.
    • ·      Both had a shipbuilding industry and experienced sailors, the basis of strong navies.
    • ·      Both were capable of building large merchant ships that were often armed.
    • ·      Financing trade made Amsterdam the financial capital of Europe.

     

    ADVANTAGES OF A PRIVATELY-FINANCED, LONG-DISTANCE TRADING MONOPOLY

     

    The merchants of both countries realized that the traditional way to finance trading voyages – merchants and ship owners raising capital for each voyage separately and distributing profits and capital after the voyage – would be inadequate for the huge capital requirements of a sustained, large scale, risky trading venture in Asia. Merchants, investors, and shipowners would have to solicit outside investors to raise enough capital.

     

    They succeeded. For 200 years, the EIC and the VOC were the two largest private companies in Europe, based on book value (total capitalization).

     

    THE EIC AND VOC IN ASIA

     

    The English East India Company (EIC) was founded in 1600 and the Dutch equivalent (VOC) in 1602. Both had charters that gave them a monopoly on trade between their home country and Asia. They almost immediately became rivals. 

     

    In Asia, the EIC suffered defeats at the hands of the competing Dutch East India Company (VOC). The Dutch, led by a very aggressive director, defeated and replaced the Portuguese in the Spice Islands. Then the VOC was able to repulse attempts by the EIC to capture the islands. The Dutch eliminated English attempts to establish entrepots in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia). The VOC also was the only foreign country allowed to trade with the isolationist Tokugawa shogunate in Japan. The VOC sold the Japanese desired products from all over Asia in exchange for the silver needed to finance the inter-Asian trade and products exported to Holland.

     

    The EIC early centered their operations on the entrepot trade in western India. The EIC’s first ships arrived in India in 1608, received permission to establish a factory (trading center) in 1613, and was granted permission by the Mughal emperor in 1615 to establish factories throughout the Mughal Empire.

     

    A historical look at the early evolution of global trade and how this led to the creation and dominance of the European business corporations English East India Company (EIC) and Dutch East India Company (VOC).

     

    Both countries saw an opportunity to become rich using their merchants, merchant capital, and shipping.

     

     

    The Beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England

    This essay describes the most immediate causes of the Industrial Revolution starting in the late 1700s, including some of the reasons it happened in England. But England had undergone changes in the prior two centuries that increased the chances the Industrial Revolution would start there. Economic growth had depended on England developing a global trading system partly based on its imperial empire. Trade (importing raw materials and exported finished goods), shipping, increased wealth, and a rising merchant class prospering from trade were key to this change. This transformation began in 1600.

     

    THE RISE OF ENGLAND AS A NAVAL AND MARITIME TRADING POWER IN THE 1600s

     

    Except for the Dutch, no other European nation depended on foreign trade for such a high proportion of its employment and gross national product.

     

    English merchant shipping more than doubled, from 150,000 tons in 1640 to about 340,000 in 1686.

     

    Taylor, 259

     

    The explosion of imports from the West Indies was one reason for the large increase in English shipping in this period. A related reason was the Atlantic slave trade, which England came to dominate. Barbados needed a large number of slaves to harvest sugar cane and produce sugar. The port of Bristol became wealthy by specializing in this trade. The town later put up a statue to one of its wealthiest slave traders. It was pulled down in 2020 in a Black Lives Matter rally.

     

    Shipbuilding remained a major industry in England into the 1900s.

     

    By 1700, England was the leading naval power in Europe, with the largest fleet. The English navy was twice as large as the Dutch navy.  London was Europe’s most important center for commerce and finance, passing Amsterdam. England’s power and wealth now depended on overseas trade and commerce. 

     

    In 1600, England had very little trade outside of Europe. By 1700, about 40% of English shipping tonnage carried American and Asian goods. 

     

    England had developed a global trading system. It would begin to assemble a global imperial system. Holland could not match England but continued to own a very lucrative colony in the Dutch East Indies and carried out extensive intra-Asian trade.

     

     INTO THE FUTURE

     

    The main point of the essay on the EIC is that the creation of the modern corporation and the extension of long-distance international trade developed together. These created great wealth in England, especially in its trading, shipping, and merchant class. Unlike wealth in land, this wealth was liquid (mobile) and would later be invested in railroads and manufacturing.

     

    Like the EIC, railroads and manufacturing companies were able to raise large amounts of capital, partly because the companies were limited liability companies and shareholders could sell their shares on the stock exchange. The “railroad mania” of the 1840s was the first stock market speculative bubble of the industrial age. It didn’t end well but it didn’t discourage widespread ownership in new companies.

     

    Also suggests reasons why England was in the best position to start the Industrial Revolution. England was manufacturing goods to be sold in the new English colonies; these markets, especially America, would expand in the 1700s. By mechanizing cotton textile production, England opened up a new, major source of trade revenue. England imported cotton from India and exporting cotton textiles to India and rest of the world.

     

    Later, in the 1800s, America would become the dominant source of cotton for English textile mills. Also the basis for America’s cotton textile industry. Sadly, this rescued slavery from possible extinction. 

    In both countries, the production of cotton textiles was the first industry of the Industrial Revolution. Cotton textiles were England’s largest source of exports throughout the 1800s. Cotton was the main export of the United States in the 19th century. Export earning helped pay for importing machinery and other industrial inputs.

     

    For a description of the EIC’s structure and strategy, see

    The English East India Company:  Trade with Asia

    For a conjecture that the EIC might be a model for future multinational corporations, see

    The English East India Company (EIC):  Model for Future Multinational Corporations?

     

    For an excellent survey of colonial America and the historical context, see

    Alan Taylor,  American Colonies:  The Settling of North America.


    For all posts in this blog, including links, see 

    List of Posts by Topic

    There are essays on colonial American History, American Economic History, and why England and America were the countries that started the Industrial Revolution. Also essays on;

    China.

    Information, innovation, and how markets work. 

    Business, finance, and economics. 

    Global and national demographics, population projections, and how they interact and influence economies. 

    Rome.

     

  • Demographics, Immigration and Future Economic Growth of the United States

    Demographics, Immigration and Future Economic Growth of the United States


     

    Americans


    SUMMARY

     

    Population projections and demographic changes, especially in the different age cohorts, should be seen along with large annual fiscal

    deficits and the large and increasing national debt. The connection is the forecasts of large increases in the over-65 age group and the shrinking working age (and tax-paying) age group. 

    This essay should be read along with Government Finance 101. Fiscal Policy:  Welcome to Alice in Wonderland. 


    UPDATE (November 2025)


    Combining the recent changes in the birth rate and net

    immigration, plus the “baked-in” projection that Americans over the age of 65 will increase by about 50 million by 2060 (see below), it seems likely that the number of Americans in the working ages  cohort (15-64) will decrease at least 40 million by 2060. From about 230 million in 2025 to 190 million in 2060. Well before then, it seems likely that America, like other wealthy countries, will have extensive temporary worker permit programs to augment the native-born work force. This will probably be combined with much more extensive use of generative AI algorithms to handle much of the information analysis in organizations combined with greatly increased use of industrial robots.


    UPDATE (October 2025)


    Projections are changing rapidly because of the dramatic change in net immigration and a slight but continuous fall in the birth rate. Past long run projections, assuming historic levels of immigration, now seem high.


    In January, the CBO’s projections  showed “without immigration the population would shrink beginning in 2033” if birth rates stayed at current low levels. Without immigration, the CBO now expects the US population to start shrinking in 2031. If there is net negative immigration – more deportations and immigrants leaving the US – CBO projections indicate that the population may reach zero growth as early as around 2028. 


    At least half of immigrants, about 6 million, have entered the country in the last four years with some protection from immediate deportation, especially under asylum status. This protection is being withdrawn, even from immigrants who have been granted asylum status in the past.


    There are some estimates that the total immigration population of the US is falling, about 1.5 million over the last year. This may indicate net negative immigration.


    Since immigrants tend to be young adults and have a higher birth rate than the US-born population, lower levels of immigration, mass deportations, and voluntary leaving of immigrants could lower the projected birth rates.


    UPDATE (September 2025)


    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has updated its population projections based on a lower birth rate and lower net immigration. “The CBO projects that the U.S. population will increase from 350 million in 2025 to 367 million in 2055. Deaths will be greater than births starting around 2031; the gap gets larger over time. So all population growth after 2031 will be from net immigration. If net immigration falls to zero, the U.S. population will stop growing in 2031 and start a slow decrease after then.



    UPDATE (August 2025)


    Recent data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention show the U.S. birth rate has fallen below 1.6, the lowest rate on record. With a falling birth rate, far fewer legal and illegal immigrants and increasing deportations, the United States is now on the same demographic falling population path as most other industrialized and industrializing countries. 


         Reported in The Economist, “America’s fertility crash reaches                                                                                               a new low,” August 5, 2025.

    OVERVIEW OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES 

    The longer-run projection is a population of about 335 million people in 2100 (Lancet), about the same number as today. This projection was made with data up to 2017. There is a very wide range of uncertainty around this projection, partly depending on future birth rates and levels of immigration.

     

    The U.S. birth rate is a little over 1.6, below the replacement level of 2.1. This is in line with some industrialized countries but higher than Japan, China, South Korea, and most European countries. If the birth rate stays about the same and there is little or no net immigration, the Lancet projection is too high. The U.S. maximum population may occur much sooner.


    According to the Census Bureau, by 2030, one in five Americans will be 65 or older, which is up from less than one in 10 in 1960.


    By 2060, the Population Reference Bureau expects the number of Americans 65 and older to more than double from 46 million today to over 98 million.


    In less than two decades, older adults are set to outnumber kids for the first time in US history.



    Because of demographics, the United States could have a relatively better economic future than almost any other industrial or industrializing country. Almost all these countries will experience declining populations (if levels of immigration do not substantially increase), many with population decreases of 30-50%. Also, most of these countries will have higher dependency ratios (a higher percent of old people) than the U.S. That is, the U.S. will have a relatively younger population. This is partly due to higher birth rates and high rates of immigration into the U.S. since the 1960s. With the current birth rate, the United States will reach maximum population later than the other industrial or developing countries.

     

    DEMOGRAPHICS OF AMERICA:  POPULATION PROJECTIONS

     

    For generations, demographers considered America exceptional. High levels of immigration and relatively high fertility rates increased its population faster, and kept it more youthful, then its rich country peers in Europe. Americans within their borders were also exceptionally mobile.

     

    America has had high population growth rates since the first immigrants. (For a detailed look at immigration in colonial times, see American Colonial History, 1607-1775) Since becoming a country, America’s population has gone from 4 million in 1790 (the first census) to 30 million in 1860 to the current (7/24) population of 343 million. The main reasons for America’s high population growth rates in the past have been high birth rates, immigration, relatively healthy and well-fed population, and industrialization (economic development and growth).

     

    The period from 1950 to 2000 was unusual. 

     

    Population during this period was:

     

     

    Year

    Population

    Millions

    Decade

    Increase

    Millions

    Decade

    % Increase

     

    1950

    152

     

     

     

    1960

    176

    24

    16%

     

    1970

    200

    24

    12

     

    1980

    223

    23

    12

     

    1990

    248

    25

    11

     

    2000

    282

    34

    14

     

    2010

    311

    29

    10

     

    2020

    339

    28

      9

     

     

    United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division,

    World Population Prospects, The 2024 Revisions

     

    Between 1950 and 2000, the U.S. population almost doubled. The American “baby boom” started after World War II, temporarily reversing the long-term decline in birth rates. In the middle of this period, partly due to more effective and more available birth control, starting around 1970, birth rates began a rapid decline. That was partly offset by an increase in immigration.

     

    Since 2000, population growth rates have slowed. The 2020-2030 population growth rates will probably be lower, maybe around 6% for the decade, because of Covid, lower birth rates, and lower net migration rates (fewer immigrants and more past migrants leaving the United States).

     

    The U.S. population at the beginning of 2024 was 343 million.

     

    The UN projection continues:

     

    2040 – 370 million

    2050 – 381 million

    2070s – 400 million

    2100 –  421 million


    The projected population in 2050 is only 11 million higher than 2040, a decade increase of only 3%. It is also 38 million people higher than 2024, an average increase of about 4-5% per decade.

    After the 2070, the U.S. population will increase by less than one million per year. (United Nations, World Population Prospects, 2024 Revision.) These projections are high and like past United Nations projections will probably be lower in the future.

     

     

    The alternative projection from Lancet expects the U.S. population to peak at 365 million in 2062 and then decline to 335 million in 2100, about the same number as today.

     

    There is a very wide range of uncertainty around this projection, depending on future birth rates and levels of immigration. These projections were made from a starting point of higher birth rates and higher immigration numbers before Covid and current immigration and deportation policies. Birth rates have not returned to pre-Covid levels.

     

    The U.S. birth rate has been around or slightly below replacement since 1975. The current (2024) U.S. birth rate at 1.62 is the lowest since records began in 1909. The population growth rate is 0.5% a year is low and falling. The 2025 population growth rate is expected to be around 0.2%.


    About half of the decline in the birth rate since 1990 has been due to fewer teenage pregnancies.

     

    Without past immigration and the children of immigrants, the U.S. population and labor force growth rate would have been lower in the past 40 years. And more of the total growth would have been in the over-65 age group. Immigrants tend to be young adults. If net immigration is zero or below, America’s birth rate will continue to fall.

     

    The over-65 population is expected to double in the next 35 years, from 46 million now to over 98 million in 2060. (Population Reference Bureau) All of the total population increase will be in the over-65 group; the number of people under 65 will decline. This will increase the ratio of the over-65 age group to the prime labor force age group of 18-64. Again, depending on immigration, since immigrants tend to be younger than the native population.

     

    Like other industrialized countries, older adults are expected to outnumber children (under 18) in less than two decades. (Population Reference Bureau) 

     

    The current birth rate is now about the same or slightly higher than that of many industrial countries. This might be partly due to the effects of Covid, although the current birth rate is the same as the birth rate during the Covid years of 2020-2022. But because of past immigration and its demographic effects, the long run decline in America’s population and the labor force should be less than most other industrialized countries.

     

    The partial abortion ban will have little effect on future population growth. The number of abortions was going down even before the ban. Abortions are still legal in many states. Abortion pills accounted for over half of abortions before the ban. In Europe, pills account for about 70% of abortions.

     

    The United States has a special problem. Because of the opioid/fentanyl epidemic and suicide, America’s adult mortality rate is increasing, mostly among white men under 55. A 15-year-old white male’s probability of dying before the age of 50 is now higher in America than in Bangladesh. The good news is that while still high, deaths from opioids and fentanyl are going down. The bad news is that a new, more powerful drug than fentanyl has begun to show up.

     

      

    ECONOMIC GROWTH AND THE FUTURE SIZE OF THE LABOR FORCE

     

    With birth rates below replacement, the future size of the labor force will depend critically on immigration. Future productivity increases will partly depend on immigrants’ young age composition, birth rate, and education and training.

     

    The current (2024/25) unemployment rate is near a post-World War II low. The labor crunch is likely to persist for some time. The Pew Research Center projects no or very little growth in the working-age population over the next two decades. If the United States were to cut off the flow of new immigrants, Pew noted, the American working-age population would shrink.

     

    The U.S. economy is growing at about 2-2½ percent a year. Employment is growing at about 1.0-1.5% a year; productivity is growing at about one percent a year. The size of the labor force (employed plus unemployed) is growing at about 0.3% per year; the growth rate is in long-term decline and may accelerate with a possible decrease of immigrant workers. This indicates that the growth in employment will probably be lower in the future than in the past.


    The US youth (16-24 years old) labor force participation rate is dropping. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that only 53.1% of young people (ages 16-24) were employed during the summer of 2025, about 15 percentage points less than in 2000. This might also lead to delayed marriages and family formation. This could affect the demand for housing.


    This is puzzling. The minimum wage is much higher. College graduates have large amounts of student loan debt. Both of these should indicate higher labor force participation rates. But currently (second half of 2025), companies, based with uncertainty due to randomly changing tariffs, higher interest rates, and uncertainty about future consumption expenditures, are not hiring new entrants to the labor force.


    One possibility is that traditional employers of young people, such as restaurants, are cutting back on total employment and also substituting automation. 


    Periods of high youth dropping out and unemployment are historically correlated with increases in social instability, drug use, crime, and political extremism. 


        Ed D’Agostino, “Unemployment’s Slow Burn,” October 10, 2025.

    There’s another variable, one highlighted in The Wall Street Journal. Suzy Welch wrote an important commentary based on her research on Gen Z at NYU Stern School of Business. This group was born between 1997 and 2012, making them 13 to 28 years old today. Welch, former editor of the Harvard Business Review, took a look at Gen Z’s values. She found a stark disconnect between their values and those sought by today’s businesses.


    Welch reports that only about 2% of Gen Z prioritize the values most employers seek—achievement, learning, and a strong drive to work. Instead, Gen Z places higher value on selfcare, authenticity, and helping others—commendable values on their own, but when they are your top priorities, you might find it hard to thrive at work.

    Another possible source of disconnect of the young is the addictive attraction of the internet, especially video games, for males. Some researchers believe this is also the reason that male academic achievement is below female achievement and the gap is widening.


    Combined with the high use of illegal drugs, these factors might help explain the dropout rate and lack of traditional values.  

     

    Most of the recent increase in the size of the labor force has been in the over-55 age group. This is the fastest growing age group and more older Americans are living longer, healthier, and working past retirement age. Also, millions of Americans own small businesses and apparently do not automatically retire just because they turn 65. Others have technical skills (tax accountants, dentists, various types of data analysts) that allow them to continuing working, often part-time or online.


    There has been little increase in total employment in the under-55 age group. There are studies that suggest an aging labor force causes slower productivity growth. Also, possibly, less innovation. This may be a factor in the decline of new business formation.

     

    Like other wealthy countries, economic growth will depend on productivity increases. Productivity growth in the ten years of this economic expansion (since 2009, before Covid) was the lowest for any ten-year period since the end of World War II. It is possible, however, that government statistics are not picking up the productivity increases from innovations in information technology.

     

    DEMOGRAPHICS AND IMMIGRATION

     

    The following report from 2015 shows how important immigration has been from the 1960s to the date of the report. This is in contrast to the situation since Covid and the Trump campaign against immigration.


    According to a 2015 Pew Research Center report, “Immigrants and their children will represent 36 percent of the U.S. population in 2065, which equals or surpasses the peak levels last seen around the turn of the 20th century. That share will represent a doubling since 1965 (18 percent) and a notable rise from today’s 26 percent.” Pew estimates that as of March 2025, immigrants and their U.S.-born children comprise about 28% of the U.S. population, totaling over 93 million people. These projections are now in doubt because of the drastic reduction of immigrants seeking permanent residence.

     

    The report states that “the arrival of new immigrants and the births of their children and grandchildren accounted for 55 percent of the U.S. population increase since 1964…The projections also show that 88 percent of the increase in population until 2065 is linked to future immigrants and their descendants.”

     

    Over the last two decades, immigrants and their children accounted for more than half the growth of the population of 25- to 64-year-olds, according to the Pew analysis. Over the next 20 years, immigrants and their children will have to make up for the net deficit in the labor force left by the retirement of the baby boom generation. If immigration were to continue at recent levels, around 2050 the United States would have the lowest percent of retirement-age population of any developed country. Even lower than China. This means more tax-paying workers per retired person than any other industrialized country.

     

    Immigration over the last 50 years has impacted American demographics. The American population continues to grow despite below replacement birthrates of native-born inhabitants. Immigrants tend to be young, increasing the size of the workforce and slowing the increase of the average age of the population. The education and skills they bring is a “free lunch” for the American economy. A high percent of Americans who have won Nobel prizes were immigrants or the children of immigrants.

     

    Immigrants and their children have traditionally provided a disproportionate share of entrepreneurs. “Immigrants start companies at twice the rate of native Americans. Almost half the companies in the Fortune 500 were started by immigrants or their children.” (Austan Goolsbee, “Sharp Cuts in Immigration Threaten U.S. Economy,” New York Times Sunday Business, October 13, 2019, 4). One of the founders of Google was from Russia. The current CEOs of Microsoft and Google are from India and the CEOs of Nvidia and AMD are from Taiwan. 

     

    IMMIGRATION POLICY AND STATISTICS

     

    Currently, there are 9 million people in the United States with green cards, which means they are on a path to citizenship. During the Biden administration, about 3.5 million people became naturalized citizens, almost one million a year. (New York Times, “Immigrants are Becoming U.S. Citizens at Fastest Clip in Years,” August 12, 2024, From the photos in the article, it appears a high percent are young people.) 

     

    America has an estimated 11-14 million illegal immigrants. But this is more complicated than the political rhetoric and sensationalist journalism indicates. Many would have eventually attain some type of legal status leading to permanent residence; less now because of deportations and blocking the part to residence and citizenship.

     

    The United States does not have a coherent immigration policy. The last immigration law was passed in 1990. Attempts to modernize immigration policy has been stymied because of difference between Democrats and Republicans.

     

    The Trump administration reduced legal immigration and plans to make it difficult for foreign, especially Chinese, students to attend American colleges. In the past, foreign students who remained in the United States were a major source of scientists, technology workers and entrepreneurs. Over half of the science, math and engineering graduate students in the U.S. are from foreign countries.

     

    Discouraging immigration, limiting foreign work visas, and foreign graduate students will reduce major sources of American innovation, technology entrepreneurs, and productivity growth in the future. It will also eliminate the major source of the overall growth in the labor force. 

     

    DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

     

    Immigration over the last 50 years has impacted American demographics. The American population continues to grow despite below replacement birth rates of native-born inhabitants. Immigrants tend to be young, increasing the size of the workforce. The education and skills they bring is a “free lunch” for the American economy. On the other hand, the increasing number of older Americans will make it difficult to reduce yearly deficits and fund programs for economic growth.


    The changing demographics of the United States may be influencing other variables besides economic growth. Changing demographics might interact in the future with changing social

    attitudes, global warming and how to combat it, and America’s foreign policy.

     

    POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

     

    Immigration since 1960 has changed the ethnic and racial composition of America. Latinos make up about 20% of American population; Asians about 10%. There are about twice as many Latinos than blacks; there are almost as many Asians as blacks. This will change the influence of minority groups. (New York Times, February 22, 2021).

     

    The continuing change in the age distribution of the population will have political and economic consequences. For example, when the Social Security trust fund runs out around 2034 (maybe earlier), benefits will drop by at least 20%. With seniors on Social Security making up a large minority of voters, the government will probably make up the shortfall out of general tax revenue. This could increase federal yearly deficits or there would be less money for other programs.

     

    Fewer taxpayers in the future will have to support the greatly increased public health care costs of an aging population living longer.

     

    It could be that the United States will have a better economic future than almost any other country because of demographics. That partly depends on future immigration policies. And there probably will be internal political conflict over the distribution of income by age group.

    SUMMARY

     

    With labor force growth rates falling and productivity not increasing, the labor force aging, and legal immigration restricted, long-term U.S. economic growth rates may be lower in the future – below 2% – than currently. Increases in per capita income will depend on productivity increases from new technology, including the widespread application of robotics, new business software, artificial intelligence, and technology developed in the future. It is too early to predict what the long-run impact of artificial intelligence will be on economic growth and employment.


     

     

    SOURCES:


    S.E. Vollcet et. al., “Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study,” Lancet, July 14, 2020, 1285-1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(20)30677-2.

     

    Probably the best estimates of long-run population projections. Also includes “uncertainty internals” (two standard deviations from mean estimate). They become wider the further out the projection.

     

    United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division,

    World Population Prospects, The 2024 Revisions

    The United Nations population projections used here are the most recent “medium,” most likely projections. They are lower than the UN projections made two years earlier. It is likely that future UN projections will revise population numbers downward.


    Pew Research Center

     

    Particularly strong on immigration data and analysis

     

    United States Census Bureau (census.gov)

    Statistica

    Population Reference Bureau

    Worldometer (for current figures)

    Numerous articles in The Economist


    Again, population projection and demographic changes should be thought of in connection with government deficits:


    Government Finance 101. Fiscal Policy:  Welcome to Alice in Wonderland.


    For population projections and analysis for Japan and the world, see

    Demographics and Population Projections of Japan


    In contrast to the United States and other countries, Japan is further along the declining population and labor force curve than almost any other country and may be a preview of the future of many countries outside of Africa. Japan has the world’s oldest population. There is limited but rising immigration, which has triggered a political backlash.


    For an analysis of global demographics and long-run population projections, see


    Global Demographics and Population Projections


    Demographics and Economic Growth


    For a look at current global and American use of industrial and humanoid robots, see


    Robots. “It’s Alive.”

    Includes some (hopefully) satirical comments about the future use of robots.

      

  • American Colonial History, 1607-1775

    American Colonial History, 1607-1775

     

    Colonial Farm Kitchen. Notice clock in the corner.

     

    THE 1600s


    Preliminary Comments

     

    About 350,000 Europeans emigrated to the American colonies in the 1600s. They were risk-takers. They left long-settled communities and societies to get on small, crowded sailing ships to make the dangerous 3,000 voyage to a new land that was mostly wilderness. About 5% died. They had to adapt to a new, frontier environment of forests and swamps. They had to “tame the howling wilderness.” 


    A high percent of the European immigrants in this period were from England. Almost all were Protestants.

     

    Emigrants from England came over in three “waves.”  Then a fourth ‘wave” came to the North American colonies in the 1700s. They were four distinctly different groups of people from different areas of the English isles.

     

    To understand why these four groups left England and Scotland, at different times and for different reasons, it is necessary to know a little bit of English history during this period.

     

    The Failure of the First Settlements

     

    The earliest settlements of Pilgrims coming to Plymouth (1620) and immigrants coming to Jamestown (1607) were failures. About half of the Pilgrims died on the voyage or in the first year. Very few new immigrants came to Plymouth. The English Pilgrims actually came from Holland; they were worried that they were being assimilated into Dutch society.

     

    The company that settled Jamestown continued to send over thousands of new immigrants and many supply ships. The first settlers were mostly single men looking for gold; only later did the Virginia Company send over families. In the first 15 years, about 75% of the settlers died. There were many reasons, including that Jamestown was built on a malarial swamp. Neither group was prepared to deal with the harsh “wilderness” of America.

     

    But there was one success. Some of the Jamestown settlers began growing tobacco.

     

    The First Wave – Puritans coming to the Boston area. (1629-1642)

     

    English background. In the early 1600s, there was political tension and conflict in England. The English kings thought they could rule without consulting Parliament; Charles I suspended Parliament for eleven years. But many people in England thought the King and Parliament should rule together. They opposed the king’s right to rule without Parliament. 

     

    At the same time, there was a bitter conflict over who would control the Church of England. The Church of England was the official, government-supported church. It was Protestant (it was illegal to be a Catholic in England at this time). Most English were members. Some members wanted a church controlled by its bishops, who were appointed by the king. Top-down, hierarchical control. Others wanted to “reform” or “purify” the Church, move it further away from traditional practices and beliefs. Some even thought individual congregations should be able to appoint their ministers without interference from the bishops. These people were called Puritans.

     

    The fights over who should control the government and who should control the Church of England were connected. Supporters of the king also supported a Church controlled by its leaders, the bishops. Many supporters of Parliament were also Puritans.

     

    By the late 1620s, it was obvious that the king and the bishops had won the fight over power and control. Puritan ministers were being removed from their pulpits. Many Puritans recognized they had lost and wanted to leave England. They came to the American colonies.

     

    From 1629 to 1642, 15,000-20,000 Puritans came to the Boston area and quickly spread out. Few new immigrants arrived in the rest of the 1600s, only about 7,000. This area was known as the Massachusetts Bay Colony. They were highly organized and well-prepared to set up towns and farms. They came in families, brought farm equipment and supplies, and their own Puritan ministers. They laid out towns and distributed land for family farms. They quickly set up a seminary to train new Puritan ministers; we now call this school Harvard. They prospered and their numbers increased rapidly. They spread out into much of New England and beyond.

     

    They wanted to set up a Puritan society that they controlled. They discouraged anyone who wasn’t a Puritan from settling in New England. Non-Puritans were forced to deport and not return on threat of death. Four Quakers who came back were hung.

     

    The Second Wave – Royalists coming to Virginia (1649-1660)


    In 1642, civil war broke out in England – the Puritans and Parliament supporters against the king and his supporters. Supporters of the king were called royalists (also called cavaliers). Many were members of landowning aristocratic and gentry families.

     

    The king and his supporters lost. The king was executed. Many royalists didn’t want to live under a government and church controlled by Parliament and Puritans. Some emigrated to the British West Indies and some to Virginia, where a pro-royalist governor created a stratified society dominated by royalists. He gave them large tracts of land, the basis of the spread of tobacco plantations. 

     

    They tried to recreate the kind of society and government they ruled before the civil war. Fortunately, there was hundreds of miles of wilderness between Virginia and Massachusetts.


    About half of the European immigrants in the 1600s were poor people who couldn’t afford the ship passage to America. To get to America, they became “indenture servants.” Most came to Virginia and Maryland.


    The tobacco growers owned great amounts of land but very few people to work it and process the tobacco. They encouraged “indentured servants” to come to Virginia. When the ships landed in America, the immigrants were auctioned off to pay the shipowners for passage. Typically, an indentured servant “agreed” to work for their owners for four to seven years. They had almost no rights. After their indenture was complete, they were free; some received some compensation. They were offered free or cheap land, so they had little reason to continue working on plantations. But since most of the good land along the rivers of Virginia was owned by earlier immigrants and their descendants, the new immigrants had to move west to the unsettled frontier, much of which were the foothills and valleys of the Appalachian Mountains. Tobacco growing spread rapidly and was by far the American colonies largest export in the 1600s and 1700s. 


    The Third Wave – Quakers coming to Pennsylvania (1680s and early 1700s)


    Not everyone in England belonged to the official Church of England. They were called “dissenting sects.” One of the most prominent was the Quakers.

     

    The Quakers were persecuted by government and church officials. In the 1680s, William Penn worked out a deal with the king, who granted Penn, who had converted to Quakerism, ownership and control over a large area in America in exchange for cancelling loans the king owed to the Penn family. Pennsylvania. It became a haven for Quakers. Many of the Quakers in England, over 20,000, emigrated to Pennsylvania and nearby areas. They established a society based on radical Quaker ideals. They were later joined by German sects with similar beliefs. 

     

    By the end of the 1600s, there were about 250,000 European immigrants and their descendants along the Atlantic coast. A very high percent, maybe 90% or more, were from England and Wales. Their numbers increased rapidly because of immigration and the high birth rates in New England.

     

    FROM 1700 TO 1775 (THE FIRST YEAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION)

     

    Immigration was different in the 1700s than in the 1600s. There were four main groups:

     

    English – less than 100,000

    Scots and Scots-Irish – about 150,00

    German speaking – about 100,000

    African slaves – about 250,000

    Small numbers of other groups, including French Huguenots (Protestants) and Irish Catholics.

     

    Total immigration in the 1700s was around 600,000 people. English immigrants were a minority of the European immigrants and a small minority of total immigrants. By 1775, the American colonies were made up of a diverse population; English immigrants and their descendants may have been a minority of the total population.

     

    English Immigrants

    The composition of English immigrants in the 1700s were somewhat different than that of English immigrants in the 1600s. They were not part of distinct religious or political groups. They were generally poor. They came from different parts of England, including the borderlands with Scotland. Many, maybe as many as 50,000, or over 50%, were criminals or convicts (in England, you could be sent to prison for not paying a debt). England emptied its jails and sent the inmates to America. Most ended up in Virginia and Maryland because that was where the ships were going, to pick up tobacco. The convicts were indentured for up to 14 years and did not get any land or compensation. They were treated no better than slaves. Most became part of the landless poor after their indenture was up. If they survived.

    People from the borderlands between northern England and Scotland (1700s) and Highland Scotland

    The Scots and Scots-Irish

    Fighting between northern English and lowland Scots, and among Scottish clans, had been going on for hundreds of years. This was a frontier, lawless area – little organized government or military control. There was much violence, including raids to cause destruction, pillage, and steal cattle. In addition, there was family and clan feuds on the Scottish side of the border.

     

    In the 1600s and 1700s, England completed its campaign of clearing out Irish Catholics from Northern Ireland. Favored English were given large land grants. Many of the farm workers came from Scotland. They were Protestant. They were called Scots-Irish.

     

    In the 1700s, a stronger English government successfully established control over northern England. Through battles and brutal military campaigns, England subdued the lowland (borderland) Scots. Many didn’t like the new order. At the same time, highland Scot landowners began clearing out their tenant farmers, who became landless. Many Scots went to Northern Ireland to work. But conditions were not much better than in Scotland. In the 1700s, about 100,000 Scots and Scots-Irish emigrated to the American colonies.

     

    Many of the settled colonies weren’t happy about the less “civilized” new immigrants. But the expanding plantation colonies of Virginia (tobacco) and South Carolina (rice) needed their labor.

     

    Many of the borderland people and Highland Scots settled into a frontier environment in the foothills, valleys, and mountains of the Appalachian Mountains (the western geographical border of the colonies). Some Highland Scots settled in parts of North Carolina, a borderland region between Virginia and South Carolina. For a long time, there was little government or legal presence. Few churches and little organized religion. Disputes were often settled by violence. Many raised cattle as in the borderlands. In America, they were called the “backcountry” people.

     

    German-Speaking Immigrants

    Many of the German-speaking immigrants came to America to avoid religious persecution. They held similar religious beliefs as the Quakers. They also were persecuted by German governments and their official (state-supported) religions. When the Quakers established Pennsylvania, it was a safe haven for the German sects, including the German-speaking Amish, Mennonites, Moravians and Schwenkfelders. About three-quarters of the Germans landed in Philadelphia.

     

    The German sects, like the Puritans and the Quakers, tended to come over as families and often with their ministers. They moved to the new lands west of the Quaker-dominated region around Philadelphia. Even today, part of their settlement is called the “Pennsylvania Dutch” country. The word “Dutch” is derived from the German word for Germans.


    Because of the waves of Scot and German immigration, Pennsylvania’s population exploded from about 18,000 in 1700 to about 120,000 in 1750. The Quakers had become a minority in their own colony.

     

    African Slaves

     

    The largest colonial immigrant group was African slaves. About 250,000 African slaves were brought to the American colonies up to 1775. The number started to go up in the late 1600s and then accelerated after 1725. The total black population of colonial North America in 1775 was probably over 500,000, mostly slave but a small percent were free. Most of the slaves in the South worked on plantations, especially in Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina, and North Carolina.

     

    Why were there African slavery in colonial America but not in England? There are demand side and supply reasons. 

     

    The short answer is: the rapid expansion of the production of plantation crops. The limiting growth factor, as always in colonial America, was labor. Expansion originally depended on indentured servants. But many immigrants, including indentured servants, didn’t want to work on plantations. German-speaking immigrants went to Pennsylvania, not Virginia, Maryland, or South Carolina. Many Scottish immigrants avoided indenture. Then there were the long-run costs. Indentured servants only worked for four to seven years. Plantation owners had to buy new servants to replace the freed servants. For complicated reasons, the number of  immigrant indentured servants fell and the cost of  rose in the late 1600s. African slaves cost more but they were slaves for life. In addition, children of slaves belonged to the slaveowner, a cheap source of future labor.

     

    South Carolina was a special case. Plantation agriculture started when a few slaveowners and their slaves migrated from Barbados. Rice, not sugar, was the most profitable crop. Rice was exported to Europe and to Caribbean islands. By the late 1700s the rice growers in South Carolina were some of the richest families in America.

     

    Slaves were available. The American continent was importing large number of slaves in the 1700s, mostly for the sugar-producing Caribbean islands and Brazil. Much of the trade to the Caribbean was controlled by English slavers. It was a short step to expand to the North American colonies. New England merchants and shipowners also entered the slave trade.

     

    Native Americans

     

    I have not mentioned Native Americans. There is currently much writing and discussion about Native Americans. It is a complicated topic. For the early relations  between Native Americans and European immigrants, see Ken Burns’ documentary The American Revolution.


    There were attempts to enslave Native Americans. The attempts failed.

     

    In the end, unlike Spanish or Portuguese America, the rapid increase in the European population, combined with the pressure to expand farming into Native American lands with relatively small Native American populations, doomed Native American independence in parts of colonial and early Federalist America. Some tribes adapted. Some moved west. The Iroquois Confederation avoided most of the pressure and remained independent up to the American Revolution. But the long, tragic history of land-hungry white Americans taking Native American lands had begun.

     

    CONSEQUENCES

     

    Many of the European immigrants came to America to avoid religious and political persecution. Almost all early English immigrants had grievances against the English government when they emigrated. German-speaking immigrants had no ties with England. Many Scots hated the English. Equally important was the lure of unlimited new farmland. Rather than being tenant farmers (paying rent to a landowner) or landless farm laborers in Europe, immigrants had a chance to own large farms (by European standards) and be independent. For many, religious freedom and economic independence went together. For Africans, the exact opposite happened.

     

    All groups had different ideas about how government, religion, and society should be organized. Or not organized. After the American Revolution, as the separate colonies became the United States, the clash of their different ideas would become the basis of many of America’s future political conflicts.

     

    The rapid increase in the population of these groups and their westward expansion looking for new farmland would have a profound influence on American history. The first consequence was that the western movement to new lands was a contributing factor in causing the American Revolution.

     

    AMERICA IN 1775

     

    America in 1775 was a much different colony than the America of 100 years earlier. Population near the end of the 1600s of around 250,000 – almost all of English descent and few slaves – had become a society of about 2 million people in 1775 – about 1.5 million European immigrants and their descendants and about 500,000 African slaves. The white population had become more diverse and less English. The African slave population was around 25% of the total population. 

    With high birth rates, plentiful and diverse food, and open immigration, Americans could expect their population to double by 1800.

     

    Why the change? 

     

    ·      Access to “unlimited” free and cheap land for farming. 

    ·      Geographic mobility – individuals, families and groups leaving settled communities to move west. 

    ·      Fortunes to be made producing plantation crops and exporting into protected English markets (similar to the sugar islands in the Caribbean). 

    ·      Expanding merchant and shipping class to handle rapidly expanding domestic and foreign trade.

    ·      Development of craft production to fill rapidly rising standards of living. 

    ·      Overall opportunity – fewer obstacles to personal and family advancement than in England and Europe. Individual and political freedom and democratic government compared to Europe and even England.

     

    The Economy

     

    Almost all Americans, about 90%, engaged in agriculture. By 1775, about half of the white population owned their farms. 

    Agriculture by 1775 was very different than the subsistence (producing food just for the farm family) agriculture in most of the rest of the world. Americans with large family-owned farms and plantations, produced enough food to make Americans well-fed, plus a surplus of grain and commercial crops for sale to local markets, towns, and for export.

     

    Americans produced a surprising variety of food and crops. For example, many farms and plantations had apple orchards. The apples were mostly used to produce cider. I was also astonished to learn that bananas were grown in South Carolina. 

     

    Americans had begun to experiment with growing mulberry trees throughout the colonies. Mulberry trees were the food for silkworms. Americans were trying to develop a silk industry. This venture would eventually fail. But many towns and rural areas even today have a Mulberry Street. Including Boston.  

     

    America’s largest exports in colonial times were the plantation crops of tobacco and rice, followed by indigo (a blue dye from the indigo plant for England’s growing textile industry). The colonies also exported grain and other products like lumber and horses to the sugar-producing islands in the Caribbean. 

     

    The American colonists imported most of their manufactured products from England. Everything from cloth, clothes, shoes, guns, swords, clocks, furniture, dinnerware, china (including Wedgwood), silverware and silver products, and all sorts of manufactured metal products including pots and shoe buckles. Wealthy planters imported luxury goods from England and Europe, imitating the wealthy landowning class of England. And tea.

     

    The American colonies were England’s largest trading partner by 1775. While sugar from the West Indies was a more valuable English import than American tobacco, America with its large and growing population of prosperous farmers, planters, and merchants was a major market for English exports.  

     

    In the 1600s, almost all this trade was carried on English ships and controlled by English merchants. But by 1775, the American colonies had become major ship builders, about one-fourth of the total merchant ships of England and America. More of the trade with England was carried in American ships. And more of the trade was organized by a growing merchant class in American ports. 

     

    And by 1775, Americans were producing some of their own manufactured goods. Most farm families made cloth. American craftsmen were producing furniture, dinnerware, and silver products. The most famous silversmith was Paul Revere.

     

    The colonial image above shows a farm family with metal pots and other metal goods, a gun over the mantel, metal buckles on man’s shoes, a butter churn (owned cows?), and a spinning wheel to make yarn. They also owned a grandfather clock. These products were of a simple style; other than the metal products, some of them were probably made in America. England would regret exporting rifles to America.

     

    With seemingly unlimited land and a rapidly-growing population, rising exports, and new types of economic activity, the American economy was also rapidly growing and developing. On average, white Americans enjoyed a high average standard of living by 1775. Possibly the highest in the world. 

     

    Politics and Government

     

    America was more democratic than England. No king, no aristocracy who dominated land-holding and political power. Much higher literacy rates. A much higher percent of white males voted and were active in local government than in England. America was almost entirely self-governing for almost 150 years before England attempted to tighten control in 1763.


    Americans were highly literate; about 70% of white males and 50% of white females could read and write. The percents in Puritan New England were very high – about 90% for men and 80% for women. New England had its first printing press by 1640. 


    The literacy rates in England were much lower.


    The American colonies had more newspapers than England, which had a larger population. Foreign observers often remarked that Americans seemed to love to read and talk about politics (often in taverns).


    By 1775, over 50% of free adult males were qualified to vote. And Americans were very active voters, with high turn-outs at election times (free food and alcohol from the candidates helped raise turn-out rates). In England, by contrast, fewer then 5% of adult males were qualified to vote. In over half of parliamentary elections, there was only one candidate. 

     

     

    American colonies were self-governing. At both the local and provincial (colony) level, most of the government officials were democratically elected. The exception was that most of the provincial governors were appointed by London. But their salaries had to be approved by provincial assemblies, which gave them control over the governors.

     

    One example of America’s independence from English control was that Americans found it easy to evade the Navigation Acts. The Navigation Acts basically said that most of American exports and imports had to be with England or English colonies. But Americans routinely ignored the Navigation Acts by trading with other countries and their colonies. Although illegal, Americans and American ships imported goods from other countries. England had too few officials and ships in America to stop this smuggling (sneaking in illegal imports). Probably the best-known smuggler was John Hancock.


    England began to crack down on smuggling in 1763, after the end of the French and Indian War.

     

    OVERVIEW 

    By 1775, the American colonies had become a rather unique society. It was very different than most of the rest of the world, even England. Large, family-owned farms. New land on the frontier. Commercially active. Literate. Democratic and politically engaged. Economic opportunity – few barriers to start new businesses or develop new skills (no guilds). Physical (move west) and economic mobility. King far away and no aristocratic landowning class. No long-settled rural class society.  No large standing army. Low taxes approved by local governments.


    One partial exception. By 1720, five colonies, and Westchester County in New York, had “established” religions, that is, religions supported by taxes. They were Congregational  (Puritan) in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and Church of England (Anglican) in Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. By 1775, other Protestant denominations, besides Quakerism, were flourishing, including Presbyterians (Scots), Baptists, Methodists, and German pietist sects. After 1740, America was swept by waves of evangelical enthusiasm.

     

    By 1775, Europeans had become or were becoming Americans. England’s North American colony was less “English” and more diverse than a century earlier. Puritans were becoming Yankees; many were challenging their Puritan roots and moving away from the Boston area.  By the early 1700s, many New Englanders thought Harvard (established to train Puritan ministers and teachers), had become too “liberal.” Virginia royalists had become plantation owners, with African slaves replacing European indentured servants. England had virtually outlawed slavery in 1772 and was moving to stop the African slave trade. Many had gone from being Tories (supporters of king and aristocrats) to becoming Whigs (critics of king and his royal governors of Virginia) as they engaged in bitter political battles with appointed English governors and resented high tariffs imposed on their tobacco exports to England. 

     

    The Virginia planter class, somewhat unexpectedly given their backgrounds, would contribute many of the leaders, supporters and military officers in the coming American Revolution, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe. And the father of Robert E. Lee.

     

    Quakers came to America as a small persecuted religious group and had become the dominant merchant and political group in the greater Philadelphia regions. Maybe the Scots and Scots-Irish, relatively late arrivers, probably changed the least by 1775, but many hated the English for the brutal conquest of Scotland and already had a strong sense of personal independence.


    The German-speaking farmers in Pennsylvania challenged the political monopoly of the Quakers and forced them to share political power.

     

    There was individual mobility. The most famous example was Benjamin Franklin, who went from being a penniless “immigrant” from Boston to the richest man in Philadelphia. He was an urban entrepreneur and a major investor in urban real estate. An anglophile (lover of the English), he also went from a man who retired to England and expected to die there to be one of the leaders of American independence from England.

     

    The Manigault family went from penniless religious refugees (French Huguenots) to the richest family in South Carolina in three generations. (They would be followed after the Revolution by the du Pont family, French political refugees.)

     

    This was not a settled or stagnant society. By the standards of the time, colonial America was a “modern” society. The main threat to dynamic change and growth was that America was still an English colony. That would change.

      ==========================================================

    See the next post in this series, 

    The American Revolution and the New Country: American History, 1755-1790

    followed by

    A New Nation, America from 1789 to 1860

    The classic book on colonial America is Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, a 1989 book by David Hackett Fischer. Long, incredibly detailed about all aspects of colonial American life. If you get through the entire book (last section optional), you should consider becoming an American History major.


    For an excellent survey of colonial America and the other colonies in North America, see Alan Taylor, American Colonies:  The Settling of North America, 2001. 


    For a discussion of how the North American and West Indies colonies fit into the wider English imperial empire that began in the 1600s, see


    England in the 1600s: The Beginning of England’s Rise to Global Power and Wealth


    This essay includes a discussion about how the American colonies fit into the English imperial system, especially the Navigation Acts.