The Great Depression Revisited

2007-06-19
By

Big Three auto makers are offering labor unions an opportunity to step back into the real world, out of the Alice-in-Wonderland world of New Deal socialism.

Labor unions are icons of the liberal-Progressives, who apotheosized them in the New Deal during the Great Depression. In addition to the primary status of unions in the Marxian labor theory of value, labor unions have been unfailing vote-getting allies of the Democratic Party.

The 1935 Wagner Labor Act, together with subsequent administrative rules and judicial decisions, made unions immune to anti-trust prosecution and enabled them to engage in criminal intimidation of employers and non-union employees with little fear of retaliation. As a consequence, union labor costs remained at levels too high for profitable production at full-employment levels.

Today, as the reality of market competition intrudes into this labor-liberal symbiotic affair, we have yet another opportunity to repair a union-made wreck.

General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler recently announced their intention to bargain with unions for significant reductions in their labor costs, in order to bring them closer into line with those of Japanese and Korean manufacturers. With union labor costs about double those of non-union Japanese and other foreign auto manufacturing plants in the United States, Big Three American automakers are financially bleeding to death.

Labor leaders face an increasingly clearly defined choice. They can insist upon maintaining artificially high wages and benefits and watch union employment shrink still more, or they can step back through the Alice-in-Wonderland looking glass and re-enter the real world in which demand and supply intersect at market-determined prices.

Liberals fail to recognize this situation for what it is: a sledge-hammer refutation of their cherished socialist economic theory that Federal spending programs can repealed the laws of economics.

Artificially-high wage costs in unionized industry were one of the main factors that kept unemployment at double-digit levels throughout the Depression. Wage rates in dollars per hour declined somewhat, but other prices declined even more. Unionized labor’s real wages, in purchasing power, thus increased as manufacturers’ sale prices and revenues declined.

President Hoover started the process in 1930 by jaw-boning businessmen and threatening to retaliate with government regulations if businessmen allowed normal market forces to reduce wages to levels at which they could profitably resume production. The New Deal played that game in spades.

Recessions are the effect of what should be temporary misallocations of economic resources. Over-supply of goods at prices that are too high stops sales. Wage costs that are too high for profitable production curtail the demand for labor.

In a free marketplace, businesses misjudge consumer demand and over-produce certain products. If they insist upon maintaining high prices, the goods remain in their warehouses. If they cut prices, the goods eventually will be sold and production can be resumed at levels of cost and sale price that conform to actual market demand.

For example, in the dot.com boom and bust, the Federal Reserve’s over-expanded money supply financed too many unneeded dot.com entities. Fiber optic cable production was roughly ten times the ultimate market demand. Because the market was permitted relatively free movement, supply and demand were brought back into line within 24 months via liquidations of companies and inventories, along with reductions in salaries and wages.

In contrast, the Depression was dragged out over ten years, because the Federal government did everything possible to stymie normal market forces. President Roosevelt’s 1933 National Recovery Administration and subsequent Congressional legislative enactments endeavored to fix labor rates and sale prices at high levels that bore no resemblance to real market demand.

A businessman considering whether to ramp up production has to make judgments about how much product can be sold, at what prices. He then must calculate his costs of production to determine whether the prospective profit justifies the risk of financial loss if he ramps up production.

In manufacturing industries like the automobile business, labor constitutes a high percentage of costs. If labor costs are too high to permit profitable production at sale prices determined by competition, businessmen have three choices. They can go out of business, they can curtail production, or they can reduce the number of workers employed.

This is the reality that the liberal-dominated Democratic Party and its labor union allies wish to ignore, preferring to believe that new Federal mandates and spending programs can fix every problem.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776

http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

11 views

  • bolwriter

    Sir, you have no clue about the causes of the Great Depression or why high wages whether due to unionism or something else are a good thing.

    Like all depressions/recessions, the Great Depression came about because, during the 1930s, productivity increased at all-time-high rates and wages failed to keep pace. That resulted in sky-high inventories, falling prices, falling wages and massive unemployment.

    Hoover had no idea of what to do, but FDR did. Keynes had pointed out that, in order to enhance the economy’s ability to consume what it produces, government’s taxing and spending policies could be used. Thus did FDR create all those “alphabet” agencies so that tax money could be paid to otherwise out-of-work people who would then be able to consume some of those huge inventories instead of standing in bread lines.

    The fact that this system didn’t work better was due to the fact that Republican Congressmen couldn’t get out of their laissez-faire box and properly fund New Deal programs. What finally got us out of the Depression was, of course, WWII, the taxing and spending policy for which was identical to the New Deal but aimed at the war effort instead of unemployment per se. WWII was, in economic terms, a huge employment program funded by deficit spending. By providing jobs both directly and indirectly, the federal government allowed us to clear out those excess inventories that had been driving prices down.

    The fact is that Keynesian economics solves the main problem of capitalism – overproduction. Haven’t you noticed? Despite absurd Republican statements to the contrary, ever since FDR, Big Government has been part of the economic picture. That’s not stupidity or perversity on the part of greedy politicians, it’s what’s necessary to the wellbeing of any capitalist economy.

  • Squiggy

    bolwriter, eh? Bolshevik, I presume? Government is the solution? High taxes and government spending are good for capitalism?

    Your idiocy is underwhelming.

  • bolwriter

    Squiggy, your 22-word “response” offers nothing in the way of understanding basic economics. You may not like it, but the fact is that government taxation and spending policies are an integral part of industrial capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t work very well without a concerted effort by government to redistribute income downward for the purpose of enhancing aggregate demand. If you don’t know this, and apparently you don’t, I suggest you learn it and adjust your economic philosophy accordingly. This is not political ideology on my part, it’s simple fact proven over 75 years of implementation.

  • bolwriter

    Oh and by the way, “bol” in my pseudonym has nothing to do with bolshevism. it refers to the title of a book I’m writing on fathers’ rights.

  • Squiggy

    Once again your idiocy is underwhelming. I didn’t show my ‘understanding of basic economics’ as I didn’t see the need. You claimed Keynes has been proved correct, when that’s the exact opposite of the truth. The Phillips curve did not exist in the nineties. (It never did, but it occasionally appeared to).

    You spout socialism with absolutely no knowledge of the damage it has done to the world, and claim that proves you’re right. Usually you bolsheviks at least spout faked statistics.

    Mr. Brewton tells it like it is, and you can’t dispute his facts, though you’re welcome to try. Hoover and FDR nearly killed our economy. Plain and simple. FDR tried to tax and spend us out of it, but the unemployment rate never budged a lick (even when factoring in the ‘make-work’ schemes), until good-ol’ WWII saved him (and us).

    P.S. This is more than twenty-two words, which is apparently the standard to be an intellectual. Can I be one now?






Search