Joseph Stiglitz claims that the Great Depression was a result of improper oversight over a re-structuring economy, as the agricultural sector gave way and the industrial sector grew. If we do not learn the lesson, argues Stiglitz, we will suffer similar consequences as the market restructures from an industrial one to a service one.
I think, like other theories of industrial fluctuations, Stiglitz’ is a very broad empirical claim. Unsurprisingly, the causality is a bit sketchy. Certainly, the structural revolution that took place between ~1865 and 1914 did not cause a “great” depression — this period, in fact, was one of great growth for the United States.
In short, Stiglitz’ explanation does not stick.
Related Posts
- Mises on the Depression
David Glasner publishes a post on Ludwig von Mises and the Great Depression. I apologize in advance: I have not read the post completely. I am still trying to catch up with the discussion relatin... - 2007–09 Under an Austrian Lens
I've been a consistent advocate of the Mises–Hayek theory of industrial fluctuations — ABCT, for short — as the most relevant model to interpret the "Great Recession." Unfortunately, the empirical ... - Textile Protectionism
I'm taking a graduate course on international trade (using the Krugman, Obstfeld, Melitz [2011] textbook) and the professor opened by asking: why are industries like textiles, apparel, and agri... - Policy-Debate is Easy
Paul Krugman compares recent public expenditure trends to those of 1937, subtly suggesting that it will have similar consequences (industrial contraction). But, it will only have similar experienc... - Some Words on 1893 Australia
The Australian industrial cycle, and the consequent financial panic, that occurred in 1893 is widely considered to be the most condemning empirical case study for free banking. A highly cited pape...
