CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research

Multimedia

En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs CEPR Blog Clearing Up Some Facts About the Depression of 1946

Clearing Up Some Facts About the Depression of 1946

Print
Written by David Rosnick   
Wednesday, 02 June 2010 09:27
The Cato Institute wishes to erase away an entire recession, but the facts are simply not on their side. "You never heard of it because it never happened. However, the 'Depression of 1946' may be one of the most widely predicted events that never happened in American history."

If true, this would have been a truly heroic feat on the part of the private sector, given that government spending fell by $56 billion dollars from 1944 to 1947. GDP was just over $200 billion in 1944. Today such a cut would be equivalent to $3.4 trillion, or 132 percent of government expenditures.

While the private sector did pick up much of the slack, the downturn from 1945 to 1946 alone was far more severe than the current recession.

In the current recession, real GDP fell 3.8 percent peak to trough. By comparison, real GDP fell 10.9 percent from 1945 to 1946, did not begin to rise until the fourth quarter of 1947, and still did not reach 1945 levels until the third quarter of 1950.

Employment figures show a similar story. From 1945 to 1946, combined employment in nonfarm payrolls (the standard measure of employment at the Bureau of Labor Statistics) and the armed forces fell by 6.7 million, or 13.0 percent. By comparison, from the peak in December of 2008 to the trough in December of 2009, nonfarm payrolls fell 6.1 percent while the number of active-duty military personnel increased slightly.

recession_depression-fig1

Cato is entitled to argue that the private sector did a fair job of picking up where the government left off. However, it is wholly illegitimate for the Institute to pretend that the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression "never happened."
Comments (4)Add Comment
Miss the whole point
written by Stephen M, June 04, 2010 12:40
The point that you are completely missing is that if you looked at GDP as your primary measure, then yes you would come to the conclusion that 1945-46 was a severe recession. But GDP encompasses government spending. If the spending falls in the dramatic fashion as it did after the war, the GDP will reflect this and because we are led to believe that spending = prosperity, we reach the false conclusion that 1946 was a bad year.
replica watches
written by sean.waches, September 29, 2010 9:19
I appreciate for your post! I hope you will keep it on. I also want to make friends with you and share my favorite replica watches to you. I am focus on you.Jaquet Droz replica watches
Its about the unemployment
written by Saulius Muliolis, November 21, 2010 8:41
Do you deny the fact, which Cato cites, that unemployment in 1946, never went above 4.6%? Keynesians predicted unemployment of between 12 and 35%, but that never happened. The private sector grew by leaps and bound. And that is because the public sector shrank. These were good times, even if GDP shrank.
..., Low-rated comment [Show]

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

CEPR.net
Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613
budget economy education employment Haiti health care housing inequality jobs labor labor market minimum wage OccupyWallSt poverty recession retirement Social Security taxes unemployment unions wages Wall Street women workers working class

+ All tags