REPORT DEAD LINKS --- we can't keep this site up-to-date without your help
From the “Letters to the Editors”, Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 16, 1996
“A Link Between Debt Reductions And Depressions”
“ My thanks for the opinion-page article, “Too Many Goods, Too Few Buyers - A Repeat of 1929?”, Feb. 2, [CSM], and the author’s sensible warning to today’s, eager budget-cutters.
An equally interesting set of data was recently released by Prof. Frederick Thayer of George Washington University. He linked the American historical sequence that begins with budget-balancing and ends with depressions. Among his findings of past debt reductions:
“The consistent, historical evidence indicates that deficits never cause depressions, while crusades to reduce the national debt are, always, followed by depressions. The author, poignantly, reminds us that the legitimate needs, of all members of society, justify special programs. It is helpful, if we remember that these programs and their costs, also, are integral to the health of our nation’s economic well-being."
DEBT REDUCTION CAUSES DEPRESSIONS?
Found at <<http://www.kamron.com/debt_reduction_causes_depression.htm>>
1) This is being presented here as because of the historical data it shows.
2) We have not checked the accuracy of this report and have made no decisions on the significance and importance of the information except as written below.
3) Perhaps the "budget balancing" simply means the government is cutting back on expenditures to reduce its debt. That would logically lead to a reduction in economic activity, which if carried on for some time could naturally lead to a depression.
4) One might naturally draw the perhaps unwarranted conclusions from the chart that (1) long term government budget balancing will always cause a depression, and (2) long term government spending will always cause inflation.
5) Such conclusions, we believe, would show shallow thinking if other factors were not considered at the same time. That shallow thinking might lead to rash economic policies that would be harmful.
6) Perhaps the data is simply showing that the the economy is sensitive to government spending and that government spending should be balanced in an effort to keep the economy balanced. That type of thinking would probably be good for the economy and the country. Even without any data, that balance seems like a logical policy. Would anyone argue against such a policy of balanced government spending?