Akkam’s Razor

If you are wearing a ‘Born-to-be-Wild’ t-shirt, you probably aren’t.

Akkam’s Razor random header image

Tickling the Dragon’s Tail

January 12th, 2008 · No Comments

Disclaimer:  I am by no stretch of the imagination an economist.

In listening to Ben Bernake's statement on the state of the economy and in consideration of the fiscal interventions as well as the pending economic stimulus package, its relevant to revisit the academic specialty of Mr. Bernake - the Great Depression.  As I had written previously:

The Wall Street Journal (subscribers only) has come to the same conclusion I did about Ben Bernake, prospective replacement for Alan Greenspan - he’s been very influenced by his academic research into the Great Depression.

The title of this post - "tickling the dragon's tail" - refers to a Manhattan Project era criticality testing with fissionable material [via Wikipedia]:

On May 21, 1946, Slotin and seven other colleagues performed an experiment that involved the creation of one of the first steps of a fission reaction by placing two half-spheres of beryllium (a neutron reflector) around a plutonium core. The experiment used the same 6.2-kilogram (13.7 lb) plutonium core that had irradiated Daghlian. Slotin grasped the upper beryllium hemisphere with his left hand through a thumb hole at the top while he maintained the separation of the half-spheres using the blade of a screwdriver with his right hand, having removed the shims normally used.[1] Using a screwdriver was not a normal part of the experimental protocol.

At 3:20 p.m., the screwdriver slipped and the upper beryllium hemisphere fell, causing a "prompt critical" reaction and a burst of hard radiation.[8] At the time, the scientists in the room observed the "blue glow" of air ionization and felt a "heat wave". In addition, Slotin experienced a sour taste in his mouth and an intense burning sensation in his left hand.[1] Slotin instinctively jerked his left hand upward, lifting the upper beryllium hemisphere and dropping it to the floor. He exposed himself to a lethal dose (around 2100 rems, or 21 Sv) of neutron and gamma radiation.[13] (Slotin's radiation dose was identical to the amount he would have received had he been 4800 feet (1463 m) away from the detonation of an atomic bomb.[14])

As soon as Slotin left the building, he vomited, a common reaction from exposure to extremely intense ionizing radiation.[1] Slotin's colleagues rushed him to the hospital, but irreversible damage had already been done. His parents were informed of their son's inevitable death and a number of volunteers donated blood for transfusions, but the efforts proved futile.[1] The accident ended all hands-on assembly work at Los Alamos. At first, the incident was classified and not made known even within the laboratory; Robert Oppenheimer and other colleagues later reported severe emotional distress at having to carry on with normal work and social activities while they secretly knew that their colleague lay dying.

Louis Slotin died nine days later on May 30,[15] in the presence of his parents.

It's with this in mind that I contemplate Bernake's domain of expertise and how it informs both his fiscal ideology and likely interventions.  Indeed, the current intervention's taken by the Fed neatly straddle what Bernake theorizes exacerbated and extended the Great Depression:

  • The Fed began raising the Fed Funds rate in the spring of 1928, and kept raising them through a recession that began in August 1929. This led to the stock market crash in October 1929.
  • When the stock market crashed, investors turned to the currency markets. At that time, dollars were backed by gold held by the U.S. Government. Speculators began selling dollars for gold in September 1931, which caused a run on the dollar.
  • The Fed raised interest rates again to try and preserve the value of the dollar. This further restricted the availability of money for businesses, causing more bankruptcies.
  • The Fed did not increase the supply of money to combat deflation.
  • As investors withdrew all their dollars from banks, the banks failed, causing more panic. The Fed ignored the banks' plight, thus destroying any remaining consumers’ confidence in banks. Most people withdrew their cash and put it under the mattress, which further decreased the money supply.
My interpretaion of the above, chronologically, is the the Federal Reserve attempted to manage inflation by raising the funds rate, to the detriment of the stock market (witness that each rate cut results in a 200-point jump in the Dow, with Wall Street constantly  clamoring for more).  With the stock market crashed, investors turned to currency and then commodities, with dollars being used to purchase gold (any analogy here with petrodollars?), setting of a dollar panic and a run on banks.  The Feds reaction was to raise rates to protect the dollar, causing a lending crisis (which the Fed seems to have currently remediated via their liquidity interventions).  The Fed also failed to print more money (make it a point to research why Bernake is called Helicopter Ben ), and as savers went to retrieve their funds from the banks, there was insufficient money to keep the economy moving, destroying consumers confidence in their meny and the banks.  The avoidance of the circumstances Bernake believes attributed to the Great Depression are central to his governing philosophy.
 
It is also with that the I call upon the dragon's tail metaphor - as more money is interjected into the financial system, via funds rate cuts, we experience greater infaltion, particularly as oil will continue to get more and more expensive.  But, if rates are not cut, the stock market will continue to gave lagging performance.  The most confounding circumstance is that the higher rate of inflation is dampening consumer confidence and causing them to pull back on their spending, which will cause pressure on companies on the stock market.  Where will Bernake's focus (and the Governments relief package) be in 2008 - on the US consumer of the stock market, and what are the possible outcomes?  Furthermore, how likely is it that politics will not be inserted into the fiscal debate, despite Bernake's assertions to the contrary?
Share This

Tags: Business · History · Election 2008 · Economics · Politics

Related Posts

Consumer Trendswatching

...

Supporting an Unpopular War? Starting another one?

...

The Long Tail: Are niches more profitable than hits?

...

The Long Tail: Mainstream Media Meltdown

...

The Tail That Wags the Blog

...

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image


Comments links could be nofollow free.

You are responsible for your own content and behavior. The site owner reserves the right to delete your comment, post your IP address, contact your network administrator, or generally make your life complicated if should you behave badly.