A recession is defined as a drop in economic activity that lasts at least two quarters and results in a decrease in a country’s gross domestic product (GDP).
Translation? A significant decline in consumer expenditure, resulting in job losses, personal income losses, and business profit losses. This is frequently the outcome of a financial shock, such as a bursting ‘bubble.’
When products, such as stocks or homes, become worth more than their true value, an economic bubble occurs. When the bubble collapses, these products’ prices plummet.
Because corporate profits plummet, this is frequently accompanied by a reduction in business investment. Because too many people are seeking too few jobs, the slowdown in company investment leads to more personal and business bankruptcies, as well as greater unemployment rates.
They are frequently the outcome of a financial shock. A shock can occur in a variety of ways.
The housing bubble was largely blamed for the recession of 2007-2009. Following a spike in house prices in the early part of the decade, home prices fell, and many of borrowers found themselves unable to repay their debts. Meanwhile, Wall Street was selling financial derivatives linked to the loans, which were later proven to be worthless.
We can see the’shocks’ of other recessions by looking at them. The ‘Online Bubble,’ in which internet stocks and businesses eventually plummeted to considerably lower prices, prompted the recession of 2001. This resulted in a significant drop in company investment and a rise in unemployment.
The 1973-1975 recession in the United States was triggered by skyrocketing petrol costs as a result of OPEC’s increased oil prices, as well as the suspension of oil exports to the United States. Other significant contributors included high government spending on the Vietnam War and the 1973-74 Wall Street stock market meltdown.
This was the worst recession in the United States since the Great Depression at the time. Most economists now feel that the Great Recession of 2007-2009 was more severe than the recession of 1973-1975.
According to analysts, there was even a recession during the Great Depression, which was the worst in the country’s history at the time.
Several factors contributed to the’recession’ of 1937 and 1938. The United States spent a lot of money to get out of the Great Depression. That was the New Deal, which began in 1933 and was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s effort to get the economy moving.
In 1937, however, as the economy appeared to be improving and Congress sought to balance the budget, the government cut spending and subsequently raised taxes. That was sufficient’shock’ to send the economy into a tailspin. Unemployment climbed once more, and business profits, as well as business investment, fell.
According to economists, the Great Depression lasted until 1941, when the United States entered World War II.
The 33rd president, Harry Truman, is noted with saying, “When your neighbor loses his job, you have a recession. When you lose yours, you get a depression.”
A depression, as opposed to a recession, is a far more severe slowdown in a country’s economic growth over a longer period of time, resulting in significantly more unemployment and lower consumer expenditure.
That’s why the late-twentieth-century Great Depression was dubbed “the Great Depression.” The economic hardship was protracted and agonizing. In reality, following World War II, the term “recession” came to be used to denote an economic slump that was not as severe as a depression. Previously, practically all economic downturns in the United States were referred to as depressions or panics.
The 1929 Wall Street crash, as well as bank failures in the early 1930s, were the primary causes of the Great Depression. The federal government did not insure depositors’ funds as it does now. The New Deal left us with this insurance.
Protectionist trade measures to assist boost American firms but raise product costs, as well as a catastrophic drought in the Midwest known as the Dust Bowl that left thousands of farmers out of work, all contributed to the Great Depression.
Yes. It has the potential to turn into a depression, implying that the economic downturn would worsen and last longer.
Although there hasn’t been an acknowledged case of such shift yet, the 1937-38 recession did contribute to the Great Depression’s extension.
It’s possible for a recession to ‘double dip.’ A W-shaped recession is a term used to describe this situation. This indicates that a recession can end for a while before resuming due to another economic shock.
Economists believe the 1980s had a double-dip recession. The first leg of the double dip began in January 1980 and continued through July of that year. The Federal Reserve hiked interest rates to prevent inflation after the economy began to grow for a spell and was thought to be out of recession.
From July 1981 to November 1982, the country experienced another recession as a result of this economic shock. It was now a double whammy.
In theory, a recession ends when economists declare it to be over, but people on the street may disagree.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, an impartial body of economists, is in responsibility of announcing the end of a recession in the United States.
A recession, on the other hand, usually ends when the economy begins to grow over a period of time, usually two or more business quarters. This means that firms are rehiring, consumers are spending, and businesses are investing.
That isn’t to say that everyone has re-gained employment or that businesses are investing more than they were before the recession. It simply means that a country’s total economy is expanding or growing more consistently.
What caused the 1970s recession?
In actuality, the 1970s were a period of growing prices and unemployment; the periods of slow economic growth could all be attributed to high oil prices’ cost-push inflation.
In 1973, what happened to the US economy?
In 1973, the GDP growth rate fell from 7.2 percent to -2.1 percent. The level of real GDP declined by 3.2 percent. In 1972, inflation ranged from 2.94 percent to 3.61 percent. The inflation rate was 3.61 percent in January 1973, but it rose substantially throughout the year, reaching 6.8 percent in the third quarter and a high of 8.71 percent in November.
What were the three reasons for the United States’ economic decline in the 1970s?
Overview. Due to rising worldwide competition, the cost of the Vietnam War, and the reduction of manufacturing jobs, the post-World War II economic boom began to wane in the early 1970s.
What caused high inflation in the United Kingdom in the 1970s?
- The mortgage market was deregulated by the Bank of England, which meant that High Street Banks may now lend mortgages (not just local building societies). This contributed to an increase in home values and consumer wealth.
- 1972 was the year of the Barber Boom. With huge tax cuts against a backdrop of rapid economic growth, chancellor Anthony Barber made a beeline for growth in the 1972 budget.
- Credit expansion. The first widespread use of credit cards occurred in the 1970s (Access). This aided in the formation of a consumption bubble.
In 1974, why was inflation so high?
This is how the tale goes: The Vietnam War cost President Lyndon B. Johnson a lot of money. The economy was saturated with money as a result of wartime spending, and prices began to rise. The entire economy lost faith in the assumption that prices would remain stable as a result of LBJ’s extravagant spending and the Federal Reserve’s willingness to tolerate it. Once everyone expected inflation, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy: workers demanded higher salaries because they expected prices to rise; businesses raised their prices because they expected wages to rise; and so on, in an ever-escalating “wage-price spiral.”
The inflation rate was nearing double digits, or possibly higher, towards the end of the 1970s, depending on the measure.
The Federal Reserve’s new, bold strategy brought the experience to a close. Now, here’s a quick rundown of how the Federal Reserve influences the economy: The Federal Reserve, in general, is in charge of determining how much money is flowing in the economy at any particular time. Inflation can occur when there is too much money; too little money can result in low inflation, but it can also cause firms and families to have difficulty borrowing money, bringing the economy to a halt.
The Fed chose to grind the economy to a halt in 1979 in order to control inflation. When Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Fed chair that year, he raised interest rates, effectively shutting off the Fed’s money supply and warning to markets that additional rate hikes would follow until the situation was resolved.
Inflation began to fall gradually, but two harsh recessions in the early 1980s pushed the jobless rate to its highest level since the Great Depression. The method worked because the Fed demonstrated its willingness to “shed blood, lots of blood, other people’s blood” to bring inflation under control, according to Reagan aide Michael Mussa.
Today, that story lingers over the economy. Inflation-watchers see the high-spending Biden administration and its extremely cooperative economic policy partner, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, as a replay of the 1970s inflation story.
Biden signed a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill less than two months after taking office, with the majority of the money going toward $1,400 payments to most Americans. Powell is accommodating this strategy by keeping interest rates around zero and buying Treasury bonds, effectively supporting the stimulus with printed money; moreover, during the debate over Biden’s bill, he urged Congress to pursue stimulus, dismissing fears that this would generate inflation.
Worries of a 1970s flashback appear to be justified, with inflation reaching 3.4 percent in May, the highest level in 30 years. But there’s reason to believe that the threat of a rerun is exaggerated. New economic study reveals that the picture of the Great Inflation of the 1970s told by orthodox economics may not be totally accurate.
Other policies and conditions that may have contributed to the tragedy of the 1970s are examined in this new account, which had traditionally been overlooked in historical narratives. This narrative focuses on specific difficulties that drove inflation in the 1970s that are no longer relevant now, such as an energy crisis and upheaval in global food markets.
To put it another way, this time could be different. Understanding this should assist policymakers steer policymakers away from pouring “other people’s blood” unnecessarily.
The standard story of the Great Inflation of the 1960s and ’70s
We can observe that prices began to climb more rapidly year over year during the mid-1960s, using the Fed’s favored measure of inflation.
They varied a little after a brief recession in 1970, but then soared to new heights in 1974-75 and again at the close of the decade. Inflation rose after Volcker’s inauguration in 1979, but quickly fell. It has never again exceeded 4% on an annual basis.
According to popular belief, the Great Inflation was the outcome of a series of policy decisions beginning with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s fiscal policies, particularly the Vietnam War.
While Johnson raised taxes to pay for some of his domestic initiatives, such as Medicare, he and Congress were hesitant to boost taxes to pay for the war. That meant the conflict or more especially, the money spent on the war was boosting the economy at a time when it was already booming, with no taxes to slow things down. The government was just injecting more money into a private economy that didn’t have much spare capacity, implying that the money would only be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
The traditional narrative, on the other hand, focuses solely on Vietnam as the primary reason. The underlying cause has to do with a trade-off known as the “Phillips curve” by economists (named after economist A.W. Phillips).
The Phillips curve is a plot of the unemployment rate against the inflation rate in its most basic form, and it is usually downward sloping: the greater the inflation rate, the lower the unemployment rate. From the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, here’s an example of a Phillips curve graph:
In essence, policymakers in the 1960s believed they could simply move left on the Phillips curve, to a point with higher inflation and lower unemployment, without any suffering, as Brad DeLong argues in his outstanding history of the Great Inflation.
They were, however, mistaken. According to the report, lowering unemployment too low threatens not only higher inflation (as the Phillips curve predicts), but also accelerating inflation, or inflation that continues to rise without halting.
This occurs as a result of expectations: once it is evident that the Federal Reserve is unconcerned about inflation and will do little to curb it, firms and consumers begin to anticipate and plan for it. Workers may demand more pay since they know that $1,000 now will be worth much more in a year or even a month. For the same reasons, businesses will hike prices.
These dynamics produce inflation in the form of increasing salaries and prices, which strengthens people’s expectations of future inflation, resulting in a poisonous loop.
According to economists Richard Clarida (now the Fed’s vice chair), Jordi Gal, and Mark Gertler, inflation was considered at risk of spiraling out of control under Fed policy at the time “because individuals (correctly) anticipate that the Federal Reserve will accommodate a rise in expected inflation.”
With Volcker’s appointment, the tale took a new direction. Volcker slashed interest rates drastically, ostensibly to show that the Fed was serious about suffocating inflation. It would do whatever it takes to enforce the law, including boosting interest rates to levels that caused two recessions in 1980 and 1981-82.
According to Clarida, Gal, and Gertler, Volcker and his successor Alan Greenspan’s policies eliminated the prospect of self-fulfilling inflationary cycles. “The Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates sufficiently to moderate any changes in projected inflation,” the Volcker policy stated.
The (assumed) trade-off between unemployment and inflation
Economists today dispute Johnson’s and his aides’ belief that you can just raise inflation without fear of triggering a spiral and receive lower unemployment as a result.
The NAIRU, a concept that has come to dominate Fed theory in recent decades, lies at the heart of their thinking. That’s the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, or the level of unemployment below which experts predict inflation similar to that of the 1960s and 1970s.
What is the mechanism behind this? The NAIRU is currently estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be 4.5 percent in the third quarter of 2021. The Fed should not let unemployment, which is currently at 5.9%, fall below 4.5 percent under NAIRU-driven policy, lest it tempt the inflation gods. And, like Volcker did, the way to achieve that is to raise interest rates.
One reason for concern among inflation watchers is that the Fed no longer has an NAIRU-driven policy references to NAIRU have been eliminated from the Fed’s statement of strategy under Powell.
Worriers like Blanchard and Summers are also concerned that Biden is doing what Johnson did with economic stimulus and other domestic spending instead of the Vietnam War; that he is juicing the economy so much that unemployment will quickly fall below the NAIRU, triggering an inflationary spiral that can only be stopped by a painful economic contraction down the road.
The mainstream story comes with two key caveats. One is that you may believe its basic assumption while still believing that the actual NAIRU is very, very low, lower than the CBO estimate of 4.5 percent and even lower than the 3% rate that supposedly caused difficulties in the 1970s. That is, the economy may continue to grow rapidly for a long time while lowering unemployment to historic lows without causing inflation difficulties.
Jn Steinsson, a UC Berkeley professor who, together with his co-author Emi Nakamura, has contributed to making macroeconomics considerably more empirically grounded, believes this is the case. He informed me that he is still convinced that inflation expectations and the credibility of the Federal Reserve are important. However, his study leads him to conclude that NAIRU could be extremely low, and that we could aspire for extremely low unemployment rates without fear of inflationary forces.
“The unemployment rate, if you just track it, it just keeps lowering,” Steinsson told me over the phone, “whether you look at the 1980s expansion, the 1990s expansion, or the 2010s expansion.” It just keeps falling and falling and falling, with no end in sight. Maybe it will at some time, but one point of view is that we’ve never gotten to the point of actual full employment.” Indeed, the US had unemployment at or below 4% for two years prior to Covid-19, with no inflationary issues.
Another caveat to the common scenario is that some economists believe the increase in aggregate demand that led to the Great Inflation in the 1960s and 1970s was partly due to an obscure rule known as Regulation Q, which capped interest rates on checking and savings accounts, rather than Vietnam.
For the first time in 1965, Q’s cap (then 4%) went below the Federal Reserve’s interest rate. This meant that everyone having money in a checking or savings account was earning less than the market rate – they were losing money.
This, according to economists Itamar Drechsler, Alexi Savov, and Philipp Schnabl, resulted in a significant outflow of deposits from the banking sector. This increased aggregate demand by encouraging consumers to spend rather than conserve their money while also contracting the economy since banks had less money to lend out to firms as a result of fewer deposits. With the introduction of Money Market Certificates and Small Saver Certificates, which offered market-rate interest with no caps in 1978 and 1979, Regulation Q was effectively repealed, and the Great Inflation began to fade shortly after.
There are reasons to doubt this story (for example, the Great Inflation happened in a bunch of other countries that didn’t have Regulation Q), but it matches the timing of the rise and fall in inflation eerily well, suggesting that a repeat of that exact situation is unlikely Joe Biden isn’t proposing bringing Regulation Q back.
What if inflation is not about the price of everything, but the prices of a few specific things?
However, there is another big flaw in the popular tale of inflation in the 1970s: it ignores certain extremely significant geopolitical events at the time. When these factors are considered, current fears of a return to 1970s-style inflation begin to fade.
The 1973 oil embargo, which saw Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies stop oil deliveries to the United States and some of its allies in retribution for supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War, is a minor footnote in the inflation expectations saga. Some, like former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke in his previous academic work with Gertler and Mark Watson, contend that the embargo was largely irrelevant because of the Fed’s reaction, which was to hike interest rates considerably (though not as much as Volcker would later on).
However, that argument appears to be unrealistically dismissive of the consequences of a simple fact: petrol prices nearly doubled between October 1973 and January 1974.
While the oil shock was the most well-known of the period’s supply shocks, it was far from the only one. Prices for commodities of all kinds soared in the 1970s, from oil to minerals to agricultural products like grain. And, in many cases, these booms were obviously linked to supply-side difficulties, rather than price inflation induced by consumers with too much money. The price of grain, for example, soared in part as a result of a major drought in the Soviet Union in 1972, which drastically limited the country’s food production, prompted it to buy the United States’ entire wheat reserves, and pushed up global food prices.
Skanda Amarnath, executive director of the macroeconomic policy organization Employ America, explains that during the 1960s and 1970s, the baby boom in the United States and Europe, as well as the resulting higher population, increased demand for these commodities and goods, and supply struggled to keep up in the absence of more capacity expansion investment.
“A fast speed of investment in everything from houses to oil wells was the response to these demographic-induced shortages,” Amarnath told me. “It takes years of exploration and development in the oil industry to convert initial investment into increased production capability.” That investment would eventually pay off and aid in the alleviation of shortages, but while those shortages raged, the effect may be inflation.
The introduction and removal of President Richard Nixon’s wage and price regulations were another supply-side impact. Nixon terminated the dollar’s convertibility to gold in 1971, removing a crucial component of the system that had been stabilizing exchange rates between the United States and the rest of the world since World War II. Nixon established obligatory wage and price limitations from 1971 to 1974 in an attempt to reduce the aftershocks. Prices were momentarily restrained by the limits until they were lifted, contributing to the inflationary spiral that began in 1974.
Since at least 1979, economist Alan Blinder has argued for a supply-centered explanation, and he and colleague Jeremy Rudd characterized the “supply-side” position succinctly in a 2013 paper.
They point out that the Great Inflation was actually two: one between 1972 and 1974, which “can be attributed to three major supply shocksrising food prices, rising energy prices, and the end of the Nixon wage-price controls program,” and another between 1978 and 1980, which reflected food supply constraints, rising energy prices, and rising mortgage rates. Mortgage interest payments were included in the most widely used inflation measure until 1983, which meant that when the Fed responded to inflation by raising interest rates which in turn led mortgage rates to rise this policy change boosted measured inflation on its own.
The policy implications of a supply-side account for 1970s inflation are vastly different from the “Volcker shock” of high interest rates intended to shrink the economy. Instead of lowering demand and expenditure to meet the period’s lower supply, economists like then-American Economic Association president and future Nobel Laureate Lawrence Klein advocated in 1978 that the government should actively try to raise the supply of certain rare products. This could have taken the form of efforts to increase crop yields or support domestic oil production in the United States.
We’ll never know if it succeeded, but it’s a compelling and in my opinion persuasive alternative to the story we’ve been taught for decades.
What this revised story of the Great Inflation means for policy in 2021
This alternate tale suggests that Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell should not contemplate slowing the economy as a blunt tool to keep prices down in 2021. Instead, the federal government should intervene in specific regions to prevent certain sorts of fast growing costs from becoming even more so.
As my colleagues Emily Stewart and Rani Molla have pointed out, the most significant price rises affecting consumers are in the food and beverage sector “In recent months, new and used cars, as well as air travel, have contributed to “core” non-gas or food inflation. According to the Biden Council of Economic Advisers, vehicle prices alone accounted for at least 60% of inflation in June, with a large portion of the rest coming from services like air travel rising in price as everyone rushes back to travel following the pandemic.
A semiconductor shortage accounts for a large portion of the growth in automobile prices, meaning that improving semiconductor supply, particularly increasing production in the United States, might be a better method to combat inflation than raising interest rates. The kind of intervention anticipated by this approach is Biden’s recent efforts to get Taiwan to increase manufacturing for US automakers.
Powell recently testified to Congress that the Fed is thinking along these lines “Supply restrictions have slowed activity in some areas, most notably in the automotive industry, where a global scarcity of semiconductors has drastically reduced production this year.” The same has been said by Lael Brainard, a powerful member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
“If you believe this supply-side story is credible, that changes the way you want to think about things,” Steinsson explained. “Someone is going to build a new semiconductor factory at some point, so there’s no reason to use the blunt tool of hiking loan rates across the board.”
Yes, inflation is growing, there is a lot of uncertainty, and the 1970s are looming large. Given how much economic misery was inflicted on millions of people in the struggle against inflation decades ago, it’s reassuring that today’s leaders are more inclined to consider the path that their forefathers did not.
In 1973, what economic event occurred?
Between January 1973 and December 1974, the stock market experienced a bear market due to the 19731974 stock market meltdown. It was one of the biggest stock market downturns since the Great Depression, affecting all major stock markets throughout the world, particularly the United Kingdom, and was followed by the financial crisis of 20072008. The catastrophe occurred two years after the Bretton Woods system had collapsed, resulting in the ‘Nixon Shock’ and devaluation of the US currency under the Smithsonian Agreement. It was exacerbated by the 1973 oil crisis, which began in October of that year. It was an important occurrence during the recession of the 1970s.
Key Points
- Volcker is credited with bringing the United States’ high inflation levels of the 1970s and early 1980s to an end while serving as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
- Inflation was high when he became chairman in 1979, peaking at 13.5 percent in 1981. The inflation rate fell to 3.2 percent by 1983, thanks to Volcker and the rest of the board’s efforts.
- In June of 1981, Volcker increased the federal funds rate from 11.2 percent to 20%. During this time, the jobless rate surpassed 10% for the first time.
- During the economic upturn, Volcker elected to implement a policy of preemptive restraint, which raised real interest rates.
- Volcker’s Federal Reserve board garnered some of the biggest political criticisms and protests in the Federal Reserve’s history, despite his level of accomplishment. The demonstrations erupted as a result of the high interest rates’ harmful impact on the building and farming businesses.
Key Terms
- Stagflation is defined as inflation that is accompanied by slow growth, unemployment, or a recession.
- Inflation is defined as a rise in the overall level of prices or the cost of living.
Which of these phrases was first used during the economic crisis of the 1970s?
Stagflation, sometimes known as recession-inflation, is a condition in which inflation is high, economic growth slows, and unemployment is consistently high. It creates a conundrum for policymakers, because efforts aimed at lowering inflation may aggravate unemployment.
Iain Macleod, a British Conservative Party politician who became Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1970, is often credited with coining the word, which is a combination of stagnation and inflation. During an era of rising inflation and unemployment in the United Kingdom, Macleod used the term in a 1965 speech to Parliament. He warned the House of Commons about the seriousness of the situation, saying: “We now have the worst of both worldsnot just inflation on one hand, but also stagnation on the other. We’ve reached a point of’stagflation.’ And, in modern terms, history is being written.”
On 7 July 1970, Macleod used the term again, and the media began to use it as well, such as in The Economist on 15 August 1970 and Newsweek on 19 March 1973. Although John Maynard Keynes did not coin the phrase, some of his writings refer to the stagflationary conditions that most people are familiar with. Between the end of WWII and the late 1970s, the prevailing version of Keynesian macroeconomic theory held that inflation and recession were mutually exclusive, with the Phillips curve describing the link between the two. Stagflation is exceedingly expensive and difficult to stop once it begins, both in terms of social costs and budget deficits.
What economic factors or issues caused the 1970s economy to stagnate?
Inflation and unemployment had long been considered polar forces by economists. High inflation meant a lot of spending, which meant a lot of employment would be generated. As a result of the jobless Americans having less money to spend, prices would either stay the same or fall. Surprisingly, in the 1970s, the United States had both high unemployment and high inflation, a condition known as stagflation. Experts and ordinary people disputed the origins of the problem, with opposing viewpoints.
The price of oil was one possibility. Arab oil producers retaliated against Israel’s allies after Israel beat its Arab neighbors in the Yom Kippur War of 1973.