The great depression
Oral histories as living histories outline
Introduction
The introduction outlines how oral histories can be used as a source to explain the happening of recent past events that were experienced by the narrator. It brings out both the positive and the negative aspects of narrated history from different narrators who experienced the event. It discusses the main topic to be expounded, which is the occurrence and the factors surrounding the great depression that happened in the 1930s. It also touches on the effects it caused to the global economies and how intense the same was to the American Natives and African Americans.
Body
The body brings out the different narratives as narrated by two scholars, John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich August Hayek. The narrators explain how the great depression came into existence and the major causes that brought its occurrence in 1929. They explain how the market crash brought about by shares sales deprecation to a low of 12%, something that has never happened before in the United States. They also feature in the overproduction of industries, which led to wastage since the citizens could not consume the products due to lack of money at the time. The weakening of banking systems was also a factor that attributed to depression. This is because the farmers, due to the low cost of farm produce, could not save anything with the banks and instead withdrew the little monies they had saved therein.
The two scholars also give out various theories that they believe could have remedied the great depression and, of which, if had been used by President Herbert, could have restored the United States Economy. However, there are conflicting factors that arise from their theories.
Conclusion
Oral history, although treated as first-hand information, is dependent on the mind of the narrator. The narrator is also bound to narrate the past event to fit his/her experiences rather than what happened.The great depression forms a notable crisis that affected the whole world; thus, the usage of some theories by the two scholars could not have helped much. However, the scholars give us an in-depth understanding of the whole occurrence, which, when related to the written sources regarding the same, paints a very vivid picture of what happened.
History, although considered to involve past events, can also be attributed to events that have happened in the recent past. Nevertheless, though the same forms the basic rots of a given society, it can be manipulated to hide some truths or even to portray some vices or events that happened in the given society. Diversity of sources history is collected from forms the primary root of the narrative and can vary from one source to another. Oral histories, for instance, differ from one person to another due to their perspectives. This is determined by the interaction between the narrator and the person conducting the interview. The interview I do with two scholars, for instance, brings out the different oral narrator’s views of how the great depression that occurred in the 1930s could have been handled to sustain an economic balance. It brings out the diverse oral histories on the effects brought out by the great depression, and how it affected both the American natives and the African-Americans.
However, the narrators bring out contradicting narratives on how the great depression affected the economy during this period. This leaves the historical analysts in a dilemma on what transpired, what was realistic, and what was not. The reliance of this type of source to understand past events is, however, considered, although it can’t be compared with written history, as in most cases it recorded information cannot be easily altered. In the interview, the scholars explain the debate they once had and of their two conflicting views that involved how the great depression could be handled to maintain a stable economy. The great depression can be traced back to the 1930s, where the United States experienced the worst economic cascade in its history. Although President Herbert Hoover tried his best to rejuvenate the falling of the economy that had started in 1929, the economic crash was overwhelming. By 1933, the rate of unemployment was at 25%, and lending institutions had gone into liquidation, disappearing with the low-income earner’s savings. My interview features two scholars, John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich August Hayek, who are economists, and had a controversial debate on what brought in a global financial crisis. They both are to give opinions on what caused the economic crises and various ways that they thought were best on resolving the same.
Fredrick starts by explaining how the great depression came to be and the root causes of the same. He pinpoints the stock market crash, which formed the baseline. The shares of the United States steel that sold at $262 would eventually go to a low of $22 by the year 1932. There was also the factor of weak banking systems that was attributed to low farm-produce prices that were already looming. The overproduction of the industries still made the economy drown since the consumers were not there due to the prevalent unstable economy.
Friedrich believed that to recover from the economic crash, it did not only call for disciplined and adequate spending but also called for the going back to the high production sustainability era to rejuvenate the remaining stock and also to copy the methods that were applied at the time. However, certain critics criticized his theory by dint that his only aim was to the liquidation of labor, stock, farmers, and other contributors to the growth of the economy. Hayek’s theory revolved around avoiding the global financial, economic crisis, which was the avoiding of any vague unsustainable financial boom at all costs, which would, in return, leave a financial depression which would be hard for the government to recover. John Maynard Keynes on the other hand through his general theory was of the opinion that the boom was just an elusive idea that Hayek had. Keynes, in his theory, explained that considerable financial deficits would be recovered by raising taxes and reducing spending, had this to say; the level of activity i.e., output and employment, depended on the level of spending power or demand. This would also be termed as “under-employment equilibrium.” Maynard affirms that, no racial problems whatsoever were encountered between the African-Americans and the American Natives. However, 1930, Khan Academy, in an article, “The Great Depression,” featured that both whites and blacks in the south endured crushing poverty.
Nevertheless, African Americans were the most affected as pervasive racism also was used in the laying off of workers. Hayek believed that if a country’s economic growth was shrinking, it was to be allowed to do so until it gets to a level of self-sufficiency or stability, but not cutting off government spending to show that the country was growing. He concluded that a government should control a business cycle and, thus, the economy and not the other way round (BBC economic giants, 2010).
Fear The Boom And Bust: Keynes vs. Hayek’s Video
The two scholars had gone ahead to create a video trying to bring out the opposing philosophical opinions they had regarding the great depression. Keynes wanted to steer the markets by saving to invest (capital structure). He blamed the people for failing to save, which in turn, brought forth the great depression of 1929 and caused the crisis therein. He explains how it affected the global financial standing, which was hard to recover from and gave a remedy, which was the boosting of aggregate demand. Hayek wanted the markets to be spending their money freely, though he blamed the crisis on the low-interest rates. He also wanted the government to spend to facilitate growth and also advocated in having huge deficits, thus liquidation of money rather than it being stuck in banks (Keynes vs. Hayek’s video, 2010). I think the video does not satisfactorily bring out the theories propagated by the two philosophers since it only brings out the aspect of the capital structure (saving to invest) by Keynes and spending freely of government money to allow liquidation by Hayek. The United States are great advocates of the free-spending of government resources to facilitate the rapid growth of the states. Thus they appreciate Keynes’s theory, which even led his book to be the best selling around 1944(Adam smith institute, 2012).
Although the two scholars try to bring out their perspectives regarding the great depression, their different narrations and views raise questions. Keynes’s theory, for instance, brings out the aspect of saving money first to spend later. However, during the great depression period, which runs from 1929 to the late 1930s, it could not have been easy to have saved enough to suffice the entire period since no American had predestined its occurrence. The crashing of the global economy was nothing that an individual could have handled since even most countries stopped trading with the United States as a country. This led to president Herbert’s efforts to restore the same futile. This henceforth leaves us grappling with the fact that Keynes’s theory could not have been applied basing it from that angle. I henceforth would not have advocated on the saving first to invest later even though it might have been considered as an aspect of bringing rapid growth in the face of it, and thus a stable foundation. Hayek’s theory also had its issues as it was not easy for the governments to spend as it had also to maintain its economy from fully crashing, notwithstanding the great depression. Countries had withdrawn their trade relations with the United States and other countries generally, which not only created the global crisis but also made the countries isolate from each other. Henceforth even if the government was ready to spend freely, it was bound by that factor and also the fact that its share capital had drastically deteriorated. Other countries that the United States could trade with, were also grappling with their unstable economies, thus were not in apposition to trade with it. This is since not all governments are on the same financial standing, taking into consideration the aspect that some are developed, developing, and underdeveloped.
Finally, the great depression, as seen from the context, was not just a mere crisis that could have been solved by the theories, as explained by the two scholars. The fact that the effect had grown from a global perspective, that eve the governing president at the time could not handle it shows that it needed more than theories to curb it. The two scholars only can evaluate the great depression from the face of it, and although they try to bring out some aspects that caused it, it still leaves us in a hiatus in regards to some prevalent issues. They only explain what should have been done from their point of understanding and give diverse opinions on what should have been done to stop the crisis. However, they do not enlighten us on how the crisis was extinguished at the end of the 1930s. They also leave us unaware of what can be done in case the economy can be shaken again by other factors like pandemics.
Nevertheless, although it’s advisable to seek living historical experiences from oral narrators, it is also advisable to rely on recorded sources. This allows having valid information that can also be relied upon in resolving current occurrences. That, for instance, could have helped us in addressing the effects of the present pandemic that have dented all the economies worldwide, which are only recording losses.