How to Eliminate Society's “Big Problems”

Have you ever noticed that all the “big problems” that society faces are multi-billion dollar problems and not multi-million dollar problems? Apparently, multi-million dollar problems do not qualify as “big problems” in society. This makes sense because the difference between multi-billion dollar and multi-million dollar problems is significant.

This leads to a second observation. Have you ever noticed that all multi-billion dollar problems are associated with multi-billion dollar organizations? Apparently, multi-million dollar organizations do not create multi-billion dollar problems. Again, this makes sense because multi-million dollar organizations do not have the capacity to take multi-billion dollar risks.

Third, if all the “big problems” facing society are multi-billion dollar problems and all multi-billion dollar problems are associated with multi-billion dollar organizations, then might society eliminate all its “big problems” by getting rid of its multi-billion dollar organizations? Again, this seems to make sense because once all the multi-billion dollar organizations go away, only multi-million dollar organizations would remain, and multi-million dollar organizations do not have the capacity to take multi-billion dollar risks, thus eliminating the “big problems” at their source.

In summary, all “big problems” are evidently multi-billion dollar problems, and all multi-billion dollar problems are associated with multi-billion dollar organizations. Therefore, by eliminating all multi-billion dollar organizations, society could eliminate all its multi-billion dollar problems, resulting in no more “big problems.”

This stuff is easy once you put your mind to it…

Related Posts:

The "Big Problem"

Too Big...

Too Big to Fail, or Just Too Big?

The Pointless Impasse Between Big Government Democrats and Military-Industrial Republicans

The pointless battle and impasse between big government Democrats and military-industrial Republicans is constructive for Federalism, but destructive for society. Never before have the interests of Federalism and society been so far apart. Herein lies the dilemma for the future -- how to reform Federalism into a system that maintains capitalism while serving society’s needs.

In my view, neither the big government Democrats or military-industrial Republicans have a complete policy platform and approach to meeting those dualist needs. Only the minimum government and maximum liberty Libertarians have solutions that meet the future needs of both capitalism and society. Either the US turns to Libertarianism, or the USA may not make it through the 21st century. I’m sorry I do not have better news or advice for the nation.

Related Posts

The Way of Ignorance

Society's knowledge of the world and universe continues to advance exponentially. Nevertheless, we the people are at greater risk today than perhaps at any other time in our existence. The reason that society is at such risk is our inability, or perhaps our unwillingness, to harness new knowledge exclusively for the betterment of humanity. The following quote by Wendell Berry sums up society's knowledge problems perfectly:

Ignorance, arrogance, narrowness of mind, incomplete konwledge, and counterfeit knowledge are of concern to us because they are dangerous, they cause destruction. When united with great power, they cause great destruction. They have caused far too much destruction already, too often of irreplaceable things. Now, reasonably enough, we are asking if it is possible, if it is even thinkable, that the destruction can be stopped. To some people's surprise, we are again backed up against the fact that knowledge is not in any simple way good. We have often been a destructive species, we are more destructive now than we have ever been, and this, in perfect accordance with ancient warnings, is because of our ignorant and arrogant use of knowledge. (Berry, 2005, p. 59)

I sometimes wonder about just how far astray our society's ignorant ways might lead us...

Source: Berry, W (2005), The Way of Ignorance and Other Essays, Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint.

Romney's Guiding Principles Tough Sell

According to Prof Robert B Reich (2012, November 3):

Romneyism has an internal coherence. It is different from conservatism, because it does not intend to conserve or protect any particular institutions or values. It is also distinct from Republicanism, in that it is not rooted in traditional small-town American values, nationalism, or states’ rights.

Prof Reich goes on to detail the ten guiding principles of "Romneyism" as:

1. Corporations are the basic units of society. Corporations are people, and the overriding purpose of an economy is to maximize corporate profits. When profits are maximized, the economy grows fastest. This growth benefits everyone in the form greater output, better products and services, and higher share prices.

2. Workers are a means to the goal of maximizing corporate profits. If workers do not contribute to that goal, they should be fired. If they cannot then find other work that helps maximize profits in another company, their wages must be too high, and they must therefore accept steadily lower wages until they find a job.

3. All factors of production – capital, physical plant and equipment, workers – are fungible and should be treated the same. Any that fail to deliver high competitive returns should be replaced or discarded. This keeps an economy efficient. Fairness is and should be irrelevant.

4. Pollution, unsafe products, unsafe working conditions, financial fraud, and other negative side effects of the pursuit of profits are the price society pays for profit-driven growth. They should not be used as excuses to constrain the pursuit of profits through regulation.

5. Individual worth depends on net worth — how much money one has made, and the value of the assets that money has been invested in. Any person with enough intelligence and ambition can make a fortune. Failure to do so is sign of moral and intellectual inferiority.

6. People who fail in the economy should not be coddled. They should not receive food stamps, Medicaid, or any other form of social subsidy. Coddling leads to a weaker society and a weaker economy.

7. Taxes are inherently bad because they constrain profit-making. It is the right and responsibility of individuals and corporations to exploit every tax loophole they (and their tax attorneys) can find in order to pay the lowest taxes possible.

8. Politics is a game whose only purpose is to win. Any means used to win the game is legitimate even if it involves lying and cheating, as long as it gains more supporters than it loses.

9. Democracy is dangerous because it is forever vulnerable to the votes of a majority intent on capturing the wealth of the successful minority, on whom the economy depends. The rich must therefore do whatever is necessary to prevent the majority from exercising its will, including spending large sums of money on lobbyists and political campaigns. The most virtuous among the rich will go a step further and run for president.

10. The three most important aspects of life are family, religion, and money. Patriotism is a matter of guarding our economy from unfair traders and undocumented immigrants, rather than joining together for the common good. We owe nothing to one another as citizens of the same society.

Mr Romney's principles, regardless of coherence, are a tough sell for many Americans...

Source: Reich, Robert B (2012, November 3), Romneyism, Robert Reich.

Related Posts

Challenging Commoditization and Monopolization

I recently responded to an article by Max J Pucher entitled, “The End of Capitalism," and I wanted to share that response here in order to introduce my views about how economic reform must subordinate to political reform in order to resolve our society’s economic woes:

I have to agree that “capitalism” is not what I see operating the new economy. In fact, governments long ago rallied in support of two opposing themes that are rank with proximity to the economic crisis. These two contradictory themes are monopolization and commoditization. Everyone knows what a monopoly is, and it is evident that enterprise-scale monopolies such as government and healthcare are thriving in the new economy. The second theme of the new economy has been the rampage of commoditization through major industries, whereby goods and services become undifferentiated resulting in loss of pricing flexibility. Lower prices is good news for consumers, but often results in lower wages for workers. Two industries that have been ravaged by commoditization are financial services and automobile production. That these industries would become the leading scapegoats of the expanding economic crisis is of little surprise.

The global economic system has become a corrupt choice of supporting either “big government” or “big business,” making the real losers the people and society. This polarization of the political economy is untenable. Society’s only hope is that the electorate reframe the debate from “economic” to “political” reform, whereby we the people accept that elitism (which advocates extreme commoditization of industries) and populism (with its relentless and expanding commitment to government sponsored monopolies, including national security and healthcare) should now yield to pluralism, and devote instead the energies and resources of government toward the broader needs of a more active and relevant citizenry, albeit at the expense of “enterprise” scale designs. Indeed, it may be time to relook the notions of republicanism and federalism as the political systems upon which to ground capitalist society. We, the people, have much work ahead of us in order to reinvent our world into pluralism in our time. Let’s hope it’s not too late.

On Being a Man in Post-Modern Society

While I appreciate and acknowledge that posting the chart below may be politically incorrect, the economist in me feels duty-bound to make the post regardless.

In many ways, the story of the past 62 years has been about the realities of being a man in our emerging post-modern society...

Related Posts:

On Being a Woman in Post-Modern Society

On Teachers' Unions (and Public Education)

I recently posted a comment to an article entitled, Debate: Are Teachers’ Unions the Problem—or the Answer? (Adler, 2010, March 19, Newsweek Online) and I wanted share the post with readers of The Vantage Point with my invitation to join the debate:

The teachers’ unions are not really the problem (or solution) in my view. The problem is that the format of secondary education has not changed for one hundred years. At some point during the 21st century (and the sooner the better), society will need to consider the economic efficiencies afforded by alternative education. For example, society will soon witness the arrival of “3rd-grade-in-a-box” education technology that will far surpass the teaching effectiveness of traditional “bricks and mortar” schools. Imagine if every child in America could be mailed an education program developed by subject matter experts that effectively replaced sending one’s children to the school bus (which costs money), then on to their homerooms (we have already wasted an hour of each student’s time just getting to school), then on to several sessions of classes taking place in a school building throughout the day (including the costs of the building, maintenance, heating, air conditioning, security, insurance, and so forth), then back to their school buses (more student time and public money out the window), and finally to return home. At some point, this model for public education will be rejected by progressive families who will elect the “3rd-grade-in-a-box” alternative and keep their children home except to socialize and play sports with children in their neighborhood. The cost savings of moving public education from “bricks and mortar” to “boxed delivery” formats could be tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars over time. If teachers’ unions are against moving education forward with the emerging technology, then yes, they are part of the problem. However, the existence of teachers’ unions is not really the issue in my mind. Society needs to seek economic efficiencies from all public services, and secondary education is ripe for technological reform in the near future. Thank you for the opportunity to comment...

Source: Adler, J (2010, March 19), Debate: Are Teachers’ Unions the Problem—or the Answer? Newsweek Online.

On Management "Style"

The matter of "baby-boomers" remaining in control of their destiny has significant implications for management, particularly since society has yet to send the "Bob Hope" generation packing. For example, the US Congress is still dominated by members born prior to World War II. For this reason, there may actually be a generation "skipping" tendency in favor of younger leaders from diverse backgrounds -- witness Barack Obama's rise to power. My sensing is that there is a large segment of our society that views "change" as the replacement of anyone born prior to 1955 with much younger leaders. The impact of these views on management selection could be significant in the coming years. The second issue confronting management is the continuing demise of elitism, the entrenchment of populism, and the rise of pluralism. The net result could be a generation of leaders who insist on securing more than a simple majority in support of their decisions, but rather require a plurality of support closer to two-thirds majority. Imagine if the US President vetoed legislation because it did not come with two-thirds support of Congress. If the same approach took hold in corporations, it would require boards to listen carefully to all of their stakeholders in depth. In summary, I believe that generational issues coupled with society's move toward pluralist thinking will require mangement to change its "style" of decision-making in the coming years -- probably for the best.

Higher Education, Experience, and Skills

One of the questions I regularly pose to my economics students is whether a college education is a contributor to productivity. Intriguingly, what I get in response often parallels the views of Greg Ip of the Wall Street Journal (2008, “The Declining Value Of Your College Degree”), who argues “college-educated workers are more plentiful, more commoditized and more subject to the downsizings that used to be the purview of blue-collar workers only. What employers want from workers nowadays is more narrow, more abstract and less easily learned in college.” In essence, the value of a college degree is said to be “not what it was.”

Nonetheless, a college education remains an important predictor of productivity (and earnings) in the marketplace. Even Ip concedes that “the average American with a college diploma still earns about 75% more than a worker with a high-school diploma and is less likely to be unemployed.” Given these facts, how can it be that students are so vexed by the value proposition of their education?

I have previously written about our new economy, the need for good people in our society, as well as the importance of polyvalence in the workplace. I argue here that there exists today a crying need for people with versatile skills sets in what is a transforming global economy and that the university offers the best opportunity to acquire the knowledge required to succeed in this environment.

This leads to the next contention I often hear from students, that “experience counts more than education?” My response to this view is, “not really,” because what is paramount is neither experience nor education, but skills, and if one is complacent in acquiring new skills experientially, embedded knowledge eventually becomes obsolete. The good news is that experience often translates into new more refined skills. The bad news is that breadth and depth of knowledge are not assured through experiential learning. Hence, attention is required to ensure one’s career track includes a multiplicity of experiences in organization and management across a diversity of functions, and eventually industries. In my view, the university offers the most efficient place to acquire breadth and depth of knowledge, as opposed to the workplace, where resources and opportunities for the same are typically limited. Experience that does not result in additional skills has little value in the workplace.

Finally, there is the matter of college graduates who are anomalously incompetent. This happens, and when it does, these people are released for cause. Those who finish a college degree program while somehow avoiding skill acquisition, do so at their peril. Acquiring new skills is the responsibility of all workers who wish to enhance or expand their careers, but especially college graduates. To attend a college or university and not acquire new knowledge along the way is a bewildering and perplexing outcome that defies good judgment.

Concluding, a college education is the most reliable track to improving skills, productivity, and earnings. And while experience can certainly result in new skills, the typical worker will find acquiring the breadth and depth of knowledge necessary to enhance or expand a career through experience alone, challenging. A college degree is still the most profound symbol of embedded knowledge available in our society today.

The Normality of Surprises

Rationalizing away the possibility of extreme events (or surprises) under conditions of probabilistic normality is an interesting behavioral economics phenomenon in society. Such behavior is signaled by attributions of “uncertainty,” “anomalies,” “shocks,” or some other lofty but equally pretentious notion of time-space deception. The truth is that denying the possibility of extreme outcomes defies the logic of normality, as such outcomes are certainly possible (or even imminent) under normal conditions.

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) discovered the specific characteristics of what we now know as normality. The conceptual framework for describing normality is the normal frequency distribution, or “bell curve,” also known as a “Gaussian” distribution. Normality is a common assumption of many of nature’s phenomena, and a central concept in probability theory.

Extreme values in the universe (or population) of outcomes occur naturally and more frequently than many presume. Under conditions of normality, 1 in 22 observations will deviate by twice the standard deviation (which is the square root of the variance) from the mean, 1 in 370 will deviate by three times the standard deviation, and up to 5 in 1,000 observations will deviate from the mean by three or more times the standard deviation. Note especially that extreme outcomes can fall well beyond the mean (to infinity).

We as analysts have a duty to educate decision-makers about how to use probability theory to advance the cause of modern finance in society. That includes emphasizing the counter-intuitive possibilities of extreme events in the economy. To assume away the normality of such surprises would be naïve.

The Ascent of Money

From Main Street to Wall Street, the ongoing financial crisis has changed the very nature of society and enterprise. The PBS production, The Ascent of Money with Niall Ferguson, can now be viewed online. The four-hour documentary seeks to trace the evolution of money and its impact on society throughout history. I commend the film to my readers.

The Ascent of Money on PBS

Mathematics, Problem-Solving, and Critical Thinking

The following is extracted from a speech presented by Grace Fu to winners of the Singapore Mathematical Society's Annual Prize Presentation Ceremony in 2008:

Mathematics will imbue you with problem-solving skills such as the ability to understand a problem, identify the relevant information, look for relationships and patterns, make your own conjectures and apply mathematical knowledge and tools to solve or prove them. Mathematics, thus, provides good opportunities for the training of the mind to think critically and adapt to new situations, something that will be valuable to your future careers.

The words above are instructive for anyone seeking to join the ranks of analytics professionals worldwide. The ability to solve complex problems through critical thinking and reasoning is essential in today's analytics-based economy. Singapore is recognized around the world as a leader in the conceptual mathematics movement.

Grace Fu Hai Yien (Chinese: 傅海燕; pinyin: Fù Hǎiyiàn)

Source: Fu, G (2008), Speech at the Singapore Mathematical Society Annual Prize Presentation Ceremony.

Related Posts:

Pascal on Analysis

Conceptual Mathematics in Singapore

The Future of Enterprise

The political changes that are sweeping our nation are also affecting the future of enterprise. And while the “old guard” of society seems to be desperately seeking evidence of a return to common ideals and shared experiences, what is instead emerging are demands for change that seem to be grounded in a diffusion of concepts and cultures, but which appear nonetheless to be adaptively converging into a tidal wave that is enveloping enterprise and governments alike. The integrating vectors of this new wave of constituent thinking are calling on the future of enterprise to be inclusive, transparent, and inventive:

Be inclusive. Pluralism requires that every stakeholder be a supportive party to the solution. The days of elitism (where a few decide what is best for everyone) and populism (where a simple and often slim majority imposes its will on the remainder) are waning in favor of a new yearning for super-majorities of hyperactive constituents.

Be transparent. Stakeholder confidence in enterprise management regimes can only “reset” if the financial state of the firm is reported in real-time, and the underlying assumptions of financial projections are fully disclosed. Indeed, all future paths for enterprise management (including governance) should be paved in disclosure.

Be inventive. Effective enterprise will require new concepts and technologies that transcend monopolization and commoditization in order to achieve more authentic and genuine forms of competitive advantage that respect the community, environment, and security challenges of our time. Moreover, while past solutions have most often focused on ways to mitigate risk, the time has arrived for inventive thinking that actually reduces the risks our society fears most, both natural and manmade.

As a businessperson, I have begun looking for new projects that are “real,” by which I mean projects that require inclusive teamwork, non-proprietary transparency, and an inventive spirit that seeks to address business problems in ways never before considered. The future of enterprise is upon us – and it is real.

Enterprise Risk Management is a Farce

In the wake of the still expanding ecological crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, management experts are beginning to ask critical questions about the nature and effectiveness of enterprise risk management. Sam Friedman of National Underwriter Property and Casualty reaches this conclusion:

The BP oil spill disaster exposed serious shortcomings in both technology and regulation, but the biggest culprit is a catastrophic failure of enterprise risk management.

Most Americans presume that a multi-billion dollar energy firm of BP’s stature has the resources, technology, and skills to recover oil in a manner that is both profitable and safe for society. However, the extent of the ongoing catastrophe defies this presumption. According to Friedman:

It's hard to imagine a scenario any worse than this. An offshore oil rig explodes, killing 11 workers. The rig collapses. Oil keeps gushing from a deep-sea well, threatening the Gulf Coast, Florida Keys and perhaps even the Eastern Seaboard.

Of course, even multi-billion dollar global corporations can make mistakes, and so society takes great comfort in knowing that the Federal government is diligently regulating and inspecting high-risk industries in order to protect its citizens from the deleterious effects of ecological devastation. Once again, the public apparently presumes too much.

The BP oil spill is not only a stain upon enterprise risk management as an occupation, but upon the entire US regulatory establishment as well. Let’s face it, enterprise risk management in America is a farce.

Source: Friedman, S (2010, May 31), BP Oil Spill a Stain on Risk Management, National Underwriter Property & Casualty.

Corporate Anarchy?

by Sunshine Mugrabi © SunshineMug.com

In the last few posts I've been developing an idea that has been rattling around my brain for some time now. It can be summed up in the following questions: Is the social media revolution we're experiencing right now a result of new technology, or is it the other way around? In other words, is the quiet revolution sweeping through our society in response to new technology -- or, this new way of communicating something that we have called into existence? Could it be that the rise of Twitter and Facebook and Friendfeed are a reflection of people's desire to break down the old barriers and speak directly to one another? Are we seeing the end of the "expert" era, in which all knowledge and understanding is filtered to us through a select few?

It seems to me that this is a generational thing. My parents generation, the children of the 1960s, started some kind of revolution. It was in many ways a flawed attempt. As the writer Ken Wilbur has pointed out, for all its good intentions, the boomer generation was immensely narcissistic. It had (and still has) a tendency to blow its accomplishments up out of proportion. And it was very much still stuck in an "us/them" paradigm. In fact, the whole idea of a generation gap is based on that! However, there's no denying that our parents generation -- with their anti-war protests, long hair, and rebellion -- shook up the old order for good and all.

Then came my generation - Generation X. We were a bit lost for a time. They called us slackers, because we tended to be introspective. We couldn't exactly rebel, because our parents had already done that, so we kind of came up with our own way. When I was in college, I took to calling myself an anarchist. This was partly to annoy my parents and professors. But it was also my way of showing my dissatisfaction with the dual options that were being served up as my only choices -- Democratic v. Republican, Left vs. Right, Women vs. Men, etc.

Now, there's a new generation--I believe they're calling it Generation Y. They seem to evolved a whole new stance. It's as if they have taken the best of the boomer generation and my generation, and melded them into something entirely new.

They're not rebelling. They're talking. And, lo and behold, no one is left out. It may have started on the campus of Harvard University, but now Facebook is open to all. Even Walmart has a page (though many of the wall comments aren't terribly kind).

The new generation seems to intuitively understand something that for all its free love, the hippies never completely got. That is, we are a human family -- all of us connected to one another. When we try to deny it, we experience the opposite. Alienation. Loneliness. Anger. All of the things that seem to ail our society today.

The great marketing guru Seth Godin (who I generally like and agree with) showed himself to be stuck in the old paradigm with a recent post, "You Matter." In it, he lists all of the situations that show that you matter. They were all very heartfelt. For example:

"When you love the work you do and the people you do it with, you matter ... When kids grow up wanting to be you, you matter."

The list goes on. However, the new paradigm is as follows: "Everyone matters. Period." You could be having the crappiest day ever, and feeling no love whatsoever for your fellow man. You could be a protestor on the streets Tehran. You could be a tech startup struggling to get noticed. Or, you could be Apple.

No one is left out of this. Everyone matters.

Republished with permission of SunshineMug.com

The Speed of Thinking

The speed of communications in the post-modern world continues to accelerate exponentially. Yet, the speed at which the human mind can absorb and process information has changed little. As a result, society has become "queasy" from high volumes of data, and just as humans slow down when nauseated, society’s spirit might also be in abatement under the bombardment of information.

According to Mr John Freeman (2009, “Not So Fast,” WSJ, Aug 21, 2009):

Speed used to convey urgency; now we somehow think it means efficiency.... There is a paradox here, though. The Internet has provided us with an almost unlimited amount of information, but the speed at which it works—and we work through it—has deprived us of its benefits. We might work at a higher rate, but this is not work­ing. We can store a limited amount of information in our brains and have it at our disposal at any one time. Making decisions in this communication brownout, though without complete infor­mation, we go to war hastily, go to meetings unprepared, and build relationships on the slippery gravel of false impressions. Attention is one of the most valuable modern resources. If we waste it on frivolous communication, we will have nothing left when we really need it.

As communications speed up, so can “brain overload.” This begs the question of just how fast communications should go. Perhaps the speed of thinking could provide a useful governor.

Leviathan Roaring at Society

According to Ian Murray of the National Review Online, the number of Americans living off of Uncle Sam is larger than most of us might imagine:

When we add up the true size of the federal workforce — civil servants, postal workers, military personnel, contractors, grantees, and bailed-out businesses — and add in state and local government employees — civil servants, teachers, firefighters, and police officers — we reach the astonishing figure of nearly 40 million Americans employed in some way by government. That means that about 17 percent of the American labor pool — one in every six workers — owes its living to the taxpayer.

The frightening sentence is the last: "...about 17 percent of the American labor pool — one in every six workers — owes its living to the taxpayer." Given the extent of these numbers, one would think that an adjustment in the public sector just might be in order. In the meantime, Leviathan is roaring at society...

Source: Murray, I (2011, February 3), Leviathan, National Review Online.

Ericsson: The Future of Learning

Follow the link below to learn more about networked society and the future of learning according to Ericsson.

Networked Society

Related Posts

Top 10 Causes of Death: 1900 versus 2010

According to Dr David S Jones, Dr Scott H Podolsky, and Dr Jeremy A Greene (2012) of the New England Journal of Medicine, the top ten causes of death in the US changed significantly between 1900 and 2010. The chart below contrasts the times.

[click image to expand]

Read More

Sadly, heart disease and cancer claim more lives today than ever, despite the fact that deaths from pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, and gastrointestinal infections have declined dramatically over the past century. While modern medicine has reduced the risks of infectious diseases, the reality of obesity and carcinogens in today's society has created new risks for society in the 21st century.

Source: Jones, D S; Pololsky, S H; & Green, J A (2012, June 21), The Burden of Disease and the Changing Task of Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine.

Related Posts

The Rhetoric of Depression...

"There will be no interruption of our permanent prosperity." ~ Myron E Forbes, President, Pierce Arrow Motor Car Company, January 12, 1928

"I have no fear of another comparable decline." ~ Arthur W Loasby, President, Equitable Trust Company, quoted in NY Times, October 25, 1929

"In most of the cities and towns of this country, this Wall Street panic will have no effect." ~ Paul Block, President, Block newspaper chain, editorial, November 15, 1929

"I cannot help but raise a dissenting voice to statements that we are living in a fool's paradise, and that prosperity in this country must necessarily diminish and recede in the near future." ~ E H H Simmons, President, NY Stock Exchange, January 12, 1928

"Buying of sound, seasoned issues now will not be regretted." ~ E A Pearce market letter quoted in the NY Herald Tribune, October 30, 1929

"...despite its severity, we believe that the slump in stock prices will prove an intermediate movement and not the precursor of a business depression..." ~ Harvard Economic Society, November 2, 1929

"For six years American business has been diverting a substantial part of its attention, its energies and its resources on the speculative game... Now that irrelevant, alien and hazardous adventure is over." ~ Business Week, November 2, 1929

"This crash is not going to have much effect on business." ~ Arthur Reynolds, Chairman, Continental Illinois Bank of Chicago, October 24, 1929

"For the immediate future, at least, the outlook (stocks) is bright." ~ Irving Fisher, leading US economist, early 1930

"Financial storm definitely passed..." ~ Bernard Baruch, cablegram to Winston Churchill, November 15, 1929

"The end of the decline of the Stock Market will probably not be long, only a few more days at most." ~ Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics at Yale University, November 14, 1929

"Hysteria has now disappeared from Wall Street..." ~ The Times of London, November 2, 1929

"... a serious depression seems improbable..." ~ Harvard Economic Society, November 10, 1929

"Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." ~ Pres Herbert Hoover, responding to a delegation requesting a public works program to help speed the recovery, June 1930

"This is the time to buy stocks." ~ R W McNeel, market analyst, NY Herald Tribune, October 30, 1929

"There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash." ~ Irving Fisher, leading US economist, NY Times, September 5, 1929

"There is nothing in the situation to be disturbed about..." ~ Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, February 1930

"I think the bloom is off the rose, but there is no doom and gloom." ~ Alan Nevin, Chief Economist, California Building Industry Association.

"While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced we have now passed through the worst ~~ and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover." ~ Pres Herbert Hoover, May 1, 1930

"[1930 will be] a splendid employment year." ~ US Dept of Labor, New Year's Forecast, December 1929

"The former great periods of prosperity in America averaged eleven years. On this basis we now have three more years to go before the tailspin." ~ Stuart Chase, American economist and author, NY Herald Tribune, November 1, 1929

"The spring of 1930 marks the end of a period of grave concern... American business is steadily coming back to a normal level of prosperity." ~ Julius Barnes, head of Hoover's National Business Survey Conference, March 16, 1930

"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the IRS." ~ Pres Franklin D Roosevelt, 1933

"Buying of sound, seasoned issues now will not be regretted..." ~ E A Pearce market letter quoted in the NY Herald Tribune, October 30, 1929