1869-1879 United States: Depression or Prosperity

Friedman and Schwartz (1963, Chapter 3) argued that the stagnant money supply caused a long depression from 1869 to 1879. However, Friedman and Schwartz also stated that the real GNP average rose 6.5 percent per year, wage earners in manufacturing in 1879 rose 33 percent more than in 1869, and basic production nearly doubled from 1869 to 1880. The opposition between real GNP and nominal GNP raises a paradox in the business cycle theory: the prosperity of real GNP coexists with the depression of nominal GNP. As nominal GNP is overestimated relative to real GNP during hyperinflation, real GNP moves opposite to nominal GNP if the deflation rate is greater than the growth rate of real GNP. Since deflation is caused by the increase in productivity in the 1870s instead of insufficient demand, I examine monetary explanation for the long depression and conclude that the change in money stock explained neither GNP nor deflation from 1869 to 1879. Besides, I find cases that the increase in money stock makes velocity decline instead of the increase in GNP and price level, which implies the ineffectiveness of monetary policy. I use the increase in labor supply to explain another paradox: both the unemployment rate and the number of employees kept increasing in the 1870s. Thus, I conclude that the US economy in the 1870s was in prosperity and we should identify either depression or prosperity by the number of employees and real GNP, not unemployment rate and nominal GNP.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Economics and Finance
Published
2025-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v17n7p63
Primary Topic
Historical Economic and Social Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

1869-1879 United States: Depression or Prosperity

Chao Chiung Ting
International Journal of Economics and Finance
Historical Economic and Social Studies
article

1869-1879 United States: Depression or Prosperity

Chao Chiung Ting
article en

Abstract

Friedman and Schwartz (1963, Chapter 3) argued that the stagnant money supply caused a long depression from 1869 to 1879. However, Friedman and Schwartz also stated that the real GNP average rose 6.5 percent per year, wage earners in manufacturing in 1879 rose 33 percent more than in 1869, and basic production nearly doubled from 1869 to 1880. The opposition between real GNP and nominal GNP raises a paradox in the business cycle theory: the prosperity of real GNP coexists with the depression of nominal GNP. As nominal GNP is overestimated relative to real GNP during hyperinflation, real GNP moves opposite to nominal GNP if the deflation rate is greater than the growth rate of real GNP. Since deflation is caused by the increase in productivity in the 1870s instead of insufficient demand, I examine monetary explanation for the long depression and conclude that the change in money stock explained neither GNP nor deflation from 1869 to 1879. Besides, I find cases that the increase in money stock makes velocity decline instead of the increase in GNP and price level, which implies the ineffectiveness of monetary policy. I use the increase in labor supply to explain another paradox: both the unemployment rate and the number of employees kept increasing in the 1870s. Thus, I conclude that the US economy in the 1870s was in prosperity and we should identify either depression or prosperity by the number of employees and real GNP, not unemployment rate and nominal GNP.

International Journal of Economics and FinanceVol. 17(7)
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Historical Economic and Social Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.