Yesterday, I promised to write two versions of an introductory paragraph for a five-paragraph essay about the Great Depression. In both cases, my task has been defined by a key sentence that can be stated as follows:
In this essay, I will argue that the Great Depression was caused by the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.
Notice that this sentence is not about the Great Depression but about my essay. The paragraph, then, will not defend my thesis as such. Rather, it will elaborate on what I’m going to do in the essay; it will give meaning to the act of writing–and, therefore, reading–such an essay. It will explain what I’m going to say and why I have chosen to say it. It will both outline and motivate my essay.
As I said yesterday, these tasks can be given to separate paragraphs in a longer essay, but here we are looking at a one-paragraph introduction. In the second version, I should say, we will make those tasks less explicit, indeed, leave them almost entirely implicit, and the paragraph will seem to be about the causes of the Great Depression themselves. Only I (and the very careful reader) will know that it’s really about the essay itself, that it is an introduction.
(A quick disclaimer on the content: I’m not an economist or a historian so I’m not claiming that my characterizations of Keynesians and Austrians are correct nor that my thesis is true.)
The Great Depression of the 1930s was a period of enormous economic hardship. Economists have therefore long tried to understand its causes and develop strategies to avoid similar calamities in the future. Keynesians have argued that the Great Depression was the result of failures of the markets to correct themselves, suggesting that government must take an active role in the management of the economy. Austrians, by contrast, have argued that the downturn was the result of government policies that prevented the markets from functioning properly. In this essay, I will argue that the Great Depression was caused by the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. In the 1930s, I will show, the Fed followed a deliberately deflationary policy, leaving banks without means to respond to runs on their deposits. This famously led to the failure of the Bank of United States in 1931, and this, in turn, precipitated a general collapse of the banking sector. Like Milton Friedman, I conclude that the role of the state in avoiding economic depressions is to manage the money supply. It is to ensure that there is enough cash in the system to turn the wheel of circulation.
There are some who don’t like any self-referential “signposting”, and would prefer just to get to the point. This is sometimes called “classic style” and is worth trying every now and then. Notice that it leaves my opinions, arguments and beliefs out of it, presenting them instead by way of statements of fact. That I believe these things is to go without saying. And notice that, instead of presenting a debate and taking a side, it just reminds the reader of the received view and presumes that challenging generally held beliefs is worthy of an essay (it is).
It is generally believed that the Great Depression of the 1930s was the result of failures of the markets to correct themselves. To avoid similar calamities in the future, it is argued, government must take an active role in the management of the economy, stimulating demand by spending on public works. But this view is wrong. As Milton Friedman showed, the Great Depression was caused by the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. In the 1930s, the Fed followed a deliberately deflationary policy, leaving banks without means to respond to runs on their deposits. This famously led to the failure of the Bank of United States in 1931, and this, in turn, precipitated a general collapse of the banking sector. The role state in avoiding economic depressions, then, is best understood as one of managing the money supply, ensuring that there is enough cash in the system to turn the wheel of circulation.
Both of these paragraphs can set up the same four paragraphs to follow, i.e., paragraphs 2-5 of the five-paragraph essay. Paragraph 2 will describe the Fed’s deflationary policy; 3 will recount the failure of the Bank of United States; and 4 will discuss the general collapse of banking. Finally, paragraph 5 will bring it all together by emphasizing the role of the state in managing the money supply.
As introductions, these are still works in progress. I should return to paragraph 1 and rewrite it when I have the rest done. We’ll see how it goes. Comments and criticisms are more than welcome, either on particular rhetorical choices or on the form of the five-paragraph essay in general, which I’m trying to defend by way of example here. Let’s not argue about Friedman, though. I’m an amateur on that score.