Hubbry Logo
Benjamin Strong Jr.Benjamin Strong Jr.Main
Open search
Benjamin Strong Jr.
Community hub
Benjamin Strong Jr.
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Benjamin Strong Jr.
Benjamin Strong Jr.
Benjamin Strong Jr.
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Benjamin Strong Jr. (December 22, 1872 – October 16, 1928) was an American banker. He served as Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for 14 years until his death. He exerted great influence over the policy and actions of the entire Federal Reserve System and indeed over the financial policies of all of the United States and Europe.[1]

Key Information

Early life

[edit]

Strong was born in Fishkill, New York in the Hudson Valley, and was raised in Montclair, New Jersey. His father's family were primarily merchants and bankers, descended from a British immigrant who had arrived in Massachusetts in 1630.[2]

Strong had hopes of attending Princeton University after an older brother, but his family experienced temporary financial difficulties when he graduated from Montclair High School. Strong opted to go to work and became a clerk at a Wall Street investment and financial management firm associated with his father's employer.

Corporate banking career

[edit]

In 1900, Strong joined a trust company to work as an assistant to a corporate officer and eventually succeeded his boss. A trust company is one that primarily administers the financial matters of legal trusts in which the trust company acts on behalf of others, including both individuals (living or dead) and corporations. Trusts can be set up for many reasons, such as for historic and natural site preservation or for legal heirs too young to manage their own finances. For large corporations, trust companies can act for the corporation's bondholders, including accepting the corporation's payments on the bonds and distributing them to the bondholders. At the time, many commercial banks were forbidden by law to administer trusts; however, trust companies could carry out most commercial bank activities. Commercial banks thus saw trust companies as luring away their customers with the attraction of being able to accomplish both commercial and trust activities at one company.

In 1904, Strong moved to Bankers Trust, which had been founded the year before by a consortium of commercial banks on the premise that it would not lure commercial bank customers away. In addition to offering the usual trust and commercial banking functions, it also acted as a "bankers' bank" by holding the reserves of other banks and trust companies and loaning them money when they needed additional reserves due to unexpected withdrawals. Bankers Trust quickly grew to be the second largest US trust company and a dominant Wall Street institution. Despite technically having numerous stockholders, the voting power was held by three associates of J.P. Morgan. Thus, it was widely viewed as a Morgan company. During the Panic of 1907, Bankers Trust, including Strong, worked closely with J.P. Morgan to help avoid a general financial collapse by lending money to sound banks.

Strong became a vice-president of Bankers Trust in 1909 and then its president in January 1914.

Aldrich Plan and Federal Reserve Act

[edit]

The experience of working with Morgan to alleviate the effects of the Panic of 1907 made Strong an ardent advocate of banking reform because he realized that the voluntary cooperation organized by Morgan was not an adequate means of preventing or dealing with banking crises. He was not the only one worried since a great public debate ensued after the panic about banking and financial reform. Even sound banks had problems because their depositors demanded their money, causing the banks to run low on cash and gold. The US public had been previously opposed to the establishment of a central bank, but many leading bankers urged the US Congress to create a central bank that could help sound banks meet the demands of their depositors during a bank run by temporarily lending them money.

In 1908, Congress established the National Monetary Commission to evaluate viable alternatives for a long-term solution to the cycles of financial boom and bust. At the time, Republicans dominated Congress. The chair of the committee was a leading Senate Republican, Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island. (Nelson Rockefeller was named after Aldrich, his maternal grandfather.)

Strong was one of those selected to attend a secret ten-day conference at the luxurious Jekyll Island Hunt Club retreat in November 1910. Also in attendance were Aldrich, chair of the National Monetary Commission; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and Special Assistant to the National Monetary Commission (the only other commission member besides Aldrich); Paul Warburg, a recent immigrant from a prominent German banking family who was a partner in the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.; Frank A. Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank of New York; Henry P. Davison, senior partner of J.P. Morgan & Co.; and Charles D. Norton, president of the Morgan-dominated First National Bank of New York.

What came to be known as the Aldrich Plan was drafted by these men during the conference. The plan was written in secrecy, as the public would never approve of a banking reform bill written by bankers, much less of a plan for a central bank. In addition, the bankers involved were prominent New York City bankers. The US public had been anti-banker since the Panic of 1907, and New York City bankers were particularly distrusted in the West and the South. Thus, members of Congress from these states would find it hard to support a plan drawn up by New York City bankers. The Aldrich Plan carefully avoided calling its proposed new organization a "central bank" in the hope of reducing concerns about central control. Warburg and others had warned against that. It instead carefully worded its proposal as the establishment of a National Reserve Association. The bankers' plan, but not its origin, was publicized on January 16, 1911, as the Aldrich Plan, which was submitted to Congress on January 9, 1912. However, it was not popular among those who wanted a public-controlled plan or who opposed the concept of a central bank in any form. Thus, it was followed by much debate but never came to a vote.

In the November 1912 elections, Democrats won in a national landslide with Woodrow Wilson elected as president, and the party gaining control of both houses of Congress. The platform favored a public-controlled plan. Thus, the Aldrich banker-controlled plan was effectively dead.

Wilson made the issue one of his top priorities even before he took office. He asked Carter Glass of Virginia, one of the leading Democratic representatives on the House Committee on Banking and Currency, to work with banking experts and develop a compromise bill. Glass worked with Robert Latham Owen, and they introduced the Glass-Owens bill in December 1912. To implement the Democrats' desire for a public-controlled plan, the bill proposed a central public-appointed body in control. To address the Western and Southern distrust about powerful New York City banks, the bill decentralized the system into districts to limit the power of the New York City banks. However, the bill also had many features of the banker-controlled plan to broaden its political appeal. Thus, the general outline of the Aldrich Plan eventually served as the model upon which the Federal Reserve System was based, but there were significant changes. A degree of public control was exerted via the Federal Reserve Board, the equivalent of today's Board of Governors, selected by the US president. Also, the role of professional bankers was, to some extent, limited by confining their overt control to the operation of the Federal Reserve banks of the various regions. The Aldrich Plan met with Warburg's satisfaction, as he said that minor changes could be adjusted administratively later.

After much debate, Congress passed this bill, with some minor modifications, as the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913.

Federal Reserve career

[edit]

Strong had concerns about the Federal Reserve Act and campaigned for changes because of the alterations made from the original Aldrich Plan. His concerns included the following:

  • The political appointees of the central board would not necessarily have banking knowledge and expertise
  • The district banks operated virtually independently of the central board and thus there was no effective central control, which Strong argued simply perpetuated the "fragmentation and diffusion of authority that had so bedeviled American banking and would only lead to conflict and confusion."

With the formation of the Federal Reserve System in November 1914, Strong was persuaded (despite his reservations) to become the executive officer (then called the "governor"; today the term would be "president") of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. As the leader of the Federal Reserve's largest and most powerful district bank, Strong became a dominant force in US monetary and banking affairs. One biographer has termed him the "de facto leader of the entire Federal Reserve System."[3] That was not only because of Strong's abilities but also because the central board's powers were ambiguous and, for the most part, limited to supervisory and regulatory functions under the 1913 Federal Reserve Act because so many Americans were antagonistic to centralized control.

When the United States entered World War I, Strong was a major force behind the campaigns to fund the war effort via bonds owned primarily by US citizens, which enabled the country to avoid many of the postwar financial problems of the European belligerents. Strong gradually recognized the importance of open market operation, or the purchases and sales of government securities, as a means of managing the quantity of money in the US economy and thus affecting interest rates. That was particularly important at the time because gold had flooded into the United States during and after the war. Thus, its gold-backed currency was well-protected, but prices had been pushed up substantially by the currency expansion due to the gold standard-imposed expansion of currency. In 1922, Strong unofficially scrapped the gold standard and instead began aggressively pursuing open market operations as a means of stabilizing domestic prices and thus internal economic stability. Thus, he began the Federal Reserve's practice of buying and selling government securities as monetary policy. John Maynard Keynes, a prominent British economist who had previously not questioned the gold standard, used Strong's activities as an example of how a central bank could manage a nation's economy without the gold standard in his book "A Tract on Monetary Reform" (1923). To quote one authority, "It was Strong more than anyone else who invented the modern central banker. When we watch... [central bankers of today] describe how they are seeking to strike the right balance between economic growth and price stability, it is the ghost of Benjamin Strong who hovers above him. It all sounds quite prosaically obvious now, but in 1922 it was a radical departure from more than two hundred years of central banking history."[4] His policy of maintaining price levels during the 1920s by open market operation and his willingness to maintain the liquidity of banks during panics have been praised by monetarists and harshly criticized by Austrian economists.[5]

Total money supply contracted -10.28% in October 1929 a year after Strong's death, monetary policy became very volatile after his death.

With the European economic turmoil of the 1920s, Strong's influence became worldwide. He was a strong supporter of European efforts to return to the gold standard and economic stability. Strong's new monetary policies stabilized US prices and encouraged both US and world trade by helping to stabilize European currencies and finances. However, with virtually no inflation, interest rates were low and the US economy and corporate profits surged, fueling the stock market increases of the late 1920s. That worried him, but he also felt he had no choice because the low interest rates were helping the Europeans (particularly the British) in their effort to return to the gold standard. He earned the scorn of some congressional leaders who believed that he was too Eurocentric.

The economic historian Charles P. Kindleberger states that Strong was one of the few US policymakers interested in the troubled financial affairs of Europe in the 1920s and that had he not died in 1928, just a year before the Great Depression, he might have been able to maintain stability in the international financial system.[6] However, the economist Murray Rothbard claimed that it was Strong's manipulations that caused the Depression in the first place.[7][8] The author Bill Bryson specifically claims that Strong's insistence on cutting the Fed's discount rate 0.5% in 1927, made US President Herbert Hoover furious, fueled the market bubble of 1928, and led to the disastrous market collapse in 1929.[9]

Strong was diagnosed with tuberculosis in 1916 and struggled with the disease and its complications for the remainder of his life. On October 6, 1928, at the New York Hospital, he underwent surgery for an abscess for diverticulitis and spent a week recovering when he suffered a relapse, resulting in his untimely death at only 55.

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Benjamin Strong Jr.

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Benjamin Strong Jr. (December 22, 1872 – October 16, 1928) was an American banker who served as the first Governor of the of New York from October 5, 1914, until his death fourteen years later. Born in Fishkill-on-Hudson, New York, Strong began his career in finance in 1891 and advanced rapidly, becoming president of Company in 1914 just before his appointment to the . Under his leadership, the New York Fed emerged as the dominant force within the System, guiding U.S. through and the interwar economic challenges. Strong prioritized international cooperation, traveling extensively to promote stability, including support for Europe's return to the via credits and discount rate adjustments, such as lowering U.S. rates to 3 percent in 1927 to aid Britain despite domestic inflationary risks. His policies emphasized price stability and adherence, though they drew criticism for prioritizing foreign recovery over U.S. concerns and contributing to late-1920s speculation via earlier easy money; Strong raised rates in 1928 to curb excesses, initiating contraction before his death from . Historians debate his legacy, with some arguing that his absence exacerbated the 's mishandling of the ensuing due to the loss of his unifying influence and international expertise.

Early Life and Education

Family Background and Early Influences

Benjamin Strong Jr. was born on December 22, 1872, in Fishkill-on-Hudson, Dutchess County, New York. His father, Benjamin Strong Sr. (1834–1915), worked as superintendent of the Dutchess & Columbia Railroad in Fishkill, while his mother was Adeline Schenck Strong. The Strong family background traced to merchants, reflecting a tradition of commercial enterprise rather than elite financial pedigrees. The family relocated to , where Strong grew up amid modest circumstances. Temporary financial instability prevented him from pursuing higher education at , an opportunity his older brother had accessed, compelling Strong to prioritize self-sufficiency through immediate employment over prolonged academic study. He completed public schooling in Montclair and, at approximately age 18 in 1891, departed the family home to enter the business world, forgoing college amid these constraints. This early environment fostered a pragmatic orientation, emphasizing hands-on experience in derived from familial merchant roots and railroad management exposure, rather than theoretical training. Strong's limited formal thus underscored a reliance on empirical immersion in practical affairs, shaping an initial worldview attuned to real-world economic mechanisms over abstract institutional models.

Pre-Federal Reserve Banking Career

Rise in Commercial Banking

Strong entered the banking industry in 1891 at age 19, beginning as a clerk with the investment firm Cuyler, Morgan & Company in New York. By 1900, he had advanced to handling representations for international investors in real estate and securities, gaining early exposure to financial management in a fragmented market without central coordination. In 1901, Strong became secretary of the Atlantic Trust Company, a role he retained after its 1903 merger with the Metropolitan Trust Company. Following additional mergers involving trust entities, he joined the newly organized in 1904 as secretary, a firm focused on corporate trusteeships and securities underwriting backed by interests. He progressed to vice president by 1909, overseeing operations that emphasized efficient handling of trust accounts and facilitating financings for industrial expansions. During the , Strong, as vice president, contributed to Bankers Trust's crisis response by evaluating distressed loans and assessing failing institutions, including an examination of Knickerbocker Trust Company's books at the request of . This hands-on involvement in liquidity strains and private-sector coordination—such as selective loan calls to mitigate losses—honed his understanding of interconnected banking risks in the absence of a , while forging ties with leading financiers like Morgan. Strong's ascent culminated in his election as president of in January 1914, reflecting his demonstrated proficiency in navigating mergers, trust administration, and market disruptions through decentralized networks rather than regulatory frameworks. Under his leadership, the firm expanded its role in issuances and services, underscoring the efficacy of individual expertise in pre-centralized banking.

Contributions to Monetary Reform

Engagement with the Aldrich Plan

As vice president of Company from 1909, Benjamin Strong Jr. engaged informally with the Aldrich Plan through professional ties to National Monetary Commission leaders, including Senator and J.P. Morgan partner Henry P. Davison, both instrumental in the secretive November 1910 conference that drafted the proposal's framework. Although Strong did not attend the conference itself, he contributed to subsequent revisions and associated with its proponents via the "First Name Club," a discreet network of bankers advancing ideas. His involvement stemmed from firsthand experience with the , during which navigated liquidity strains, underscoring the vulnerabilities of the decentralized U.S. banking system lacking a . The Aldrich Plan, formally presented to the Commission in January 1911, envisioned a National Reserve Association headquartered in Washington with fifteen regional branches to centralize reserves, discount , clear checks, and issue currency backed by assets, aiming to provide elasticity absent in the rigid regime that amplified panics. Strong supported its emphasis on banker-led —where member banks elected branch directors, with voting power weighted toward larger institutions under national oversight—positing that Wall Street's coordination expertise would empirically stabilize the system by mitigating regional hoarding and enabling proactive liquidity provision, as improvised private efforts had done in 1907 but without institutional permanence. Proponents defended this against charges of by citing recurrent crises from 1873 to 1907, where fragmented reserves caused cascading failures, arguing centralized expert management offered causal realism over populist that perpetuated instability. Opponents, including agrarian populists and decentralized banking advocates, critiqued the plan as a monopolistic power grab by eastern financiers, with larger New York banks poised to dominate branch elections and national policy, potentially subordinating smaller institutions and rural credit needs to urban interests without sufficient democratic checks. The proposal's rejection crystallized in the 1912 Democratic Party platform, which condemned it for entrusting currency and credit to private hands evading public accountability, alongside Progressive Party objections to its insulation from government influence; these stances, amplified by Woodrow Wilson's presidential victory, halted legislative progress. Despite defeat, the plan's regional structure and reserve-pooling concepts shaped the Federal Reserve's design, adapting banker input within a hybrid public-private framework to neutralize political liabilities.

Support for the Federal Reserve Act

Benjamin Strong Jr., as vice president and later president of Bankers Trust Company, leveraged his position within New York banking circles to advocate for monetary reform addressing the inelastic supply under the National Banking Acts, which tied note issuance to government bonds and exacerbated liquidity shortages during panics such as that of 1907. He emphasized the need for a quasi-public capable of issuing gold-backed notes and providing rediscount facilities for , functioning as a to mitigate systemic crises through elastic credit provision grounded in real economic activity. This support aligned with broader banker efforts to replace decentralized, rigid reserve practices with a coordinated mechanism, informed by of recurring panics stemming from rigidity rather than inherent market failures. Strong contributed to early planning for central banking via associations with figures like and the informal "First Name Club," influencing proposals for a National Reserve Association that prioritized regional branches under private control while ensuring gold convertibility and discounting short-term trade paper to avoid speculative excesses. The ensuing incorporated these elements but introduced compromises, including a Board with presidential appointees for government oversight, which Strong regarded as pragmatic adjustments to counter populist opposition yet preserved de facto dominance for the New York branch amid regional structures. Progressive critics, such as , argued the design retained undue banker influence, lacking sufficient public accountability to democratize control over . Enacted on December 23, 1913, the Act enabled subsequent centralization of reserves and discount operations, paving the way for Strong's appointment as the inaugural governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank in 1914. While proponents cited its resolution of pre-1913 inelasticity—evidenced by stabilized note issuance during World War I—free banking advocates contended it shifted risks from competitive private issuers to a government-sanctioned monopoly, fostering moral hazard and amplifying boom-bust cycles through politicized credit allocation rather than market-disciplined alternatives. These causal trade-offs reflected empirical intent to curb panics but invited scrutiny over whether dispersed, asset-backed banking would have sufficed without institutionalizing New York-centric power.

Leadership of the New York Federal Reserve Bank

Appointment and Institutional Development


Benjamin Strong Jr. was elected Governor of the of New York on October 5, 1914, during the institution's inaugural meeting, six weeks before its official opening on November 16. At 41 years old, Strong drew on his tenure as president of Company to prioritize the New York Fed's role as the System's operational core, given the city's dominance in national banking reserves and . This positioning contrasted with the Federal Reserve Act's intent for regional autonomy among the twelve district banks. Under Strong's direction, the New York Fed rapidly implemented core functions, including the , which enabled member banks to obtain short-term loans secured by eligible collateral, thereby bolstering reserve liquidity in a manner empirically superior to prior inelastic currency arrangements. He also laid early groundwork for coordinated activities by centralizing the handling of securities purchases and transfers, practices that enhanced systemic efficiency but were later critiqued for disproportionately benefiting large New York-based institutions over smaller regional counterparts. Strong resolved nascent inter-regional tensions through informal conferences of Reserve Bank governors, commencing in late 1915, where his influence—rooted in New York's economic weight—prevailed to forge unified operational precedents favoring hierarchical coordination over strict . These efforts solidified the New York Fed's de facto leadership, as evidenced by its control over gold settlements and reserve transfers, though contemporaries like Federal Reserve Board member Adolph C. Miller later attributed such centralization to undue favoritism toward interests.

World War I Financing Efforts

Upon the United States' entry into World War I in April 1917, Benjamin Strong, as Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, played a pivotal role in coordinating the sale of Liberty Bonds to finance the war effort. He chaired the Money Committee of the Liberty Loan Committee, established in September 1917, which mobilized banks in the Second Federal Reserve District to promote and distribute these securities. The four Liberty Loan drives—launched in May 1917 ($1.98 billion raised), October 1917 ($3.81 billion), April-May 1918 ($3.79 billion), and September-October 1918 ($6.99 billion)—collectively generated approximately $16.57 billion, supplemented by smaller issues and enabling the government to fund military mobilization without immediate tax hikes. Strong's efforts leveraged the Federal Reserve's discounting window to encourage member banks to purchase bonds, providing liquidity that absorbed over two-thirds of war expenditures through debt rather than taxation. The New York Federal Reserve under Strong's leadership facilitated this by expanding credit to support Allied purchases and domestic bond buying, with the system's growing from roughly $444 million in assets at the end of 1916 to over $2 billion by late 1917, driven by increased discounts and acceptances. This expansion averted funding shortfalls during peak mobilization, as the Fed's elastic currency mechanism allowed for rapid growth—currency in circulation rose from $444 million in 1916 to $2.6 billion by 1918—coordinating closely with the to prioritize war needs over pre-war constraints. However, this monetary accommodation initiated inflationary pressures, with wholesale prices increasing by about 80% from 1916 to 1918, as the influx of reserves fueled demand without corresponding output gains. Strong's strategy emphasized imperatives, temporarily sidelining strict adherence to convertibility to ensure stability and Allied credits totaling over $7 billion by war's end. Critics, including isolationist figures who opposed U.S. involvement in European conflicts, contended that such financial entanglements—facilitated by the Fed's role—drew America deeper into the war, transforming domestic banking into an instrument of and sowing seeds for post-war economic distortions. Empirically, while effective for , the wartime credit expansion laid groundwork for subsequent , as growth outpaced real economic expansion, contributing to a cumulative rise of over 100% by 1920.

Response to the 1920-1921 Recession

In early 1920, amid post-World War I inflationary pressures exceeding 20% annually, Benjamin Strong Jr., as Governor of the of New York, supported aggressive tightening by the System, including rapid increases in the discount rate culminating at 7% by June 1920. This policy adhered to the real-bills doctrine, emphasizing credit restriction to curb speculative excesses and wartime distortions rather than sustaining artificial expansion. Strong opposed premature rate reductions, insisting that discount rates function as penalty rates only after market rates had sufficiently declined, thereby enforcing of unsound credits and inventories. The tight-money stance induced a sharp , with wholesale prices falling approximately 36% from their mid-1920 peak to the trough in late 1921, alongside consumer price declines exceeding 15%, which facilitated rapid inventory liquidation and resource reallocation. rose to a peak of about 11.7%, yet the downturn lasted only 18 months—from January 1920 to July 1921—followed by a brisk recovery without fiscal bailouts or monetary stimulus, as gross national product returned to pre-recession levels by 1922. Strong's approach prioritized causal correction of wartime imbalances, restoring and enterprise solvency through market-driven adjustments rather than interventionist props that might prolong malinvestments. This non-interventionist strategy drew retrospective praise from Austrian economists for enabling swift liquidation of wartime distortions, contrasting with later Keynesian-influenced views advocating and easing to mitigate , which empirical outcomes here suggest would have delayed reequilibration. Critics, including some agricultural interests, decried the policy's severity amid farm bankruptcies, yet data indicate voluntary wage and price flexibility—absent rigidities like modern union contracts or —accelerated adjustment without entrenched stagnation. Strong's insistence on credit contraction underscored a commitment to underlying economic realities over short-term palliatives, yielding a depression that resolved more rapidly than the prolonged contraction under divergent policies.

International Monetary Initiatives

Collaboration with Foreign Central Banks

Strong developed extensive personal ties with Montagu Norman, Governor of the , through regular meetings—including Norman's annual visits to New York starting in the mid-1920s—and voluminous correspondence, which laid the groundwork for enhanced transatlantic coordination. These interactions helped form an informal "club" of central bankers, emphasizing discreet collaboration to manage international financial strains rather than formal treaties. Strong drew on discussions from the 1922 Genoa Economic and Financial Conference, where European delegates proposed mechanisms for managed currencies to mitigate gold shortages and volatility, advocating oversight of credit flows as a pragmatic response to post-World War I disruptions. He actively promoted these cooperative principles in subsequent engagements, viewing them as necessary for stabilizing interconnected markets amid Europe's reparations burdens and reconstruction needs. Under Strong's direction, the New York Federal Reserve extended credits totaling hundreds of millions of dollars to institutions like the , Banque de France, and between 1924 and 1927, providing liquidity that empirically facilitated European recovery from and currency collapses. These operations, however, prompted significant outflows—exceeding 10% of reserves in some years—as dollars converted to gold for European stabilization efforts. Strong justified such interventions on grounds of financial interdependence, arguing that isolated U.S. policies risked global spillovers; yet nationalist critics contended they effectively subsidized wartime debtors like and Britain at the expense of American monetary discipline, diverting resources from domestic priorities and inflating credit conditions stateside. This approach highlighted tensions between internationalist coordination and unilateral sound-money advocacy, with empirical outcomes showing short-term European gains but longer-term strains on U.S. reserve positions.

Promotion of the Gold Exchange Standard

Following the recommendations of the Genoa Financial Conference in April–May 1922, Strong promoted a modified exchange standard for peripheral economies, encouraging them to hold reserves primarily in gold-convertible currencies like the dollar or British pound rather than physical bullion. This system aimed to conserve global stocks amid post-World War I reconstruction needs, allowing countries such as those in and to stabilize currencies more efficiently by leveraging and UK financial markets for liquidity. Empirically, adoption eased reserve accumulation—European central banks' foreign exchange holdings rose from negligible levels in 1922 to over $1 billion by 1927—but it inflated core economies by channeling inflows without corresponding price adjustments, as peripheral nations borrowed dollars or pounds on credit rather than shipping specie. Strong's efforts culminated in supporting Britain's return to gold convertibility on April 21, 1925, at the pre-war parity of $4.86 per pound, despite the currency's overvaluation: UK wholesale prices had fallen from wartime peaks but remained roughly 6–10% above 1913 levels after incomplete , impairing export competitiveness. To sustain this rate, Strong coordinated discount rate reductions to 3% by mid-1924 and facilitated $200 million in private credits from New York banks, including , while the raised its rate to 5%. This assistance sterilized US gold inflows—preventing automatic expansion of the money base through operations—distorting classical adjustment mechanisms where inflows would raise domestic prices and interest rates, thereby balancing trade. The policy empirically prolonged Britain's gold outflows, totaling £50 million in 1925–1926 alone, as overvaluation fueled chronic deficits without corrective or . US gold reserves illustrate the system's flaws: Federal Reserve banks' holdings grew from $2.31 billion in December 1924 to $3.37 billion by December 1928, reflecting net inflows of over $1 billion amid global redistribution, yet Strong's credit expansion via $500 million in government security purchases offset this, maintaining loose conditions and fueling asset bubbles. This fractional-reserve pyramiding—peripheral claims on /pound reserves exceeding core backing—deviated from classical rules requiring full specie , eroding automatic discipline and enabling imbalances; Austrian analyses attribute ensuing instability to credit-fueled malinvestment in core nations, contrasting with short-term reconstruction gains.

Aid to European Reconstruction

During the early 1920s, Benjamin Strong, as governor of the of New York, directed substantial credits totaling over $500 million to European central banks to facilitate post- reconstruction and currency stabilization, viewing such aid as essential to restoring global trade balances beneficial to the . These extensions, often in the form of short-term acceptances and discounts, prioritized refinancing war debts and reparations over strict U.S. , with Strong coordinating discreetly with counterparts like Montagu Norman of the to channel funds toward nations facing and fiscal collapse. Empirical data from the period indicate these interventions temporarily mitigated acute liquidity shortages, enabling countries like to import essentials and service initial reparations without immediate default. A pivotal instance was Strong's support for the 1924 , which restructured German reparations and included an initial international loan of approximately $200 million (equivalent to 800 million ) to the , half of which was underwritten by U.S. interests under his influence. The New York Fed did not directly originate the loan syndicate, comprising private banks, but Strong facilitated backing to ensure its viability, including preparatory stabilization credits that helped avert further currency disintegration in the following the 1923 hyperinflation. This aid empirically supported short-term economic recovery in , with industrial production rising 50% from 1923 to 1925 and inflation threats subdued through dollar inflows for budget balancing. However, from a causal standpoint, it arguably fostered by enabling reparations payments without addressing underlying fiscal indiscipline, as German borrowing shifted burdens to foreign lenders rather than enforcing domestic . Strong's approach extended to coordination with the League of Nations' financial committee, though the U.S. non-membership limited formal ties; he indirectly aligned Fed actions with League efforts on reconstruction loans for and , prioritizing debt repayment mechanisms to prevent contagious defaults. This reflected a realist prioritization of stabilizing allied creditors to safeguard U.S. export markets and gold inflows, yet it imposed an asymmetric burden on American financial resources amid domestic debates over extending credit to entities with histories of fiscal irresponsibility. Outcomes included deferred crises—Germany met reduced reparations schedules through 1928—but sowed dependency on short-term foreign funding, contributing to the 1931 Central European banking collapse when U.S. credit tightened amid the , as borrowed liquidity masked unsustainable debt structures rather than resolving them. Critics, including later economic analyses, contend this pattern exemplified how such interventions prolonged maladjustments, with reparations ultimately unpayable without perpetual refinancing, heightening vulnerability to exogenous shocks.

Domestic Policy Implementation

Discount Rate and Credit Management

Under Benjamin Strong's leadership at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the discount rate served as the principal instrument for managing credit conditions domestically, functioning as a penalty rate set above prevailing market rates to discourage habitual borrowing by member banks and to signal appropriate lending standards. Strong advocated adjustments to align discount rates with underlying economic pressures, such as or slack, thereby influencing broader interest rates and credit availability without direct allocation. This approach rested on the principle that higher rates would curtail excessive credit extension, promoting of unsound positions and restoring equilibrium, while lower rates would facilitate recovery by easing access to reserves for legitimate needs. A pivotal example occurred in the postwar period, when the New York Fed, under Strong's direction, raised the discount rate from 4 percent in November 1919 to 7 percent by June 1920 to counter inflationary pressures and speculative borrowing fueled by wartime expansion. This hike correlated with a sharp contraction in credit and a 32.5 percent decline in industrial production over the ensuing year, contributing to the 1920-1921 recession and rapid that halved wholesale prices from peak levels. indicates the policy's contractionary effects reduced bank lending and output significantly, yet it facilitated a swift rebound by mid-1921 without prolonged intervention, as wholesale prices stabilized and production recovered to pre-recession levels within 18 months. In response to subdued growth in 1924, Strong supported successive reductions in the discount rate, lowering it to 3.5 percent by and further to 3 percent later that year, aiming to stimulate credit flows amid softening industrial output and commodity prices. These cuts aligned with a resurgence in activity, as indexed industrial production rose approximately 10 percent from mid-1924 to , reflecting eased borrowing costs that encouraged without immediate inflationary surge. Strong's framework emphasized such targeted adjustments to moderate cycles, asserting that discount could preempt excesses by influencing banks' reserve management and lending restraint. Strong's rate manipulations demonstrated efficacy in maintaining systemic stability throughout the , averting banking panics through disciplined that kept member bank indebtedness low relative to deposits, even amid speculative booms in securities. Data from the period show discount rate changes exerting measurable influence on rates and overall credit volumes, with hikes compressing borrowing and cuts expanding it in tandem with output fluctuations. However, critics contend that these interventions, by artificially suppressing rate signals during expansions, obscured risks of overinvestment in sectors like and stocks, potentially fostering distortions that intensified vulnerabilities exposed after Strong's tenure. This debate underscores the tension between discretionary rate guidance as a stabilizer versus its propensity to interfere with natural price mechanisms for capital allocation.

Expansion of Money Supply in the 1920s

The US money supply, encompassing , demand deposits, and time deposits, expanded at an average annual rate of approximately 5 percent from 1921 to 1929, yielding a cumulative increase exceeding 50 percent over the period. This growth outpaced the , which rose only about 13.5 percent from mid-1921 to late 1929, reflecting banking system leverage through fractional reserves. Under Benjamin Strong's direction at the New York , such expansion accommodated surging demand for credit amid postwar recovery, with member bank reserves bolstered to prevent liquidity strains. Primary drivers included substantial gold inflows to the , totaling hundreds of millions of dollars annually from due to , unbalanced trade, and depreciated currencies abroad, which automatically swelled gold certificates and enabled broader monetary issuance under the gold standard framework. Complementing these passive accretions, the System, led by Strong, initiated systematic purchases of government securities starting in the early —pioneered by the New York Fed's operations committee—which directly increased and facilitated deposit creation without corresponding gold sterilization. By 1929, Fed holdings of securities had grown significantly from postwar lows, amplifying the money multiplier effect. This monetary accommodation empirically underpinned the era's boom conditions, with industrial production doubling and real output expanding at roughly 4 percent annually, aligning growth with productivity advances in automobiles, electricity, and consumer goods while maintaining consumer price stability (CPI fluctuating narrowly around 1926 levels). Proponents of Strong's approach, including contemporaneous Fed officials, defended the policy as prudently matching real economic expansion to avert deflationary spirals akin to 1920-1921, thereby prioritizing systemic stability over rigid adherence to gold convertibility ratios. Yet, evidence of credit-fueled distortions emerged in the proliferation of brokers' loans for stock speculation, which ballooned from $3.7 billion in 1922 to $8.5 billion by 1929, suggesting monetary ease inadvertently channeled funds into asset markets rather than productive investment. Critiques from market-oriented economists contend that the expansion, by relaxing gold discipline through active reserve provision, fostered unsustainable credit booms and malinvestments, even amid surface , as adjustments and masked underlying inflationary pressures that eroded savers' real returns and primed the 1929 contraction. Such views highlight causal chains where policy-induced reserve growth exceeded organic savings, diverting capital toward speculative margins and , thus amplifying boom-bust dynamics inherent to discretion over metallic anchors.

Personal Life and Demise

Family and Private Affairs

Benjamin Strong Jr. first married Margaret LeBoutillier in 1895, with whom he had three children: Benjamin Strong III (born 1896), Margaret McIntyre Strong (born 1898), and Philip Grandin Strong (born circa 1902). Margaret Strong died in 1905, after which Strong's neighbor Henry Davison temporarily cared for the children. In 1907, at age 35, Strong married 20-year-old Katharine Peabody Converse, daughter of Edmund C. Converse, the first president of Company; the wedding occurred on April 10 in New York. With Katharine, Strong had a daughter, Barbara Strong Leggett. The Strong family resided primarily in , where Benjamin maintained residences suited to his banking career and social standing, including periods in affluent suburbs like . Despite Strong's high-profile role in American finance, his private affairs remained discreet, with the family avoiding public scandals or controversies amid the era's economic volatility. This stability underscored a conventional upper-class existence, focused on familial duties rather than ostentation.

Health Decline and Death

Strong suffered from chronic tuberculosis of the throat and lungs, diagnosed in 1916, which persisted and worsened throughout the 1920s amid the demands of his role at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Despite periods of respite, including extended stays at sanatoria in Colorado Springs such as Cragmor, where he sought higher-altitude air for recovery, Strong's condition was aggravated by overwork and frequent transatlantic travel for monetary coordination efforts. He nonetheless maintained active leadership, often directing policy via correspondence even during . On October 16, 1928, Strong died at age 55 in from complications of his long-standing . His passing created an immediate leadership transition at the New York Fed, with deputy governor George L. Harrison, then 41, assuming the governorship as successor. Contemporaries emphasized Strong's singular authority within the System, noting the resulting empirical gap in centralized direction that fueled debates on policy continuity in the ensuing months.

Intellectual Framework on Central Banking

Core Principles and Doctrines

Benjamin Strong Jr. advocated for an elastic currency system as a foundational principle of central banking, arguing that the should expand credit through rediscounting to accommodate seasonal and legitimate business demands without rigid constraints tied solely to gold reserves. This view stemmed from his direct involvement in the , where private bankers like improvised liquidity provision amid a breakdown in the inelastic national banking system, highlighting the causal necessity for a centralized mechanism to prevent cascading failures. Strong extended this to the lender-of-last-resort function, emphasizing that the Fed must lend freely at penalty rates against good collateral to solvent institutions during crises, thereby averting systemic panics while minimizing risk to the central bank itself. Strong conceptualized the as an apolitical , where expert bankers, insulated from electoral pressures, could apply specialized knowledge to stabilize finance more effectively than fragmented political oversight or banking. He prioritized operational discretion by seasoned practitioners over rigid rules or regional , believing such coordination empirically outperformed pre-Fed arrangements prone to hoarding and illiquidity. proponents, however, countered that expansive lender functions created , incentivizing banks to pursue riskier lending in anticipation of bailouts, potentially undermining market discipline. In Strong's doctrine, international interdependence necessitated U.S. leadership to foster global monetary stability, rejecting as causally unrealistic given trade, capital flows, and linkages that transmitted shocks across borders. He promoted principles among central banks, such as reciprocal lines and joint stabilization efforts, to mitigate contagion from European dislocations, viewing unilateral U.S. policies as insufficient for enduring equilibrium. This framework positioned the New York Fed as a pivotal node in transatlantic coordination, prioritizing empirical coordination over nationalistic constraints.

Views on Banking Decentralization

Strong critiqued the decentralized structure of the National Banking System (1863–1913) for fostering fragmented reserves that rendered the currency supply inelastic, unable to expand during liquidity demands and prone to hoarding amid uncertainty. This fragmentation, he argued, amplified financial shocks through correspondent banking networks, where interior banks pyramided reserves on New York correspondents, leading to rapid withdrawals and contagion during crises. In the , triggered by railroad failures and gold outflows, over 500 banks failed or suspended operations, with national bank deposits contracting by 15% and real GDP declining by approximately 10%, as decentralized reserves prevented coordinated liquidity provision. Similarly, the 1907 Panic saw runs on trust companies and losses exceeding 50%, forcing ad hoc interventions by private bankers like , which Strong—then vice president of —witnessed firsthand and deemed unsustainable without systemic reform. Strong advocated centralized reserve management under a dominant institution like the New York , prioritizing operational efficiency in the nation's money center over egalitarian regional distribution, to enable elastic extension via rediscounting and operations. He viewed equal power among regional Reserve Banks as inefficient, arguing that New York's financial dominance—handling 70% of national check clearings pre-Fed—necessitated its lead role in averting nationwide inelasticity and from dispersed decision-making. This stance, rooted in of pre-Fed contagion, posited that only unified reserves could mitigate shock amplification, as isolated regional pools exacerbated hoarding and interbank freezes rather than pooling for redistribution. Critics, however, have defended pre-Fed empirically, noting that major panics occurred infrequently (roughly every decade from –) relative to economic expansions, with average depositor losses under 1% of total deposits outside peaks, suggesting resilience from competitive entry and local absent in centralized systems. Strong's emphasis on New York-centric authority has been critiqued as facilitating influence, given his ties to interests, potentially prioritizing metropolitan liquidity over rural stability and enabling capture by large banks that benefited from pre-Fed reserve pyramids. Empirical analyses indicate that unit banking restrictions and inelastic note issuance—tied rigidly to U.S. bonds—contributed more to vulnerabilities than per se, with state-chartered banks showing lower failure rates in diversified systems.

Assessments and Legacy

Recognized Achievements

Benjamin Strong Jr. is credited with effectively coordinating the 's support for U.S. war financing during , including liquidity provision to member banks and assistance in marketing over $21 billion in Liberty Bonds between 1917 and 1919, which enabled sustained government borrowing without severe spikes. Under his leadership as Governor of the New York , monetary policies facilitated the 1920s , during which real GNP increased at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent from 1920 to 1929, supported by innovations in operations and management that maintained credit availability. Strong advanced international monetary stabilization through pioneering collaborations, such as extending credits totaling approximately $200 million from the New York Fed to European counterparts in 1924 and 1927, which averted potential defaults and aided the restoration of convertibility in Britain and other nations. His establishment of the New York Fed's dominance in system-wide policy coordination, including leadership in governors' conferences and purchases, positioned it as the enduring operational center of the , influencing national decisions through 1928.

Criticisms and Controversial Outcomes

Critics, particularly from the , have argued that Strong's expansionary monetary policies in the 1920s, including sustained low interest rates and purchases, created an artificial credit boom that outpaced underlying reserves, sowing the seeds for the 1929 market crash and subsequent downturn. Under Strong's leadership at the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the money supply expanded by approximately 61% between 1921 and 1929, while the U.S. stock grew by only about 17%, leading to inflationary pressures masked by stable consumer prices but evident in asset bubbles, such as the speculative surge in prices. like contended that this fiduciary credit expansion distorted capital allocation, fueling malinvestment in unsustainable sectors and setting the stage for the inevitable bust, as theorized in . Strong's policies have also drawn criticism for prioritizing international —particularly aiding Britain's return to the standard in at an overvalued —over domestic U.S. economic conditions, through measures like gold sterilization that prevented incoming gold inflows from expanding the U.S. . To support British Bank Governor Montagu Norman, Strong orchestrated easy credit conditions in 1924 and 1927, including rate cuts to 3.5% in 1927 despite domestic overheating signals, which critics argue sterilized gold receipts in the U.S. and channeled abroad, exacerbating imbalances like U.S. agricultural distress and speculative excesses at home. Former President later blamed this "internationalism" for contributing to the Depression by subordinating U.S. interests to European reconstruction, a view echoed in right-leaning critiques portraying central banking discretion under Strong as an engine of boom-bust cycles rather than a guardian of sound money principles. The centralization of authority in Strong's New York Fed has been faulted for enabling unchecked elite influence, including ties to figures like J.P. Morgan partners, which facilitated discretionary policies prone to error without broader accountability. Following Strong's death on October 16, 1928, the resulting and institutional rigidity amplified these distortions, as the Fed failed to adequately expand credit amid banking panics, turning a into the ; however, detractors contend that Strong's prior emphasis on international coordination left the system vulnerable to such paralysis, debunking narratives of him as an infallible "decisive leader" who might have averted catastrophe had he lived. Economists and , while noting Strong's unifying role in the , implicitly critiqued the policy legacy by highlighting how the Fed's post-1928 inaction prolonged deflationary spirals, with data showing a 33% drop in money stock from to tied to earlier imbalances.

References

  1. https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/bstrongbio.html
  2. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/184031095/benjamin-strong
  3. https://www.richmondfed.org/~/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/economic_quarterly/2000/spring/pdf/roberts.pdf
  4. https://www.geni.com/people/Benjamin-Strong-Jr/6000000024061347066
  5. https://americanaristocracy.com/people/benjamin-strong
  6. https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1116&context=his_fac
  7. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/people/benjamin-strong-jr
  8. https://www.nytimes.com/1928/10/17/archives/benjamin-strong-banker-dies-at-56-governor-of-reserve-bank-of-new.html
  9. https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/his_fac/109/
  10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/federal-reserve-and-its-founders/lieutenant-benjamin-strong-jr/A000F879084E3C8F646AA5395EC49768
  11. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/panic-of-1907
  12. https://www.nytimes.com/1914/10/06/archives/strong-is-chosen-by-reserve-bank-president-of-the-bankers-trust.html
  13. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll-island-conference
  14. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bank-panic-of-1907.asp
  15. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/new-yorks-bank-national-monetary-commission-founding-fed
  16. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/federal-reserve-act-signed
  17. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/progressive-party-platform-1912
  18. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/archival-collection/papers-benjamin-strong-jr-1160
  19. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2015/q1/federal_reserve
  20. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_quarterly/2000/spring/roberts
  21. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds-formative-years
  22. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9280/c9280.pdf
  23. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3840/w3840.pdf
  24. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w11714/w11714.pdf
  25. https://academic.oup.com/book/5799/chapter/149018027
  26. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/liberty-bonds
  27. https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2017/04/Chen_Gibson_FederalReservePaper.pdf
  28. https://www.clevelandfed.org/-/media/project/clevelandfedtenant/clevelandfedsite/publications/working-papers/2015/wp-1510-the-federal-reserve-system-and-world-war-i-pdf.pdf
  29. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/blog/2025/05/fraser-features-liberty-loans-federal-reserve-banks/
  30. https://manhattan.institute/event/the-forgotten-depression-1921-the-crash-that-cured-itself
  31. https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/documents/news/conferences/2017/0515-workshop-on-monetary-and-financial-history/presentations/tallman-white.pdf
  32. https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2020/preliminary/paper/F5KzBh4S
  33. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/enterprise-and-society/article/we-must-deflate-the-crime-of-1920-revisited/F8ED30577928942F164C12942290510B
  34. https://fee.org/articles/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/
  35. https://www.nytimes.com/1927/01/13/archives/montagu-norman-makes-annual-visit-governor-of-bank-of-england-on-no.html
  36. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/archival-collection/papers-benjamin-strong-jr-1160/correspondence-great-britain-473582
  37. https://cornellpress.manifoldapp.org/read/bankers-trust-how-social-relations-avert-global-financial-collapse/section/5a8627e8-329f-46bd-bb47-21a45ca8a0ac
  38. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/archival-collection/papers-benjamin-strong-jr-1160/a-guide-strong-papers-1911-1929-531189/fulltext
  39. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c4134/c4134.pdf
  40. https://mises.org/library/book/gold-exchange-standard-operation-1926-1929
  41. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w7186/w7186.pdf
  42. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c11482/c11482.pdf
  43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2596557
  44. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M14062USM027NNBR
  45. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/dawes
  46. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/quarterly_review/75th/75article3.pdf
  47. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/statements-speeches-benjamin-strong-1317/influence-discount-rate-3997
  48. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.7208/chicago/9780226821665-008/html
  49. https://www.haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/Seminar-Paper-Bruce-Carlin-05.03.pdf
  50. https://econreview.studentorg.berkeley.edu/in-the-shadow-of-the-slump-the-depression-of-1920-1921/
  51. https://www.richmondfed.org/~/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/economic_review/1985/pdf/er710601.pdf
  52. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/tools-and-transmission-of-federal-reserve-monetary-policy-in-the-1920s-20161122.html
  53. https://fee.org/articles/money-in-the-1920s-and-1930s/
  54. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c12794/revisions/c12794.rev2.pdf
  55. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-u-s-economy-in-the-1920s/
  56. https://www.ijcb.org/journal/ijcb21q2a6.pdf
  57. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_review/1985/er710601
  58. https://mises.org/mises-daily/how-governments-killed-gold-standard
  59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/418
  60. https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=his_fac
  61. https://www.americanheritage.com/man-who-wasnt-there
  62. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-anaconda-standard-katherine-converse/27996705/
  63. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/people/george-l-harrison
  64. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09538259.2022.2164185
  65. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-history-review/article/benjamin-strong-central-banker-by-lester-v-chandler-washington-d-c-the-brookings-institution-1958-pp-495-600/258AEE9A24A71E4271B363831CB03FCB
  66. https://www.levyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/rpr_4_13.pdf
  67. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/meltzer/clacen67.pdf
  68. https://www.bis.org/review/r180112a.htm
  69. https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/history_article.html
  70. https://www.bis.org/publ/work598.pdf
  71. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15403/w15403.pdf
  72. https://mises.org/mises-daily/origins-federal-reserve
  73. https://aier.org/article/pre-fed-panics-their-causes-contd/
  74. https://www.moaf.org/exhibits/fed/frbny/strongnorman
  75. https://winthropgroup.com/insights/insight/six-fed-leaders-who-have-made-an-impact
  76. https://mises.org/library/book/americas-great-depression
  77. https://fee.org/articles/austrian-inflation-austrian-money-and-federal-reserve-policy/
  78. https://mises.org/mises-daily/austrian-history-us-money-and-banking
  79. https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/88654/3/1.%2520Benjamin%2520Strong%2520and%2520International%2520Financial%2520Cooperation%2520during%2520the%25201920s.pdf
  80. https://eh.net/book_reviews/monetary-policy-and-the-onset-of-the-great-depression-the-myth-of-benjamin-strong-as-decisive-leader/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.