Now that no one really knows what might help the economy, the economists and others are looking for analogies from history. Commentators have moved from looking to the Great Depression for insights to rummaging around in the history of the Panic of 1873 (Paul Krugman). The Panic of 1873! What! Last time I looked, we didn't really know much about the Panic of 1873. Recently, the "best historic economic analogy" has been a valorization of the Gilded Age (WSJ). As a historian of the Gilded Age, I think that the Panic of 1893 can furnish some insight but not for reasons that appeal to the commentators.
Something that might help is for these folks to know something about history, especially the economic history, of the Gilded Age. (What commentators and bloggers currently offer by way of history is truly astonishing rubbish.) The other would be to understand that NBER is more than likely incorrect on its analysis of depressions and their durability. With few exceptions, this data derives from secondary sources, compilations of data that are, I think, highly suspect from a historian's perspective. No one seems to question the basis of this data.
Comments