Three Failures

Sarah L. Quinn
{"title":"Three Failures","authors":"Sarah L. Quinn","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvb938n3.8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines three failed credit experiments on pooling loans, which articulated competing visions for a rapidly changing political economy. Each of these episodes was an attempt to move credit into the periphery in a way that was quicker, cheaper, easier, more stable, and more reliable than it had been before. To some extent, each involved corporate methods of organizing property and risk. Despite those similarities, however, there were also differences among the three experiments that reveal fundamental divides in how Americans made sense of a rapidly changing economic landscape. As Americans experimented with systems of credit distribution at the close of the nineteenth century, they fought over how competing interests should be reflected in a rapidly transforming political economy. Their clashing assumptions and values were built into these lending structures. Consequently, Americans' opinions of how credit should operate were forged through these lending structures as much as they were reflected in them. Each of these experiences resulted in hard-won insights about the challenges that plague credit markets. As such, these failures set the stage for a federal overhaul of farm credit in the early twentieth century. At stake in these efforts was not just the speed at which money might flow through credit markets, but also the principles that should guide those flows.","PeriodicalId":208461,"journal":{"name":"American Bonds","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Bonds","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvb938n3.8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter examines three failed credit experiments on pooling loans, which articulated competing visions for a rapidly changing political economy. Each of these episodes was an attempt to move credit into the periphery in a way that was quicker, cheaper, easier, more stable, and more reliable than it had been before. To some extent, each involved corporate methods of organizing property and risk. Despite those similarities, however, there were also differences among the three experiments that reveal fundamental divides in how Americans made sense of a rapidly changing economic landscape. As Americans experimented with systems of credit distribution at the close of the nineteenth century, they fought over how competing interests should be reflected in a rapidly transforming political economy. Their clashing assumptions and values were built into these lending structures. Consequently, Americans' opinions of how credit should operate were forged through these lending structures as much as they were reflected in them. Each of these experiences resulted in hard-won insights about the challenges that plague credit markets. As such, these failures set the stage for a federal overhaul of farm credit in the early twentieth century. At stake in these efforts was not just the speed at which money might flow through credit markets, but also the principles that should guide those flows.
三个失败
本章考察了三个失败的集中贷款信贷实验,它们为快速变化的政治经济阐明了相互竞争的愿景。这些事件中的每一个都试图以一种比以前更快、更便宜、更容易、更稳定、更可靠的方式将信贷转移到外围国家。在某种程度上,每一种都涉及到企业组织财产和风险的方法。然而,尽管有这些相似之处,三个实验之间也存在差异,这些差异揭示了美国人如何理解快速变化的经济格局的根本分歧。当美国人在19世纪末试验信用分配制度时,他们为如何在迅速变化的政治经济中反映相互竞争的利益而争论不休。他们相互冲突的假设和价值观被植入了这些贷款结构中。因此,美国人对信贷应该如何运作的看法是通过这些贷款结构形成的,正如这些贷款结构所反映的那样。每一次经历都让我对困扰信贷市场的挑战有了来之不易的见解。因此,这些失败为20世纪初联邦政府对农业信贷的全面改革奠定了基础。这些努力不仅关系到资金在信贷市场流动的速度,还关系到指导这些资金流动的原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信