Skip to main content

The Wizard of Oz

Once again, I have a post which will appeal to the younger as well as the older audience.


The Wizard of Oz, which won two Oscars in 1940, is part of cinematic history in that it was one of the first multi-colour movies.  The movie is based on a novel of the same title by L. Frank Baum. 

Baum’s novel is an allegorical story about a debate in the 1890s surrounding which monetary system the United States should adopt – should it stay on the Gold Standard or should it adopt a bimetallic standard consisting of silver and gold?  Should the currency be backed by gold or by silver and gold? 

‘Oz’, of course, represents gold (Oz = ounce of gold), and Dorothy and her friends travel along the yellowbrick (gold again) road, which ultimately leads to nowhere.  In the novel, Dorothy wears silver slippers (in the film version she wears ruby slippers so as to show off the new colour technology), and these represent silver coinage.  Dorothy represents the ordinary American (honest, kind and plucky), who was being hurt by the gold standard (note the poverty that Dorothy and her family live in).  She is joined on her journey by Toto her dog, who represents the teetotal movement, a bit of a crackpot group which supported the bimetallic system.  The Wicked Witch of the East embodies the eastern business and financial interests, who were advocates of the monometallic monetary system. 

Dorothy and Toto are also joined on their journey to the Emerald City (Washington DC – it is maybe entitled the emerald city due to the colour of the US currency – the greenback) by a scarecrow (representing western farmers), the tin man (the workingman who through industrialisation had lost his heart and had been turned into a mere robot), and the cowardly lion.  The lion represents William Jennings Bryan, the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 1896, 1900 and 1908, and a leading proponent of a bimetallic standard.  In 1896, he made a famous speech (he was a great orator, which is why Baum uses a lion to represent him), where he said “thou shalt not crucify man on a cross of gold”.   Baum possibly characterises the lion as cowardly because Bryan’s support waned after 1896, following new gold discoveries and economic recovery after the long depression.

For more on this monetary allegory, see Hugh Rockoff’s wonderful paper in the Journal of Political Economy – click here.

Popular posts from this blog

The CEO: The Rise and Fall of Britain's Captains of Industry

Michael Aldous and I had our book The CEO: The Rise and Fall of Britain's Captains of Industry published a few weeks ago. You can find out more about it and buy it at Cambridge University Press's website . It is also available at Amazon , Waterstones , and Barnes & Noble .  The CEO has already been reviewed in The Sunday Times , The Observer and Financial Times .
Read more

The Railway Mania

My colleague and former PhD student Gareth Campbell has created a website about the British Railway Mania - click here . This episode has been described by the Economist as probably the greatest bubble in human history. Gareth's website provides background on the Mania and posits some explanations for the 'bubble'. In his explanation of why the bubble happened, Gareth places a lot of emphasis on investor myopia regarding future dividends and uncalled capital. His study of investors during the episode does not support the view that this episode was fuelled by naive and irrational investors. 
Read more

How Valuable Are Connections?

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Amir Kermani, James Kwak and Todd Mitton have written a paper on whether firms connected to Timothy Geithner benefited from these connections. They do so by looking at how stocks of these firms reacted to the announcement that he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008. They find that there were large abnormal returns for connected firms. Below is the paper's abstract and the full paper is available here . The announcement of Timothy Geithner as nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008 produced a cumulative abnormal return for financial firms with which he had a connection. This return was about 6% after the first full day of trading and about 12% after ten trading days. There were subsequently abnormal negative returns for connected firms when news broke that Geithner's confirmation might be derailed by tax issues. Excess returns for connected firms may reflect the perceived impact of relying on the advice of a small ne...
Read more