NORMS AND TRENDS IN EXPENSES 117
given in Chart 27, makes it easier to determine the norms and
trends characterizing the different amounts.
Norms
1. Amounts of interest and discounts on borrowed money, ex-
pressed in terms of earning assets and related to the seven-year
district levels, were larger than the average in every district in
1920 and 1921, in all but three of them in 1919, and in all but four
of them in 1922. In every district in 1923, 1924, and 1925 they
were lower than the averages. That is, the turn from high to low,
relative to the district levels, came in 1923, except for four dis-
tricts in which the change came one year earlier. In general, previ-
ous to 1923, the amounts were high; subsequently they were low.
2. Relative to the yearly levels for the country as a whole,
amounts in Boston and Cleveland were low, and those in Rich-
mond, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Dallas high during each of the
seven years. Similarly, those in New York, Chicago, and San
Francisco were prevailingly low, while those in Minneapolis and
Kansas City were generally high.
Trends
1. The trend of the amounts between 1919 and 1921 for the
country as a whole, and for each of the twelve districts, except
Dallas and San Francisco between 1919 and 1920, and Philadel-
phia between 1920 and 1921, was upward. It was downward for
the country as a whole, and for all the districts between 1921 and
1923, and between 1924 and 1925. Over the whole period, 1919
to 1925, it was in all cases downward.
2. The downward trend between 1919 and 19235 is greater than
that for the country as a whole in New York, Philadelphia, and
Kansas City; it is appreciably less than that for the country in
Cleveland and Richmond.
3. Districts with downward trends from 1921 to 1925 closely
corresponding to each other are Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Kan-
sas City; those with upward trends much alike between 1919 and
1921 are New York, Chicago, St. Louis, and Minneapolis.
Different as are the rates of change upward and downward
among the various districts, there is clearly more similarity than
difference. In general, the “typical” behavior of the averages of
