Ben Bernanke: Federal Reserve caused Great Depression

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Fed chief says, 'We did it. ?
very sorry, won't do it again'
Posted: March 19, 2008
9:02 pm Eastern

By David Kupelian
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Despite the varied theories espoused by many establishment economists, it was none other than the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression and the horrific suffering, deprivation and dislocation America and the world experienced in its wake. At least, that's the clearly stated view of current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The worldwide economic downturn called the Great Depression, which persisted from 1929 until about 1939, was the longest and worst depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. While originating in the U.S., it ended up causing drastic declines in output, severe unemployment, and acute deflation in virtually every country on earth. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "the Great Depression ranks second only to the Civil War as the gravest crisis in American history."

What exactly caused this economic tsunami that devastated the U.S. and much of the world?

In "A Monetary History of the United States," Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman along with coauthor Anna J. Schwartz lay the mega-catastrophe of the Great Depression squarely at the feet of the Federal Reserve.

Here's how Friedman summed up his views on the Fed and the Depression in an Oct. 1, 2000, interview with PBS:



PBS: You've written that what really caused the Depression was mistakes by the government. Looking back now, what in your view was the actual cause?

Friedman: Well, we have to distinguish between the recession of 1929, the early stages, and the conversion of that recession into a major catastrophe.

The recession was an ordinary business cycle. We had repeated recessions over hundreds of years, but what converted [this one] into a major depression was bad monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve System had been established to prevent what actually happened. It was set up to avoid a situation in which you would have to close down banks, in which you would have a banking crisis. And yet, under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States. There's no other example I can think of, of a government measure which produced so clearly the opposite of the results that were intended.

And what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.

At all times, the Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were all the time urging them to do that. So it was, in my opinion, clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression.

Although economists have pontificated over the decades about this or that cause of the Great Depression, even the current Fed chairman Ben S. Bernanke, agrees with Friedman's assessment that the Fed caused the Great Depression.

At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor Friedman's 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedman's old home base, the University of Chicago. Here's a bit of what Bernanke, the man who now runs the Fed ? and thus, one of the most powerful people in the world ? had to say that day:



I can think of no greater honor than being invited to speak on the occasion of Milton Friedman's ninetieth birthday. Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer. ?

Today I'd like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with his distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history, the onset of the Great Depression ? or, as Friedman and Schwartz dubbed it, the Great Contraction of 1929-33.

? As everyone here knows, in their "Monetary History" Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation's monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that "the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces."

After citing how Friedman and Schwartz documented the Fed's continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath ? and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations in order to stop the devastating monetary contraction ? Bernanke adds:



? Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves ? for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution ? the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public ? the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.

It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's infamous 'liquidationist' thesis, that weeding out "weak" banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks ? which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed ? felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. ?

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

Best wishes for your next ninety years.

Today, the entire Western financial world holds its breath every time the Fed chairman speaks, so influential are the central bank's decisions on markets, interest rates and the economy in general. Yet the Fed, supposedly created to smooth out business cycles and prevent disruptive economic downswings like the Great Depression, has actually done the opposite.

Source: WorldNetDaily

I think.... it might already be too late. Anyone ever calculated the time it takes a dollar to be reduced to it's new inflationary value after its conception?
How about $4,000,000,000,000.00 worth? We simply cannot raise interest rates enough, can hardly raise taxes and we can't borrow from the Chinese or the Japanese as they are growing wiser every day. How then will we continue to pay for the most expensive war in history and meet our multi-trillion dollar entitlements all while simultaneously and miraculously spending hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out the banks? If America was stretched before the war then where does all this new money come from?

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies."

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."

-Thomas Jefferson
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,669
2,424
126
Based on the OP's comments, I think he absolutely and completely misunderstands the point that Milton Friedman made. The OP apparently believes that the mere existence of the federal reserve bank is the root of all our financial problems.

Friedman said the Fed made the problem worse by bad policy decisions (basically acting too indecisively to stem the wave of bank failures).

The OP's logic is akin to saying we should abolish all surgeons because one committed malpractice once.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
not to mention that the first jefferson quote is stupid, because the fed is a government organization, not private.

in regards to his troll bait/diversionary sig, his thread will get locked because it is trollbait and he makes no point, other than some logically incoherent rambling.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Meh. Both Freidman and Bernanke obfuscate. While Fed policy of the time likely worsened the situation in the 1930's, they fail to address the issues surrounding what both represent as a "normal" business cycle. It wasn't, and today's situation isn't, either. What the Fed failed to do then and what they failed to do under Greenspan's leadership was to contain the expansion of credit in the up cycle to reasonable and much more sustainable levels. Sharp contractions are the inevitable result of poor management in that part of the cycle, of allowing bankers and financiers of all stripes to go nuts making money out of nothing... Policy makers failed to temper growth with sanity wrt the stock market in the late 1920's, and did the same again recently wrt housing...
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: Thump553
Based on the OP's comments, I think he absolutely and completely misunderstands the point that Milton Friedman made. The OP apparently believes that the mere existence of the federal reserve bank is the root of all our financial problems.

Friedman said the Fed made the problem worse by bad policy decisions (basically acting too indecisively to stem the wave of bank failures).

The OP's logic is akin to saying we should abolish all surgeons because one committed malpractice once.

Exactly. Quote from the article:


And what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.

At all times, the Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were all the time urging them to do that. So it was, in my opinion, clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression.

Now in 2008, we face the same challenge with lack of liquidity in the market because of the credit crisis. And we now have the fed trying to provide the liquidity, but we got bunch of morons who doesn't understand what problem our economy is facing, what fed is trying to do, and all they see is black and white in their simple brain, oooh, fed is bad, oooh too much money is bad...oooh we need fed gone and gold standard back. Great depression was caused by money supply cut by a third. gold standard will cause the money to be cut by at least 2/3. People with half of a brain would know what a disaster that would be.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
the ironic thing is that perry has been calling for the fed to do this time around the exact same mistake it made in the great depression.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
There is no question the FED caused the great depression. The article is wrong in saying when the FED caused it. The events that caused the great depression where set in motion long before the FED refused to bail out the bankers.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: Thump553
Based on the OP's comments, I think he absolutely and completely misunderstands the point that Milton Friedman made. The OP apparently believes that the mere existence of the federal reserve bank is the root of all our financial problems.

Friedman said the Fed made the problem worse by bad policy decisions (basically acting too indecisively to stem the wave of bank failures).

The OP's logic is akin to saying we should abolish all surgeons because one committed malpractice once.

You know if you dug through all my posting history I think it would be quite easy to surmise that I don't blame the institution but the power given to men through these institutions. I've never argued that the fed "is not able" merely that men lack the discipline to make the proper decisions in a consistent enough manner to run & guide the economy.
If you honestly believe that the great depression was akin to one physician making a little mistake, or that the fed has severely over-regulated on only one occasion then you ought to read on the little time frame between 1900-2000(particularly the 1970's), or perhaps turn on the local news. Roaring 20's, dot-com bubble, housing bubble, all sorts of interesting stuff for you to read.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: smack Down
There is no question the FED caused the great depression. The article is wrong in saying when the FED caused it. The events that caused the great depression where set in motion long before the FED refused to bail out the bankers.

The Fed never set the Washington policy of propping up the BOE during their gold backed pound relaunch. That was Washington, the Fed had no choice. This is what caused the expansion of credit. Not to mention horrible margin policies, bond policies, "Trust" policies, and little to no i-bank regulations. If anything, blame regulation.

Sounds familiar eh?

The Fed's problem during this period was that they then raised rates and cut credit to protect the dollar. This did cause the GD. Now they are doing the opposite to prevent one, yet people still bitch.

I love when people take this quote out of historical and speech context. They only prove they know nothing of history, or how the actual quote was used in the speech Bernanke was giving.
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: smack Down
There is no question the FED caused the great depression. The article is wrong in saying when the FED caused it. The events that caused the great depression where set in motion long before the FED refused to bail out the bankers.

The Fed never set the Washington policy of propping up the BOE during their gold backed pound relaunch. That was Washington, the Fed had no choice. This is what caused the expansion of credit. Not to mention horrible margin policies, bond policies, "Trust" policies, and little to no i-bank regulations. If anything, blame regulation.

Sounds familiar eh?

The Fed's problem during this period was that they then raised rates and cut credit to protect the dollar. This did cause the GD. Now they are doing the opposite to prevent one, yet people still bitch.

I love when people take this quote out of historical and speech context. They only prove they know nothing of history, or how the actual quote was used in the speech Bernanke was giving.

Based on what, or is it just your opposite theory. Since they did X and bad things happened do the opposite of X must prevent bad things from happening.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: smack Down
There is no question the FED caused the great depression. The article is wrong in saying when the FED caused it. The events that caused the great depression where set in motion long before the FED refused to bail out the bankers.

The Fed never set the Washington policy of propping up the BOE during their gold backed pound relaunch. That was Washington, the Fed had no choice. This is what caused the expansion of credit. Not to mention horrible margin policies, bond policies, "Trust" policies, and little to no i-bank regulations. If anything, blame regulation.

Sounds familiar eh?

The Fed's problem during this period was that they then raised rates and cut credit to protect the dollar. This did cause the GD. Now they are doing the opposite to prevent one, yet people still bitch.

I love when people take this quote out of historical and speech context. They only prove they know nothing of history, or how the actual quote was used in the speech Bernanke was giving.

Based on what, or is it just your opposite theory. Since they did X and bad things happened do the opposite of X must prevent bad things from happening.

This is exactly what happened. When the country needed liquidity, they got nothing. It's historical fact. Perhaps you should pick up a book or three.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
not to mention that the first jefferson quote is stupid, because the fed is a government organization, not private.

in regards to his troll bait/diversionary sig, his thread will get locked because it is trollbait and he makes no point, other than some logically incoherent rambling.

You're full of shit, you're full of shit, YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT.

/sage

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
not to mention that the first jefferson quote is stupid, because the fed is a government organization, not private.

in regards to his troll bait/diversionary sig, his thread will get locked because it is trollbait and he makes no point, other than some logically incoherent rambling.

You're full of shit, you're full of shit, YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT.

/sage

you seem angry. What exactly are you angry about?
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,631
2,016
126
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
not to mention that the first jefferson quote is stupid, because the fed is a government organization, not private.

in regards to his troll bait/diversionary sig, his thread will get locked because it is trollbait and he makes no point, other than some logically incoherent rambling.

You're full of shit, you're full of shit, YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT.

/sage

you seem angry. What exactly are you angry about?

teenage angst.
 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
First let me say that this thread is not "news" by any means. Bernanke admitted this a long time ago.

Originally posted by: Thump553
The OP's logic is akin to saying we should abolish all surgeons because one committed malpractice once.

I'm going to disagree strongly here with this analogy. The correct analogy to give the Federal Reserve is that they are the arsonist with firefighting duties. Surgeons were not in the least bit responsible for any of their patients' conditions. The Fed perpetually justifies its existence based on environments that it creates or contributes to, but blames on others. Even now is an example. They're taking drastic actions and asking for new regulatory powers because of problems that were caused by the artificial interest rates of the Greenspan era, which sent false signals to investors that otherwise would have never gotten as speculative as they did. This is how socialism builds on itself. Though it's generally accepted now that the Great Depression was caused by sharp Fed inflation in the 20s followed by sharp Fed contraction in the 30s, the prevailing theory at the time was that the free market had run amok. That people were victims of themselves and needed more government intervention in the economy, in their lives, in their retirement plans. Socialism effectively grew by using a desperate and easily manipulated environment created by another socialist policy as a pretext for more.

Originally posted by: rchiu
Now in 2008, we face the same challenge with lack of liquidity in the market because of the credit crisis. And we now have the fed trying to provide the liquidity, but we got bunch of morons who doesn't understand what problem our economy is facing, what fed is trying to do, and all they see is black and white in their simple brain, oooh, fed is bad, oooh too much money is bad...oooh we need fed gone and gold standard back. Great depression was caused by money supply cut by a third. gold standard will cause the money to be cut by at least 2/3. People with half of a brain would know what a disaster that would be.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree on this assertion, there is a fundamental difference and Milton explains it quite well in his books and in the second video of my sig, which you are apparently too stupid to understand. Whereas now the Federal Reserve has to resort to the creation of new money (inflation) to "solve" this crisis, all the Fed had to do in the 30s was not sit on existing money, the inflow of gold from abroad. They did the exact opposite of what they were created to do under the international rules of the gold standard.

Since you continually try to come to the Fed's rescue with idiotic arguments and then mock and insult anyone who tries to explain gold, I suggest you just keep out of anything to do with economics.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If anything, blame regulation.

You could use the same argument on dictatorships, but it doesn't make them the best system. You have a terrible time understanding the concept of enablements. Certain idealist policies create highly centralized powers, that, because of human nature, incur new inevitable costs that are bound to outweigh any possible benefits. The Federal Reserve is one such policy.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: BansheeX
First let me say that this thread is not "news" by any means. Bernanke admitted this a long time ago.

But it is politics and this is P&N.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: BansheeX
You could use the same argument on dictatorships, but it doesn't make them the best system. You have a terrible time understanding the concept of enablements. Certain idealist policies create highly centralized powers, that, because of human nature, incur inevitable yet inadvertent costs that are bound to outweigh any possible benefits. The Federal Reserve is one such policy.

And you have a difficult time looking at difference scenarios. You give no credit to fiat while extolling the virtues of gold, while not seeing the inherent and massive shortfalls.

Regulation doesn't mean highly centralized powers. If anything, it enables the market to move better. We have some of the most regulated markets on the planet, which is exactly why everybody comes here to list or develop companies. Regulation also aids in transparency, decreasing risk and frictional costs of business and increasing capitalization.

Simple "hands off" policies don't work, it's been proven time and again throughout history. It's the exact reason why gold won't ever be a reserve currency again.
 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: BansheeX
You could use the same argument on dictatorships, but it doesn't make them the best system. You have a terrible time understanding the concept of enablements. Certain idealist policies create highly centralized powers, that, because of human nature, incur inevitable yet inadvertent costs that are bound to outweigh any possible benefits. The Federal Reserve is one such policy.

And you have a difficult time looking at difference scenarios. You give no credit to fiat while extolling the virtues of gold, while not seeing the inherent and massive shortfalls.

Regulation doesn't mean highly centralized powers. If anything, it enables the market to move better. We have some of the most regulated markets on the planet, which is exactly why everybody comes here to list or develop companies. Regulation also aids in transparency, decreasing risk and frictional costs of business and increasing capitalization.

Simple "hands off" policies don't work, it's been proven time and again throughout history. It's the exact reason why gold won't ever be a reserve currency again.

Creating "regulationary" powers is always a delicate proposition, because it creates another fundamental problem of "who is regulating the regulator?" We've actually tried to get more oversight of the Fed, but it's all pretty much been stricken down. Maybe one day we'll let the market set interest rates and correct itself when it needs to regardless of political pressure to keep illusory growth from falling with inflation.

And personally, I think gold worked well. We were chugging along nicely through the turn of the century and it IS how we became the reserve currency of the world, a status we are about to lose. But this is the part of the argument where you guys exaggerate about bank runs and defend fractional reserves, and I'm not going to waste my Sunday arguing the same things over and over again...
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: BansheeX
Creating "regulationary" powers is always a delicate proposition, because it creates another fundamental problem of "who is regulating the regulator?" We've actually tried to get more oversight of the Fed, but it's all pretty much been stricken down. Maybe one day we'll let the market set interest rates and correct itself when it needs to regardless of political pressure to keep illusory growth from falling with inflation.

And personally, I think gold worked well. We were chugging along nicely through the turn of the century and it IS how we became the reserve currency of the world, a status we are about to lose. But this is the part of the argument where you guys exaggerate about bank runs and defend fractional reserves, and I'm not going to waste my Sunday arguing the same things over and over again...

I agree that it's a delicate position, but one that needs to exist. "Illusory" growth? Please. The market does set interest rates. If you haven't looked, LIBOR + spread is the market rate, what the Fed lends to banks isn't the market rate. I'd have thought that the housing situation would have taught you that. I guess some people never learn, because data is "too hard" in comparison to youtube videos.

No, we became the reserve currency after the Fed. Fractional reserves will exist, no matter what. It's ridiculous to believe that 100% reserves should exist, it increases costs and decreases availability of funds, far above the cost of some problems here and there.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: BansheeX


And personally, I think gold worked well. We were chugging along nicely through the turn of the century and it IS how we became the reserve currency of the world, a status we are about to lose. But this is the part of the argument where you guys exaggerate about bank runs and defend fractional reserves, and I'm not going to waste my Sunday arguing the same things over and over again...

1873
1893
1907

since the creation of the fed, we have had one devastating financial panic, which woudl have been about average for the three listed here, and it was before the fed received most of its current powers.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: BansheeX


And personally, I think gold worked well. We were chugging along nicely through the turn of the century and it IS how we became the reserve currency of the world, a status we are about to lose. But this is the part of the argument where you guys exaggerate about bank runs and defend fractional reserves, and I'm not going to waste my Sunday arguing the same things over and over again...

1873
1893
1907

since the creation of the fed, we have had one devastating financial panic, which woudl have been about average for the three listed here.

He ignores those, blaming it on other things.

Essentially, they think we should have the most inefficient, least cost-effective, and most inflexible financial system because it'd be marginally less "risky". Meanwhile, every other country in the world would seize upon our competitive disadvantage and sink this country's economy in no time. Companies would flock away from the country and we'd end up a 2nd world country in 20 years.

All because they are afraid of temporary fluctuations in the dollar, or seeking out the root causes.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,983
47,906
136
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

He ignores those, blaming it on other things.

Essentially, they think we should have the most inefficient, least cost-effective, and most inflexible financial system because it'd be marginally less "risky". Meanwhile, every other country in the world would seize upon our competitive disadvantage and sink this country's economy in no time. Companies would flock away from the country and we'd end up a 2nd world country in 20 years.

All because they are afraid of temporary fluctuations in the dollar, or seeking out the root causes.

2nd world? I agree, we should join the Warsaw Pact immediately!

Seriously though, I don't know why you bother arguing with these guys. It seems that they (like me) don't even really understand how the world's financial system works, but they argue as if their points are equally valid anyways. You can't play chess against someone that doesn't know the rules.