Did NO ONE listen to Bernanke's testimony the other day?

[halik]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: bamacre
Here is Paul vs. Bernanke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

Bill Anderson over at lewrockell.com had this to say...

Contrary to his statement, the Fed was not taking advice from Andrew Mellon in the early 1930s. As Murray Rothbard points out in America's Great Depression (some here), the Fed did try to reflate, but it did no good.

Furthermore, Bernanke's response is not logical. He earlier agreed that there was price fixing during the Great Depression, but then claims that the Fed listened to Mellon and "liquidated" everyone. Had there been the liquidations, there would have been no depression. One cannot both have price fixing and not have price fixing simultaneously.

I'm surprised Ron Paul didn't stop Bernanke from his other lies on the spot. The Fed DID intervene and try to inflate out of the deflation. But at least he stopped him on the Congressional legality of issuing coins vs. bills of credit.

Idiocy levels are high when you fail at history.

Read the peer reviewed version, not the bullshit on wikipedia
Text

Also occham's razor - who knows more about macro economics, the guy that's the head of the fed and holds an econ Degree from MIT or an obstetrician ?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: bamacre
Here is Paul vs. Bernanke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

Bill Anderson over at lewrockell.com had this to say...

Contrary to his statement, the Fed was not taking advice from Andrew Mellon in the early 1930s. As Murray Rothbard points out in America's Great Depression (some here), the Fed did try to reflate, but it did no good.

Furthermore, Bernanke's response is not logical. He earlier agreed that there was price fixing during the Great Depression, but then claims that the Fed listened to Mellon and "liquidated" everyone. Had there been the liquidations, there would have been no depression. One cannot both have price fixing and not have price fixing simultaneously.

I'm surprised Ron Paul didn't stop Bernanke from his other lies on the spot. The Fed DID intervene and try to inflate out of the deflation. But at least he stopped him on the Congressional legality of issuing coins vs. bills of credit.

Idiocy levels are high when you fail at history.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Congress directed the Fed to contract liquidity far before the expanded it. They did so to protect the currency. By the time they realized that a strong currency was worthless if people had no currency to spend, it was too late. At that point, things were so fucked up that nothing could help it.

It's revisionist bullshit history like this that dooms us to repetition.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: halik
Credit dried up overnight! I am one of the many, many people that have variable debt fixed to libor +xx (Gradschool loans that is). If that situation was allowed to unwind, i would find myself paying creditcard-apr rates on my college loans.

I'm assuming you mean private, were you ineligible for federal?

I believe my unsubsidized feral and my MI-loan (out of business now, the auctions failed) are both variable. I know the latter is for certain, I had the option of going fixed or variable.

Should have gone fixed

 

[halik]

if libor stays at 6% ill have bigger issues to deal with

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: halik
if libor stays at 6% ill have bigger issues to deal with

Can you do a consolidation loan to get out of the variable rate loan?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: bamacre
Here is Paul vs. Bernanke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

Bill Anderson over at lewrockell.com had this to say...

Contrary to his statement, the Fed was not taking advice from Andrew Mellon in the early 1930s. As Murray Rothbard points out in America's Great Depression (some here), the Fed did try to reflate, but it did no good.

Furthermore, Bernanke's response is not logical. He earlier agreed that there was price fixing during the Great Depression, but then claims that the Fed listened to Mellon and "liquidated" everyone. Had there been the liquidations, there would have been no depression. One cannot both have price fixing and not have price fixing simultaneously.

I'm surprised Ron Paul didn't stop Bernanke from his other lies on the spot. The Fed DID intervene and try to inflate out of the deflation. But at least he stopped him on the Congressional legality of issuing coins vs. bills of credit.

Idiocy levels are high when you fail at history.

Read the peer reviewed version, not the bullshit on wikipedia
Text

Also occham's razor - who knows more about macro economics, the guy that's the head of the fed and holds an econ Degree from MIT or an obstetrician ?

Bernanke has also written many papers on the economics of the Great Depression. I haven't bothered doing any fact-checking on his statements, but I'd tend to think he knows what he's talking about.

 

[ron2368]

What are we buying for 700b, no one has told us. Bernake is just doing what Paulson tells him to.


``I suspect that part of what we're seeing in the freezing up of lending markets is strategic behavior on the part of big financial players who stand to benefit from the bailout,'' said David K. Levine, an economist at Washington University in St. Louis, who studies liquidity constraints and game theory.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ron2368
What are we buying for 700b, no one has told us. Bernake is just doing what Paulson tells him to.


``I suspect that part of what we're seeing in the freezing up of lending markets is strategic behavior on the part of big financial players who stand to benefit from the bailout,'' said David K. Levine, an economist at Washington University in St. Louis, who studies liquidity constraints and game theory.

This has got nothing to do with gaming the system. I work for a bank, I saw how things were shut down.

 

[LegendKiller]

Here is what you get unless this problem is fixed.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/2...ding/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Here is what you get unless this problem is fixed.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/2...ding/index.htm?cnn=yes

One of the Michigan loans i took last year already failed - they suspended operation after repeated failures of the aucitons.

 

[Michael]

LegendKiller

I looked at the link.

So what? The link clearly shows that credit is still available.

I am hoping that the bailout fails as I do not think it will fix the problem and it will leave too many of the people and companies that caused the problem in charge.

Michael

 

[LegendKiller]

Credit is available, but only in regional markets, and even that is shutting down. What you're seeing is a credit squeeze. As credit contracts too much, companies will cut growth, or contract, because they cannot expand operations. Layoffs *will* occur.

 

[Michael]

So layoffs will occur. So what? I finished university in 1987 and the market crashed 1 month after I started work. Since then there have been several downturns and lay-offs have been a part of my entire working life.

I'm also a financial professional and have raised over $1B (and counting) on the public markets for the companies I work for. I deal with Wall Street bankers every week.

If a few more of the large institutions go under it will be quite bad. However, I am convinced that if it is not very bad, then nothing will get fixed.

The truth of the matter is that the banks used borrowed money to make big bets. They've been feeding off the hedge funds for years and now the hedge funds are feeding off on them. The took the risks and their management, boards and investors did not stop them. Now they should take the bad along with the good.

I think it will be better and cleaner to have a hard crash. The last one we had (The Great Depression) had terrible consequences (WW II for example) but eventually the benefits that came out of it made the country better.

Michael

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Michael
So layoffs will occur. So what? I finished university in 1987 and the market crashed 1 month after I started work. Since then there have been several downturns and lay-offs have been a part of my entire working life.

I'm also a financial professional and have raised over $1B (and counting) on the public markets for the companies I work for. I deal with Wall Street bankers every week.

If a few more of the large institutions go under it will be quite bad. However, I am convinced that if it is not very bad, then nothing will get fixed.

The truth of the matter is that the banks used borrowed money to make big bets. They've been feeding off the hedge funds for years and now the hedge funds are feeding off on them. The took the risks and their management, boards and investors did not stop them. Now they should take the bad along with the good.

I think it will be better and cleaner to have a hard crash. The last one we had (The Great Depression) had terrible consequences (WW II for example) but eventually the benefits that came out of it made the country better.

Michael

Wow, you raised $1BN in the markets and deal with bankers every day. When I worked for a credit card issuer I put in place 5 ABCP conduits for $6BN of funding in 4 months. Last year I raised over $3BN in conduit funding, in facilities that raised over $30BN total. Want to see what the securitization market has done this year?

Check out some of the more on-the-run companies and how "successful" they are at at just maintaining funding at reasonable rates these days. I already know of several companies who have laid off thousands because they can't even maintain their funding in the securitization markets. The crunch is hitting hard and fast.

87 was a fart in the wind compared to what's happening now. That was over in months, this could spiral into a decade long severe recession, or depression.

But hey, you've been "through it". The guys I work with who were there during 87 say it wasn't shit compared to this.

 

[miketheidiot]

when are people going to realize that ron paul is a clueless idiot?

 

[Michael]

$1B is decent for a manufacturing company CFO. Never worked for a mortgage or credit card loan company. My friends that have "raised" so many billions that they long lost count. Very different than a normal raising process with a road show to investors and then dealing with shareholder questions for years afterwards.

Plus I already said it will be bad. However, the only point you're making is that there will be lay-offs. You have no idea how bad it will be this time. No one really does. It might be just a few more major institutions that go down and then the dust will clear. There still is plenty of capital out there and talented people.

The USA is not the only place with issues. Even if $700B is enough to "fix" the problem here, it could mean nothing if the UK or Germany or Spain all blow up as well. Plus Japan is always a risk. I don't even want to think about China. If the West seizes up for a while and demand goes way down, it will put extreme pressure on the Chinese government.

So I think the $700B is poorly thought out and is another panicked response by an administration that is good at panicking, poor on results. I also don't trust the motives of Paulson who is a Wall Street insider through and through.

Michael

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
when are people going to realize that ron paul is a clueless idiot?

Right after Nader supporters fess up.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Michael
So layoffs will occur. So what? I finished university in 1987 and the market crashed 1 month after I started work. Since then there have been several downturns and lay-offs have been a part of my entire working life.

I'm also a financial professional and have raised over $1B (and counting) on the public markets for the companies I work for. I deal with Wall Street bankers every week.

If a few more of the large institutions go under it will be quite bad. However, I am convinced that if it is not very bad, then nothing will get fixed.

The truth of the matter is that the banks used borrowed money to make big bets. They've been feeding off the hedge funds for years and now the hedge funds are feeding off on them. The took the risks and their management, boards and investors did not stop them. Now they should take the bad along with the good.

I think it will be better and cleaner to have a hard crash. The last one we had (The Great Depression) had terrible consequences (WW II for example) but eventually the benefits that came out of it made the country better.

Michael

Wow, you raised $1BN in the markets and deal with bankers every day. When I worked for a credit card issuer I put in place 5 ABCP conduits for $6BN of funding in 4 months. Last year I raised over $3BN in conduit funding, in facilities that raised over $30BN total. Want to see what the securitization market has done this year?

Check out some of the more on-the-run companies and how "successful" they are at at just maintaining funding at reasonable rates these days. I already know of several companies who have laid off thousands because they can't even maintain their funding in the securitization markets. The crunch is hitting hard and fast.

87 was a fart in the wind compared to what's happening now. That was over in months, this could spiral into a decade long severe recession, or depression.

But hey, you've been "through it". The guys I work with who were there during 87 say it wasn't shit compared to this.

That was a lot of unzipping and attempting to prove you're bigger, but not much at all about his point:

However, I am convinced that if it is not very bad, then nothing will get fixed.

I think that's one of the most important points going. "The system" for 30 years has prevented the public from doing a thing about the gross inequities that concentreated power and wealth have allowed, as the very top has grabbed more and more of the pie, and a crash is one of the few times the door opens for reform and improvement.

It's natural when you work for an industry to have a pretty sympathetic view to it and prefer solutions less harmful for you and friends.

For Michael, in the industry, to call for such reform that way says something IMO.

The protections that were supposed to be in place for the public interest to prevent this sot of crash were pretty clearly compromised to let people get more profit.

So, the fix is just to hand them hundreds of billions in underpriced loans?

What drove reform in the 30's was a combination of a growing left wing, including socialists, creating pressure from the left, with a large segment of business wanting the system 'fixed' to prevent the abuses from hurting the economy. FDR was not elected as some big liberal reformed, but a bank-friendly moderate.

We need some liberal pressures now to fix the problems. You can see how they'd like it to go from Paulson's original plan: huge tax money available without strings or oversight.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Michael
So layoffs will occur. So what? I finished university in 1987 and the market crashed 1 month after I started work. Since then there have been several downturns and lay-offs have been a part of my entire working life.

I'm also a financial professional and have raised over $1B (and counting) on the public markets for the companies I work for. I deal with Wall Street bankers every week.

If a few more of the large institutions go under it will be quite bad. However, I am convinced that if it is not very bad, then nothing will get fixed.

The truth of the matter is that the banks used borrowed money to make big bets. They've been feeding off the hedge funds for years and now the hedge funds are feeding off on them. The took the risks and their management, boards and investors did not stop them. Now they should take the bad along with the good.

I think it will be better and cleaner to have a hard crash. The last one we had (The Great Depression) had terrible consequences (WW II for example) but eventually the benefits that came out of it made the country better.

Michael

Wow, you raised $1BN in the markets and deal with bankers every day. When I worked for a credit card issuer I put in place 5 ABCP conduits for $6BN of funding in 4 months. Last year I raised over $3BN in conduit funding, in facilities that raised over $30BN total. Want to see what the securitization market has done this year?

Check out some of the more on-the-run companies and how "successful" they are at at just maintaining funding at reasonable rates these days. I already know of several companies who have laid off thousands because they can't even maintain their funding in the securitization markets. The crunch is hitting hard and fast.

87 was a fart in the wind compared to what's happening now. That was over in months, this could spiral into a decade long severe recession, or depression.

But hey, you've been "through it". The guys I work with who were there during 87 say it wasn't shit compared to this.

That was a lot of unzipping and attempting to prove you're bigger, but not much at all about his point:

However, I am convinced that if it is not very bad, then nothing will get fixed.

I think that's one of the most important points going. "The system" for 30 years has prevented the public from doing a thing about the gross inequities that concentreated power and wealth have allowed, as the very top has grabbed more and more of the pie, and a crash is one of the few times the door opens for reform and improvement.

It's natural when you work for an industry to have a pretty sympathetic view to it and prefer solutions less harmful for you and friends.

For Michael, in the industry, to call for such reform that way says something IMO.

The protections that were supposed to be in place for the public interest to prevent this sot of crash were pretty clearly compromised to let people get more profit.

So, the fix is just to hand them hundreds of billions in underpriced loans?

What drove reform in the 30's was a combination of a growing left wing, including socialists, creating pressure from the left, with a large segment of business wanting the system 'fixed' to prevent the abuses from hurting the economy. FDR was not elected as some big liberal reformed, but a bank-friendly moderate.

We need some liberal pressures now to fix the problems. You can see how they'd like it to go from Paulson's original plan: huge tax money available without strings or oversight.

Sure, it proved a lot. Somebody who compares it to 87 doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: bamacre
Here is Paul vs. Bernanke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

Bill Anderson over at lewrockell.com had this to say...

Contrary to his statement, the Fed was not taking advice from Andrew Mellon in the early 1930s. As Murray Rothbard points out in America's Great Depression (some here), the Fed did try to reflate, but it did no good.

Furthermore, Bernanke's response is not logical. He earlier agreed that there was price fixing during the Great Depression, but then claims that the Fed listened to Mellon and "liquidated" everyone. Had there been the liquidations, there would have been no depression. One cannot both have price fixing and not have price fixing simultaneously.

I'm surprised Ron Paul didn't stop Bernanke from his other lies on the spot. The Fed DID intervene and try to inflate out of the deflation. But at least he stopped him on the Congressional legality of issuing coins vs. bills of credit.

Idiocy levels are high when you fail at history.

Read the peer reviewed version, not the bullshit on wikipedia
Text

Also occham's razor - who knows more about macro economics, the guy that's the head of the fed and holds an econ Degree from MIT or an obstetrician ?

The Fed immediately lowered the discount rate. It was 6% on Black Monday (October 28th, 1929) and the Fed immediately lowered it to 4.5% in the middle of November. The NY Fed lowered the funds rate to 2% by the end of 1930. The Fed actually bought more than $1 billion in securities overall. So sure, the Fed raised rates but they were still low. facts

Not only that, they even cut taxes, spent their surplus on government programs, and tried price controls. Yet we still suffered.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Are you fucking kidding me?

Congress directed the Fed to contract liquidity far before the expanded it. They did so to protect the currency. By the time they realized that a strong currency was worthless if people had no currency to spend, it was too late. At that point, things were so fucked up that nothing could help it.

It's revisionist bullshit history like this that dooms us to repetition.

We actually desperately tried to inflate out of the Depression and it didn't work. So that means we actually suffered LONGER than we needed to. Let the market correct itself. It will be painful, but quick.

[Sorry for the long wait, it took forever to find fed funds rate data from the 20's.]

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: bamacre
Here is Paul vs. Bernanke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

Bill Anderson over at lewrockell.com had this to say...

Contrary to his statement, the Fed was not taking advice from Andrew Mellon in the early 1930s. As Murray Rothbard points out in America's Great Depression (some here), the Fed did try to reflate, but it did no good.

Furthermore, Bernanke's response is not logical. He earlier agreed that there was price fixing during the Great Depression, but then claims that the Fed listened to Mellon and "liquidated" everyone. Had there been the liquidations, there would have been no depression. One cannot both have price fixing and not have price fixing simultaneously.

I'm surprised Ron Paul didn't stop Bernanke from his other lies on the spot. The Fed DID intervene and try to inflate out of the deflation. But at least he stopped him on the Congressional legality of issuing coins vs. bills of credit.

Idiocy levels are high when you fail at history.

Read the peer reviewed version, not the bullshit on wikipedia
Text

Also occham's razor - who knows more about macro economics, the guy that's the head of the fed and holds an econ Degree from MIT or an obstetrician ?

The Fed immediately lowered the discount rate. It was 6% on Black Monday (October 28th, 1929) and the Fed immediately lowered it to 4.5% in the middle of November. The NY Fed lowered the funds rate to 2% by the end of 1930. The Fed actually bought more than $1 billion in securities overall. So sure, the Fed raised rates but they were still low. facts

Not only that, they even cut taxes, spent their surplus on government programs, and tried price controls. Yet we still suffered.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Are you fucking kidding me?

Congress directed the Fed to contract liquidity far before the expanded it. They did so to protect the currency. By the time they realized that a strong currency was worthless if people had no currency to spend, it was too late. At that point, things were so fucked up that nothing could help it.

It's revisionist bullshit history like this that dooms us to repetition.

We actually desperately tried to inflate out of the Depression and it didn't work. So that means we actually suffered LONGER than we needed to. Let the market correct itself. It will be painful, but quick.

[Sorry for the long wait, it took forever to find fed funds rate data from the 20's.]

Err those are PRIME rates, not DISCOUNT

FAIL:
here

 

[Michael]

LegendKiller,

My point about 1987 was that i entered the work force in 1987 and the market crashed then and there have been wave after wave lay-offs for my entire working life. I commented that your link didn't say much and you responded with lay-offs.

So?

Michael

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I tend to agree that a lot of people just seem to be knee-jerking on this issue. As infuriating as it is, I'm sure this has to be done. However, when the market stabilizes, there better be massive reform in our financial markets.

^^ the truf ^^

Coincidentally that will put an end to the Ron Paul nuttery movement.

Bullshit, there is nothing "nutty" about it. The Federal Reserve is a useless institution, and we'd be far better off without it. It doesn't matter if we could somehow beat off a depression for a couple decades with even more regulation, because in the end, creating money based on nothing but DEBT is quite possibly the dumbest fucking thing ever to come out of the USA (or the central banking system of Europe, to be correct, but now we suck on their tit). Like I said before, we never did win the revolutionary war, we were just waiting for our defeat in the early 1900's. Enjoy your faux capitalism.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: bamacre
Here is Paul vs. Bernanke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

Bill Anderson over at lewrockell.com had this to say...

Contrary to his statement, the Fed was not taking advice from Andrew Mellon in the early 1930s. As Murray Rothbard points out in America's Great Depression (some here), the Fed did try to reflate, but it did no good.

Furthermore, Bernanke's response is not logical. He earlier agreed that there was price fixing during the Great Depression, but then claims that the Fed listened to Mellon and "liquidated" everyone. Had there been the liquidations, there would have been no depression. One cannot both have price fixing and not have price fixing simultaneously.

I'm surprised Ron Paul didn't stop Bernanke from his other lies on the spot. The Fed DID intervene and try to inflate out of the deflation. But at least he stopped him on the Congressional legality of issuing coins vs. bills of credit.

Idiocy levels are high when you fail at history.

Read the peer reviewed version, not the bullshit on wikipedia
Text

Also occham's razor - who knows more about macro economics, the guy that's the head of the fed and holds an econ Degree from MIT or an obstetrician ?

The Fed immediately lowered the discount rate. It was 6% on Black Monday (October 28th, 1929) and the Fed immediately lowered it to 4.5% in the middle of November. The NY Fed lowered the funds rate to 2% by the end of 1930. The Fed actually bought more than $1 billion in securities overall. So sure, the Fed raised rates but they were still low. facts

Not only that, they even cut taxes, spent their surplus on government programs, and tried price controls. Yet we still suffered.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Are you fucking kidding me?

Congress directed the Fed to contract liquidity far before the expanded it. They did so to protect the currency. By the time they realized that a strong currency was worthless if people had no currency to spend, it was too late. At that point, things were so fucked up that nothing could help it.

It's revisionist bullshit history like this that dooms us to repetition.

We actually desperately tried to inflate out of the Depression and it didn't work. So that means we actually suffered LONGER than we needed to. Let the market correct itself. It will be painful, but quick.

[Sorry for the long wait, it took forever to find fed funds rate data from the 20's.]

Err those are PRIME rates, not DISCOUNT

FAIL:
here

You're right, I have the wrong link. For some reason the Fed does not keep records far that back for discount rates. Otherwise I would definitely post them. But even from your own link, the NY Fed drop their discount rates after the stock market crashed. It wasn't a do-nothing Fed. That's the point. They tried to inflate.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: bamacre
Here is Paul vs. Bernanke...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc

Bill Anderson over at lewrockell.com had this to say...

Contrary to his statement, the Fed was not taking advice from Andrew Mellon in the early 1930s. As Murray Rothbard points out in America's Great Depression (some here), the Fed did try to reflate, but it did no good.

Furthermore, Bernanke's response is not logical. He earlier agreed that there was price fixing during the Great Depression, but then claims that the Fed listened to Mellon and "liquidated" everyone. Had there been the liquidations, there would have been no depression. One cannot both have price fixing and not have price fixing simultaneously.

I'm surprised Ron Paul didn't stop Bernanke from his other lies on the spot. The Fed DID intervene and try to inflate out of the deflation. But at least he stopped him on the Congressional legality of issuing coins vs. bills of credit.

Idiocy levels are high when you fail at history.

Read the peer reviewed version, not the bullshit on wikipedia
Text

Also occham's razor - who knows more about macro economics, the guy that's the head of the fed and holds an econ Degree from MIT or an obstetrician ?

The Fed immediately lowered the discount rate. It was 6% on Black Monday (October 28th, 1929) and the Fed immediately lowered it to 4.5% in the middle of November. The NY Fed lowered the funds rate to 2% by the end of 1930. The Fed actually bought more than $1 billion in securities overall. So sure, the Fed raised rates but they were still low. facts

Not only that, they even cut taxes, spent their surplus on government programs, and tried price controls. Yet we still suffered.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Are you fucking kidding me?

Congress directed the Fed to contract liquidity far before the expanded it. They did so to protect the currency. By the time they realized that a strong currency was worthless if people had no currency to spend, it was too late. At that point, things were so fucked up that nothing could help it.

It's revisionist bullshit history like this that dooms us to repetition.

We actually desperately tried to inflate out of the Depression and it didn't work. So that means we actually suffered LONGER than we needed to. Let the market correct itself. It will be painful, but quick.

[Sorry for the long wait, it took forever to find fed funds rate data from the 20's.]

Err those are PRIME rates, not DISCOUNT

FAIL:
here

You're right, I have the wrong link. For some reason the Fed does not keep records far that back for discount rates. Otherwise I would definitely post them. But even from your own link, the NY Fed drop their discount rates after the stock market crashed. It wasn't a do-nothing Fed. That's the point. They tried to inflate.

No they started to tighten when the market was hitting peak. Granted they lowered them immediately after the crash, but tightened again year thereafter.

The increases were debated feb - august 1929 when it was approved


They returned to tightening in 1930 again