A "horrible" job? Exactly what would/could have been done differently by McCain? What about any other candidate have done that would have been better?
A "horrible" job? Exactly what would/could have been done differently by McCain? What about any other candidate have done that would have been better?
Mccain would have done slightly better than obama but Ron Paul would have fixed everything
The climate as it is could not handle 40% unemployment without mass uprisings against government. There is no choice but to float the bubble as long as possible in hopes of rebounding enough to ease us back to sanity.
Except that this stimulus spending and government intervention will not work and make the problem worse
According to that logic it fails both ways. Better to have a chance then to have none at all?
If the government were to just get out the way then there would economic prosperity but with what there doing right now the system will get worse
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
When he closed down the IRS, what would have happened to the over 100,000 suddenly unemployed people whose skill sets are no longer required, thereby ensuring they cannot easily find employment?
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,864
- 4,979
- 136
Welcome.
What flavor of fruitcake would you describe yourself as: birther, truther, teabagger or paul-bot?
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
So you are fine with crushing an already fragile economy, ensuring that a large number of fellow Americans are harmed severely.
You can see why Ron Paul received less votes than Santorum AFTER Santorum suspended his campaign.
Except that much more Americans are going to be hurt if the system now continues, if you think its bad now it will get much worse.
Support obama or Romney and you will get more wars, both are willing to attack Iran, there will also be more corruption and more bailouts
Its too late to simply "get out of the way". Remove liquidity from the market now and everything we know as "American way of life" goes with it.
No, The free market would fix the problem, there would be short term pain though, keeping the system the way its now will only lead to worse problems
cybrsage
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2011
- 13,021
- 0
- 0
You are comparing speculation of potential future bad events to known bad events. Given the choice, avoiding a horrible bad thing now is preferable to maybe avoiding a potentially horrible thing sometime in the future.
For example, eventually your breaks will wear out in your car, causing an accident. So to avoid it, we should remove your ability to drive you car, thereby avoiding the potential crash some day. Too bad you need your car to survive right now, though. Sucks to be you.
Because the "free market" fixed the problem in the 1920s when there was far less government regulation. The "Free market" fixed the problem during the Greater Depression in the 1800s when there was less government regulation. The "free market" fixed the problem during tulip bulbs when there was almost no government regulation.
This is what is hilarious with "free market" buffoons, there isn't a single instance in history where a "free market" did anything to fix itself very well.
Even Adam smith recognized you need governments to control the market to some extent.
It's also laughable Ron Paul would have fixed "everything". Had RP been elected he wouldn't have even known where to start. Enactment of his policies would likely have resulted in his impeachment after 6 months of him bumbling around fucking everything up.
I know it's your wet dream to effectively end civilization and the modern economy, but 40% of the rest of the people would find it pretty horrible. That's why I get a kick out of you fools, you actually think that hitting the reset button is a smart thing to do. You don't even consider the knock-on effects of such a precipitous action.
The gold standard would immediately result in a global liquidity crisis for every single person, withdrawing our military from everywhere would jack up the price of oil to 200+/bbl (this alone would send gas into the $8+ range, destroying the economy overnight), letting the banks fail would shut down credit for the vast majority of the people, resulting in massive job loss in every single sector as even good businesses would have no liquidity. Letting the auto industry fail would have put millions out of a job b/c of the ancillary businesses. Letting the insurance industry fail would have eliminated private coverage for tens of millions in health/life.
So you see, the number probably isn't 40%, it's probably over 50% and would probably have lasted for a decade, if not far longer until the capital base could be recharged and new enterprises built to sustain it. At that point the vast majority of the country wouldn't even have any assets, as they would all be wiped out.
But the "free market" would have found a way to fix all of that and within 2-3 years we'd miraculously have recovered to 4% unemployment.
No wonder the kid went to a shitty school and lives with his parents.
Last edited:
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,864
- 4,979
- 136
The market did fix the panics of 1837-41 and 1857.
The panic of 1837-41 lasted as long as it did because fractional reserve banking was protected by some of the States.
The panic of 1857 ended quickly because Buchanan refused to intervene.
The forgotten depression of 1920-21 was over quite quickly because Harding didn't intervene. Wilson caused it by excessive spending and inflation. We were on the verge of collapse as Wilson was leaving office and the austerity started by Harding was necessary or else the stagflation caused by Wilson would've turned into hyperinflation.
The Great Depression lasted for 12 years because of intervention by Hoover/FDR from the start of it.
People need to underconsume so that they have money for when the money supply does contract.
I don't quite understand why you want more spending and inflation especially since it's been increasing without bringing down unemployment.
Originally Posted by Incorruptible 
obama has destroyed many private sector jobs and helped to increase the size of government along with his massive spending increases
Incorruptible is just one of many paid Republican lying shills that will be joining the site ahead of the election.
Questions are:
Does AT sway votes in the general election enough to warrant all this shilling?
Does management condone them or not?
Do you respond showing how they are lying?
Or do do you ignore them and let them post tons of lies ahead of the election?
obama has destroyed many private sector jobs and helped to increase the size of government along with his massive spending increases
You have no idea what you're talking about. Obama has a net increase in private sector jobs since taking office and public sector jobs have been decimated. Compare that to bush, where public sector jobs EXPLODED under his presidency:
Obama created more than 3 million private sector jobs under his presidency:
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-25/...job-growth-private-sector-jobs?_s=PM:POLITICS
More bullshit from the GOP acolytes.
Incorruptible is just one of many paid Republican lying shills that will be joining the site ahead of the election.
Questions are:
Does AT sway votes in the general election enough to warrant all this shilling?
Does management condone them or not?
Do you respond showing how they are lying?
Or do do you ignore them and let them post tons of lies ahead of the election?
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,864
- 4,979
- 136
The depression was caused by the FEDERAL RESERVE, the government is full of incompetents who keep believing government can fix the problems yet they only make it worse, the economy will suffer even more
Its not speculation though, there will be an even bigger crash and bigger problems. Clearly you have no idea what your talking about and must be an obama supporter
How, exactly, was the GD caused by the Fed except for them not doing enough?
Bernanke: Federal Reserve caused Great Depression
Fed chief says, 'We did it. ... very sorry, won't do it again'
Published: 03/19/2008 at 12:00 AMby David KupelianEmail | Archive David Kupelian is an award-winning journalist, managing editor of WND, editor of Whistleblower magazine, and author of the best-selling book, The Marketing of Evil His newest book, How Evil Works, released to much critical acclaim in the spring of 2010.More ↓
Subscribe to author feed
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, thats 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.
Heres how Friedman summed up his views on the Fed and the Depression in an Oct. 1, 2000, interview with PBS:
PBS: Youve 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.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 Friedmans assessment that the Fed caused the Great Depression.
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. Theres 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.
At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor Friedmans 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedmans old home base, the University of Chicago. Heres 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 Friedmans ninetieth birthday. Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer.After citing how Friedman and Schwartz documented the Feds 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:
Today Id 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 nations 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.
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 Mellons 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.Today, the entire Western financial world holds its breath every time the Fed chairman speaks, so influential are the central banks 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.
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. Youre right, we did it. Were very sorry. But thanks to you, we wont do it again.
Best wishes for your next ninety years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgyQsIGLt_w
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter