Rothbard on Mises: Depression Not Inevitable, Result of Central Banks

Statist policies.

 

How do you get macroeconomic experience in the real world? LOL!!!

 

oh please, your propaganda and misinformation was thoroughly refuted on page 3 and 4

and you didn't even really attempt to defend it

 

So let me get this straight. You are saying an increase in the money supply (aka Keynesian theory) is not a causation of an increase in GDP? So you are saying as the economy grows after they dump tons of money in to it, the new money does not cause the growth?? LOL!!! You are more mentally challenged than I thought.

I'm not going to read 34 dense pages of econ literature just to get your point. Be a man and speak for yourself. Obviously you have absolutely no clue how to summarize it to prove your point. You are obviously just acting as if it's the Bible and all I have to do is read it and learn all the answers!! LOL!! Embarrassing man, get it together... learn how to make an argument yourself with out relying on others. Especially when it means forcing others to read 34 pages of crap just to get your point.

That's not evidence. It's an economic paper. There is literally millions of them on the Internet. Come on man, you are better than this!

I just speak the truth, you seem to not be able to generate a coherent argument against what I'm saying. But that's typical of your debating tactics. I suggest you start asking questions rather than making comments.

 

Gold was a bubble commodity from 1976 to 1980. Prior to that gold was a rigged commodity. The market being rigged by the US government.
Anybody investing in commodities lost their shirt in 1980 due to the Fed tightening the money supply.
But still, a $20 gold coin was worth more than a $20 paper note.

 

Explain then why the value of the USD has decreased exponentially and CPI has increased since the creation of the Federal Reserve.

 

your excuses are lame and unfounded

then buy gold, you're free to take that risk

over many decades the country's leadership has chosen a path of slow steady economic growth, rather than the wild roller-coaster boom to bust swings of the 18th and 19th centuries

you'd have to be blind or dishonest not to acknowledge that the country has lead the world economically and raised the country's standard of living greatly since 1913

 

Absurd claim. The roller-coaster boom and bust swings in the 18th century were before the Constitution was written so they're irrelevent. The 19th century booms and busts can all be attributed to the actions of central banking and the government abusing the money. The 20th and 21st century have been riddled with booms and busts, most notoriously the Great Depression - which was caused by the Fed.

You'd have to be blind or dishonest to attribute the rise in the standard of living to the government and Fed rather than the free market.

 

That's wrong. Other people who are hurt are those on fixed incomes, like minimum wage jobs. Which means inflation harms the working poor.

So inflation harms senior citizens and the working poor for the benefit of the upper classes. That's your Collectivist ideology in action. The old and poor need to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the elite. I disagree with that system.

Please explain how higher prices help people.

I'm not "picking and choosing". I'm pointing out all of the flaws in our system.

What?! The only way I can convince you that my system works is for you to try to pick it apart first. That's how debate works.

 

Repeated for truth.

 

really, you just don't know what you're talking about


"At one time, the nation had more than 30,000 types of currency, which almost any organization, even drugstores, could issue. The confusion was compounded because people could redeem some currencies for gold and silver, while government bonds backed other types of currency."

http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/resources/fedtoday/fedtodayBrochure.pdf

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFnH9MCdpLo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFnH9MCdpLo[/ame]

at the 1:38 mark: "At one time, the nation had more than 30,000 types of currency…"

 

The US never had a free banking system. The dollar was never fully backed by gold, either - it was always debased on a fractional reserve standard.

"4.United States.[7] Although the period from 1837 to 1864 in the U.S. is often referred to as the Free Banking Era, the term is something of a misnomer, for it refers not to a general system of "free" banking in the literal sense described previously, but rather to various state banking systems based on so-called "free banking" laws, which, though they made it unnecessary for new entrants to secure charters (each of which was subject to a vote by the state legislature), nonetheless restricted their undertakings in important ways. Most importantly, U.S. "free" banks were denied the right to establish branch networks, and had to "secure" their notes by purchasing and surrendering to state banking authorities certain securities those authorities deemed eligible for the purpose. The securities in many cases included bonds of the authorizing state governments themselves; and it has been determined that the depreciation of these very securities was the chief cause of "free bank" failures, and indeed of bank failures generally, during the period in question. The lack of branch banking, in turn, caused state-issued banknotes to be discounted at varying rates once they had traveled any considerable distance from their sources. In short, the shortcomings of banks and bank-supplied paper currency during the so-called "free banking era" in the U.S., far from establishing the need for special regulation of banks, testifies to the dangers of unwarranted or unwise regulation. Then, from 1863 to 1913, known as the National Banks Era, state-chartered banks were still operating under a free banking system. Some scholars have found that the system was mostly stable.[12]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Banking_Era

The system you're referring to is nothing close to what I support. You can't strawman your way out of this one.

really, you just don't know what you're talking about

Unfortunately for you, the dollar was never on a true gold standard and we never had a free banking system in this country. The dollar was always debased on a fractional reserve standard. The panics you're referring to are the failures of fractional reserve banking, central banking, and government. The Fed has not done a very good job preventing recessions and depressions, and is in fact responsible for the largest economic downturn in the history of the US.

what's unfounded is your education or maybe nonexistent would be more accurate

 

the point is that there were many competing currencies at one time, in this country, it's a fact

not something made up, as you said

 

Your facts are incorrect and I have proved them to be incorrect.

It says alot when you successfully get Iriemon and I to agree for hundreds of pages on how something works. Becuase you are simply to stubborn to change your mind in the face of facts. Despite the fact that you were proven wrong many, many times in the Fed thread, you have continued to push your unfounded beliefs. And I'm not the only one who calls you out on it, MANY people call you out on it - which is why nobody here takes you seriously except the other trolls.

 

Stop right there. Hoytmonger has shown you an indisputable fact and you have called it "misinformation" and "propaganda".

This goes to show how deluded you are, or maybe you are on a disinformation campaign. Logic and statistics don't matter to you.

You're attributing that to the Fed and central economic planning, when in reality the only reason for that is because of the free market.

Only in terms of the US Dollar, whose value was especially prone to wild speculation and random, unpredictable changes. Of course the value of gold would fluctuate wildly.

 

here's the fact

at one time there were many competing currencies in this country

this is a fact that you said was made up

 

Who cares? That has nothing to do with free banking.

 

of course you don't care about historical fact and won't admit that it's correct and not made up as you asserted

really, you don't thinks that bank's freedom to issue their own currency has anything to do with free banking?

 

I didn't say it was incorrect, now did I?

Assuming your source wasn't fabricating those facts....which it very well could have been given that it cited no source and just made a baseless claim.

 

Explain that statement further please.

 

you said it was made up, you were 100% wrong

the source shows images of the currency it refers to

 

There is none, because governments don't follow Keynes' ideas in the first place. This is because it's the nature of government to always continue to spend more as a % of GDP no matter what the state of the economy is. Keynes would not have approved.

 

You know nothing about Keynesian economics if you believe that the US has been using Keynesian economics.

 

you said it was made up, you were 100% wrong

the source shows images of the currency it refers to

of course you don't care about historical fact and won't admit that it's correct and not made up as you asserted

really, you don't thinks that bank's freedom to issue their own currency has anything to do with free banking?

 

That doesn't mean that their claim that "more than 30,000" competing currencies existed is accurate.