Printable View
GOvt regulation that crippled bank branching which prevented banks from diversifying their portfolio of deposits, also banks were prevented from issuing their own notes to insure their clients need for higher currency deposit ratios.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Also the fact that the Govt's declaration of increased bank holidays worried investors that more bank holidays would come.
His historical facts don't contradict me at all. And your quote about Friedman doesn't support your contention that government intervention was the cause of the runs either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
You don't? You keep on moving the timeline as you read up for info. You need to pick a lane and stick with it. Please, remind me again when you think the economy actually got out of recession?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
I'm not shitting on your sources, but I am questioning the bias and thus the message. Unless you dispute the same bias on Wikipedia, I don't see what's not strong about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
The was was going to end at some point. The question is wether we were going to go back to a recession or not. When the war ended, were we on a recession or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
For the 10th time, over the top spending did. Just as Keynes predicted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
I already addressed it here....Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
And I already told you that it's a moot point, if you want to debate the facts of the sources, go ahead.Quote:
Dude, you're so thick headed.
He wasn't talking about the 1920 crash in that quote, he was talking about the historical events of the 1929 crash.
I used him because at best he's an authority on the historionics of economics on those times.
If you want to dispute the facts of what he said, go ahead. But it's silly to harp on me for using a hostile source to my belief for proof.
What's so wrong about having diverse sources, on one hand you're shitting on the fact that I used single supportive sources, now you're whining about me using hostile sources.
You seem to be caught up in the tic for tac instead of the facts.
I brought up the comparison between both crashes in this thread before you posted here, it's not something I pulled out of the hat. Both crashes are worthy of comparison, and your objections concerning comparing and studying two seperate crashes are warrantless. Keynesians, Obama, and his economic team looked to FDR for clues on how to deal with this current crash. Are they wasting their time??
So it's really your objections to look at damning evidence as the cause for you to act like a petulant child about it.
What this proved is that you haven't been reading any of my posts.
Also, I didn't know i how to meet your demand for inline posting? This is getting rather silly.
I'm surprised we haven't heard about Irving Fisher's debt deflation yet...
Yeah they do.. You said that the stock market crash caused the bank runs.. but that didn't happen till 4 yrs later.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
What's so hard to understand, FDR was no longer in office, the govt cut his programs and controls with the Truman congress. Those two events are one and the same when it comes to causality.Quote:
You don't? You keep on moving the timeline as you read up for info. You need to pick a lane and stick with it. Please, remind me again when you think the economy actually got out of recession?
Those sources i've used have been mainly about history and data. Message be damned, we're talking about actual data, dispute that. You haven't you've chosen to whine about the source, that's a sort of red herring there.Quote:
I'm not shitting on your sources, but I am questioning the bias and thus the message. Unless you dispute the same bias on Wikipedia, I don't see what's not strong about it.
NO, we were not out of the recession, after the war, the economy took another 2 yrs to produce.Quote:
The was was going to end at some point. The question is wether we were going to go back to a recession or not. When the war ended, were we on a recession or not?
So the awnser is NO, the New Deal didn't get us out of the depression, Hitler and Mussolini did.:lmaoQuote:
For the 10th time, over the top spending did. Just as Keynes predicted.
I don't know, why is that???.. he's on that The Great Depression wikipedia page you been fishing your info out of.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
It was your duty to bring him up. :lol
I already questioned some of the claimed 'facts' of some of your sources as part of our discussion. That you keep on bringing up the same weak sauce simply tells me you're the one not reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
The inline posting has to do with the fact that I have to gloss over my previous posts to see what you decided to skip over. Ultimately, for this to be an actual exchange of ideas you would have to have any, yet I haven't heard a peep about how the Free Market would have gotten us out of any of the depressions cited.
I didn't know going to war with Hitler and Emperor Ching Chang Chong was a proposal of the New Deal..
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Whining and bitching about the sources and not the relevant facts is weak sauce tbh.
And inline posting is not a requirement here, sometimes I don't want to sanction your logical fallacies by responding to them.
Now you're simply misrepresenting what I said. I said that the crash caused deflation, and the deflation caused the runs. I even listed it in chronological order. Please, just stop saying I said things I didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Again, your contention that the Friedman quote you posted indicates somehow that government intervention caused the crashed is completely erroneous. And I see you completely avoided responding to that.
Was the economy already out of recession by then, yes or no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
I have. I had to go and revisit Truman's government history to refute your claim, which I did. Then you suddenly remembered Congress! Which we revisited and still kept the same government controls and rationing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
But it's irrelevant to the main point, because we already established we were out of the recession by then.
Sure we were. Employment was back to normal, prices of goods were growing, there was pent-up demand, and there was inflation. It couldn't be more opposite from a recession. Maybe you don't know what recession is and how it's measured?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
No, stopping to worry about a balanced budget and spending over the top got it done. Just as Keynes predicted it would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
More blurb and no Free Market solutions... not surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
How would you know he was in the Wikipedia page? :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
You know, you can espouse alternative ideas to Keynesian economics too.
There is no such thing as free market solutions which require intervention. Free markets don't require "solutions", that's what makes a free market.. free.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
And how would no intervention prevent a deflationary spiral?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Oh wait, it wouldn't. That's why the Free Market is never used in a crisis, it's only used to get us there.
That's the point, it wouldn't. A deflationary spiral would be necessary to fix a distorted market caused by loose credit. Keynes maintains that you have to push more loose credit to combat the effects of loose credit, that's insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I'm not disputing that Keynesian stimulus works as temporary stimuli. I said that the New Deal failed to do this.
Keynesian stimulus does do what it intends most of the time. That's not my problem with it though. The problem with Keynes is that you have devalue of the dollar and higher debt, and even more distortion of the market that will cause another boom and bust. Ofcourse Keynes says that higher debt is no big deal, that doesn't make it true.
Keynes always creates more reasons to use keynes, and that's my issue. It doesn't even have to be keynes specifically.
Govt intervention always causes more govt intervention. The free market left alone corrects itself and reallocates sources quicker than any other mixed economy. Keynes just promotes the same bad sectors to exist... see GM and the failed Investment firms of 2008.
But my point was that the New Deal prolonged the depression. Your contention is that the War (keynesian tool) and not the New Deal got us out of the depression. It seems to me that we are debating multiple debates.
Somehow you still maintain that FDR controls and price wages were good, you're the only one on this board doing that.
What about monopolies? Don't free markets require intervention which prevents these?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
The consumer has the power to intervene. If the monopoly sees it that they want to raise prices, then consumption will decrease and he risks letting other competitors coming in.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
This whole monopoly scare is ridiculous. Standard oil was about to lose its huge market share to the lightbulb. The market fixes these things so long as the Govt doesn't empower corporations by giving them Limited Liability nor imposes price controls which are anti competition.
Look at the cable monopoly. They didn't innovate, kept their prices high because they thought they had a stronghold and then now are losing to the phone companies who are offering better services and are reducing their prices.
"consumer has the power to intervene"
tell Microsoft windows/office consumers about how much "power" they have
you dogma and ideology is as totally detached from reality as WC's
Did someone put a gun to their head and force them to buy Windows??Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
When China intervenes and makes labor super cheap over there, what does the Free Market do?
When India intervenes and makes services super cheap, what does the Free Market do?
What's the incentive for investing in R&D if somebody else can just take it and make it cheaper and potentially better somewhere else? What's the Free Market solution to that?
It came bundled in the price of their computer and they couldn't unbundle it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
What about monopolies on certain vital supplies, say, bread? How would you deal with collusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
A deflationary spiral is not only due to loose credit. It's basically a loss in confidence and it can be due to anything, including no incentives to invest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
You keep trying to peg the New Deal with me, and I keep telling you that what worked was the increased spending. IE: the stimulus. I'm glad you finally recognize that it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Keynes doesn't say that at all. Only if you don't know what he spoused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
He said you need the stimulus, be it as spending or tax breaks, and once you were out of the recession, you could then reduce the debt and balance your budget with a working economy. People blame Keynes because politicians don't follow through, but it's really not his fault, is it?
Non government intervention is an utopia. Because Free Market is an utopia. The business with the most money will always try to corral the market, and most times succeed. At that point they will abuse their power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Self-correcting markets are a fairy tale. No such thing ever existed and never will.