So now that we are one quarter away from a double dip...

[Ignignokt]

Ok, I'll bite. How?

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.

Also the fact that the Govt's declaration of increased bank holidays worried investors that more bank holidays would come.

[ElNono]

His oppinion and the historical facts he brings up are two different things and can be judged seperately. His historical facts contradict yours, and his economic beliefs and ideas contradict mine, I say that's a balanced source, no?

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.

Those are actually two and the same events or causations. I don't see a problem here.

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?

Also, I didn't say anything about Wikipedia's bias, just that it's not exactly a strong source or anything to be proud about if you're ting on other people's sources.

I'm not ting 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, the majority of the labor force was getting killed in the battlefields, and there was command economy in place with food rationing. Despite all economic indicators you can cite, I don't know how that's better than a recession.

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?

Now let me ask you a MORE important question..
Did the NEW DEAL get us out of the Depression??

For the 10th time, over the top spending did. Just as Keynes predicted.

[Ignignokt]

Is there a problem answering my posts inline? Or there's some stuff you rather not talk about? Like the Foundation of Economic Education, maybe?

I already addressed it here....

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 ting 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.

And I already told you that it's a moot point, if you want to debate the facts of the sources, go ahead.

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.

[ElNono]

I'm surprised we haven't heard about Irving Fisher's debt deflation yet...

[Ignignokt]

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.

Yeah they do.. You said that the stock market crash caused the bank runs.. but that didn't happen till 4 yrs later.

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?

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.

I'm not ting 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.

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.

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?

NO, we were not out of the recession, after the war, the economy took another 2 yrs to produce.

For the 10th time, over the top spending did. Just as Keynes predicted.

So the awnser is NO, the New Deal didn't get us out of the depression, Hitler and Mussolini did.

[Ignignokt]

I'm surprised we haven't heard about Irving Fisher's debt deflation yet...

I don't know, why is that???.. he's on that The Great Depression wikipedia page you been fishing your info out of.

It was your duty to bring him up.

[ElNono]

I already addressed it here....

And I already told you that it's a moot point, if you want to debate the facts of the sources, go ahead.

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 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.

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.

[Ignignokt]

I didn't know going to war with Hitler and Emperor Ching Chang Chong was a proposal of the New Deal..

[Ignignokt]

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.

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.

Whining and ing 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.

[ElNono]

Yeah they do.. You said that the stock market crash caused the bank runs.. but that didn't happen till 4 yrs later.

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.

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.

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.

Was the economy already out of recession by then, yes or no?

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.

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.
But it's irrelevant to the main point, because we already established we were out of the recession by then.

NO, we were not out of the recession, after the war, the economy took another 2 yrs to produce.

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?

So the awnser is NO, the New Deal didn't get us out of the depression, Hitler and Mussolini did.

No, stopping to worry about a balanced budget and spending over the top got it done. Just as Keynes predicted it would.

[ElNono]

Whining and ing 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.

More blurb and no Free Market solutions... not surprised.

[ElNono]

I don't know, why is that???.. he's on that The Great Depression wikipedia page you been fishing your info out of.

It was your duty to bring him up.

How would you know he was in the Wikipedia page?

You know, you can espouse alternative ideas to Keynesian economics too.

[Ignignokt]

More blurb and no Free Market solutions... not surprised.

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.

[ElNono]

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.

And how would no intervention prevent a deflationary spiral?

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.

[Ignignokt]

And how would no intervention prevent a deflationary spiral?

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.

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.

[Ignignokt]

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.

[LnGrrrR]

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.

What about monopolies? Don't free markets require intervention which prevents these?

[Ignignokt]

What about monopolies? Don't free markets require intervention which prevents these?

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 compe ors coming in.

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 compe ion.

[Ignignokt]

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.

[boutons_deux]

"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

[Ignignokt]

"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??

[ElNono]

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?

[ElNono]

Did someone put a gun to their head and force them to buy Windows??

It came bundled in the price of their computer and they couldn't unbundle it.

[LnGrrrR]

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 compe ors coming in.

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 compe ion.

What about monopolies on certain vital supplies, say, bread? How would you deal with collusion?

[ElNono]

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.

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.

I'm not disputing that Keynesian stimulus works as temporary stimuli. I said that the New Deal failed to do this.

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.

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 doesn't say that at all. Only if you don't know what he spoused.
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?

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.

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.
Self-correcting markets are a fairy tale. No such thing ever existed and never will.