|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 06/17/2007 : 19:56:36 [Permalink]
|
Keep using the little laughy smiley-- it's charming and makes you look sophisticated. As this entry shows, there are myriad explanations, among which are the so-called Monetarists like Friedman.
In any case, keep moving the goalposts, dodging evidence, and maintaining your asshole attitude, "comrade". Before long, the KGB will have YOU brainwashed, too, and you can join us in soviet bliss. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 20:18:03 [Permalink]
|
Cune, did you read the wiki link you posted? Tell me how many theories cited lack of money?
Keynes theory needs interest rates to fall, did they? No.
Gold standard theory says money should have been loosend. Not what the Fed did.
Austrian School explanations is silly as their explanation is there was too much money. The Fed cut the money supply and we had the depression.
Overproduction and underconsumption theory. Maybe because the money supply went away.
Structural weaknesses in banking theory. No money, again caused by the Fed.
Postwar deflationary pressures. Because the money supply was restricted.
Breakdown of international trade. In case you did not know America was loaning money to Germany to pay the war debt to france and england. Once again reduction of money is a problem.
Do you even read what you post before posting.
These are explanations based on lack of money supply. Most are part of the explanation given by Friedman.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 20:47:40 [Permalink]
|
| I have insulted you before but you did not understand the insult. |
2 thoughts here.
1. Just about everything you have presented insults my intelligence.
2. I guess you'll have to be clearer.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll but it is late and I need a break from the paper I am writing.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2007 : 21:05:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune, did you read the wiki link you posted? Tell me how many theories cited lack of money?
Keynes theory needs interest rates to fall, did they? No.
Gold standard theory says money should have been loosend. Not what the Fed did.
Austrian School explanations is silly as their explanation is there was too much money. The Fed cut the money supply and we had the depression.
Overproduction and underconsumption theory. Maybe because the money supply went away.
Structural weaknesses in banking theory. No money, again caused by the Fed.
Postwar deflationary pressures. Because the money supply was restricted.
Breakdown of international trade. In case you did not know America was loaning money to Germany to pay the war debt to france and england. Once again reduction of money is a problem.
Do you even read what you post before posting.
These are explanations based on lack of money supply. Most are part of the explanation given by Friedman. |
Oh. If what I cited disagrees with me then it's Soviet propaganda. You're wrong. I'm right. Ask the teachers. Or something. |
|
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 07:17:10 [Permalink]
|
| regardless of accepting or ignoring any conspiracies, do you guys (cune, furshur) really believe the current state of the us federal reserve is in the best interest of the people? |
|
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 07:19:34 [Permalink]
|
Ben Bernanke, the current Chairman of the Board of Governors, apparently agrees with Friedman's assessment, saying in a 2002 speech: "I would like to say to Milton [Friedman] and Anna [J. Schwartz]: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
separate from my above question, but just throwing a little fuel on your fire ;D |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 08:09:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sickmint79
Ben Bernanke, the current Chairman of the Board of Governors, apparently agrees with Friedman's assessment, saying in a 2002 speech: "I would like to say to Milton [Friedman] and Anna [J. Schwartz]: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
separate from my above question, but just throwing a little fuel on your fire ;D
|
Right. The reasons behind the Depression are complex, and the only person who denies that the Fed played some part are the straw men Jerome conjures up. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 08:11:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sickmint79
regardless of accepting or ignoring any conspiracies, do you guys (cune, furshur) really believe the current state of the us federal reserve is in the best interest of the people? |
How the hell should I know? Perhaps I'll go back to grad school and get a PhD in economics and tell you what I think in about 5 years. Till then, I'd wager that there are enough independently-minded PhDs out there in universities across the country that if the Fed were really bad for the country, they'd have published their ideas and then worked to promote them, and that I'd have heard about it. |
|
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 09:29:51 [Permalink]
|
i don't think it is a topic which requires that one have a phd in economics to discuss. after all the historical world survived a good many years without the help of economic phds today did it not? and i think you would find that many before disagree with the structure that exists today. i think you are putting a little too much faith in the thought that since we have the most knowledgeable population today, that our monetary policy is the best that the world has ever seen.
if you look i do not think you will have much trouble finding criticism of the fed by many respected economists. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 10:10:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sickmint79
i don't think it is a topic which requires that one have a phd in economics to discuss. after all the historical world survived a good many years without the help of economic phds today did it not? |
But things-- like the US economy are far far more complex than anything in, say, Europe in AD 435, for example.| i think you are putting a little too much faith in the thought that since we have the most knowledgeable population today, that our monetary policy is the best that the world has ever seen. |
I don't think that I said that it was "the best that the world has ever seen."| if you look i do not think you will have much trouble finding criticism of the fed by many respected economists. |
Great! I'm sure I would, too. People criticize a lot of things. Some political scientists don't like the Electoral College, for instance. Should we change that system? If so, to what? and how do we know that's better? And is it so much better that it's worth the effort and expense that would come in the change?
I have simply reached the limit of feeling comfortable making informed decisions about the Fed being in "the best interest of the people" versus some other system. To date, Jerome can't even explain in a fair manner all that the Fed does, and he has no credibility anyway, since he thinks that the rest of the country-- sans him-- has been brainwashed by the KGB into ignoring the communist bent of the country.
When people buy into every conspiracy theory on earth, then it's hard to take them seriously when they want to have a reasoned debate.
As for you-- you have been asking leading questions but have been unwilling to put forward many of your own ideas or opinions. You may not have them, but I suspect that you do, and that you're waiting for some Grand Defender of the Fed to come forward. I think you're going to be waiting for a long time, though, and perhaps it might be more productive to outline what you're thinking! |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 10:30:45 [Permalink]
|
| regardless of accepting or ignoring any conspiracies, do you guys (cune, furshur) really believe the current state of the us federal reserve is in the best interest of the people? |
In my opinion, yes. This is essentially the same system that Cananda and Britian have, if I understand it correctly. Seems like a pretty common monetary policy and we have seen a managable economy in the past 15 years or so. Is there a better monetary policy, probably, but since econimist can't agree I certainly can't come up with one.
| Ben Bernanke, the current Chairman of the Board of Governors, apparently agrees with Friedman's assessment, saying in a 2002 speech: "I would like to say to Milton [Friedman] and Anna [J. Schwartz]: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again." |
Mr. Bernanke is a monetarist who agrees with Mr. Friedman. However there still is not consensus on which were the major causes of the great depression.
Troll-boy wrote this quote from Friedman:
| "I think there is universal agreement within the economics profession that the decline - the sharp decline in the quantity of money played a very major role in producing the Great Depression." |
Based on that quote he made this strawman:
| Furshur, it seems as if the Nobel Prize winner in economics states that there is universal agreement within economics of fact that the depression was caused by the Fed. |
Amazing, just amazing.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 10:35:10 [Permalink]
|
| i'm still trying to form my own ideas and opinions as i am still ignorant on a lot of things. i would definately lean towards a school of thought that advised abolishing the fed. and full reserve, or a more limited fractional reserve banking system. i would love to hear from a grand fed defender why things are the way they are and why they should stay that way. although i don't expect to be able to find one all that easily anymore. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 10:41:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sickmint79
i'm still trying to form my own ideas and opinions as i am still ignorant on a lot of things. i would definately lean towards a school of thought that advised abolishing the fed. and full reserve, or a more limited fractional reserve banking system. i would love to hear from a grand fed defender why things are the way they are and why they should stay that way. although i don't expect to be able to find one all that easily anymore. |
Alan Greenspan might, but I think he probably has pretty high speaking fees.  |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2007 : 14:23:03 [Permalink]
|
| i would love to hear from a grand fed defender why things are the way they are and why they should stay that way. although i don't expect to be able to find one all that easily anymore. |
Interestingly enough even Mr. Bernanke who (according to Wikipedia) has said the Fed caused the great depression, is a supporter of the Fed. At least one would certainly assume he is a fan of the Fed since he runs it...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
|
 |
|
Federal Reserve Act in 1913
