I thought this was pretty interesting. http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html
Did the Gold Standard Cause the Great Depression? The gold-standard is a serious check on government debasement of the currency. And not to forget, The Federal Reserve is a "Privately-held, unelected, secretive Organization" http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/learning/when/19-1919.html
Wow, that article is wrong on so many levels, I could literally spend the entire morning addressing it. First of all, the Smoot-Hawley tariff caused major havoc on the American economy and prolonged the Depression. Hoover was a known interventionist and big government spender, going back almost a decade prior to his run as President. He didn't cut spending, he was the first architect of the New Deal. The government tried to expand the money supply, there was a panic, and no matter how much money was available, lenders wouldn't lend and borrowers didn't want to borrow. But like I said, that article promotes popular myths, and any article on the Depression which doesn't address government spending or stimulus in a serious way, nor the S/H tariff is just more garbage. Read Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" if you want a serious look at how the Depression was brought about and exacerbated. As far as gold, it doesn't have to be gold only. It can be gold and silver. It can be rhodium and palladium. The point is to set the currency standard at something which cannot be counterfeited, the way FRNs are.
Nice reference Soniqhost. I find it interesting that Guerilla, who has no credentials as an economist, but is a fierce propagandist for RP and his philosophy would make an effort to try and debunk an article by an Economics Professor with serious credentials. It is revealing that serious economists with immense backgrounds probably have offered as many as five reasons for the size and length of the great depresssion. There is no agreement amongst experts on the causes and scope of the great depression. Guerilla would have us think differently. While the most studied economists recognize that there are effects and countereffects of every economic action and that it is difficult to predict all consequences, Guerilla keeps opining about a singular philosophy/political economic direction that most learned people have repudiated. I would enjoy an interaction between experts rather than polemics from a non-expert propagandist.
Actually, when it comes to economics, I am a propagandist for Von Mises, Hayek and Hazlitt. I'm not "trying" to debunk what you generously call "an article". Simply refer to Rothbard's "America's Great Depression". It's free, and you can see sourced data from the Depression, as well as heavily referenced text disputing the common myths some subscribe to. And I'd like to see someone say Rothbard had neither serious credentials nor was an Economics Professor. Will you back up your rhetoric with these charges? Actually, Ben Bernanke mostly agrees with Rothbard and Milton Friedman. Just for different reasons. You got that mostly right. I would have you think. Which learned people have repudiated the Austrian School? Can you name them? Then why do you continue to stalk me through thread after thread?
Most economists ignore the "Austrian School of Economics" It is best described as crank economics supported financially by a few wealthy families Some comments on Austrian economics by some significant economists who gave it a few moments of consideration; More facts on how economists treat Austrian economics.... In that the austrian school of economics has had a hundred years of opportunity to be considered, valued, promoted, etc. and has widely been considered a crank science, it is no wonder few would take the time to debunk it. but go back to the original link and reference. it makes for interesting reading as to how wacky this perspective on the austrian school, the gold standard, and all the other perspectives from this school of thought are.
How fortuitous that almost every day lately, I stumble upon an article relevant to a DP discussion. Our Financial House of Cards and How to Start Replacing It With Solid Gold http://www.mises.org/story/2926 Excerpt Btw, this is not a polemic from a non-expert propagandist. It's from Professor George Reisman, the author of CAPITALISM.
I think the irony of your "conventional wisdom" is both hilarious and depressing. FWIW: The "few wealthy families" are heavily financing Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc... If my ancestors had built a world-class fortune on the back of government subsidy, I would be sure to go out of my way to call free-market competition a "crank science" as well. About the actual topic...I would not recommend abolishing the Federal Reserve if you were just going to replace it with a similar monopoly backed with gold. No value would be added to the financial system if nothing changed except gold, so the cost of a transition wouldn't be justified. I would recommend a series of competing currencies, backed by whatever assets and faith the printers can offer. Critics say standardization is preferable, but then why not just have one world currency? One world government? Guess what, those "few rich families" would love that so much more than a system where you or I could compete and offer choices to people. If you're looking for an example you could check out the Wildcat Banking period, but please try to stay away from the propaganda and try to focus on the real economics numbers like consumer costs, consumer income, GDP growth, etc... Many history books will skip the economics of the time, or present a few anecdotes of scandalous banks and try to pass it off as the industry standard. Many of the complaints of the period were inherent to rural banking (difficult locations) or lack of electronic markets (currency conversions could be a problem). Counterfitting was also a problem of the period, but again - it is technology and not monopoly that has fixed these issues. Speaking of "credentials" my recent 4-yr degree was from a public university on the subject of political science & economy. If anything, I am fully aware of how the state views economics and how much of a crank science the dominant Keynesian branch is. I understand how the system views voters, laws, and conformity to neo-liberal ideals. I've been trained to rule you, and willing people like you - but I find it distasteful to my moral code and the values of America's founding. I'll probably be voting for Ron Paul, too (unless the libertarian party runs someone better).
Lol, you kill me Earl. You use Samuelson and some cranky link, the link happens to debunk all of Samuelson's work as well. Forget Hazlitt, Mises, Bastiat, Menger, even Rothbard. Hayek alone was a giant in accomplishment and influence when compared to Samuelson. So besides Samuelson and some "crank" website, you got anything else? Probably not. I imagine you are burning up Google search looking for something, anything to back up your vicious and unfounded attacks.
Hah. After 135 years of not being considered appropriate of serious consideration by economic scientists, and not even being considered serious enough to merit comment, the ideas you promote don't deserve further research. Its amazing that this economic theory you espouse has such marginal, in fact virtually no following. Its no wonder you couldn't come up with nations that have put this into practice, or you refuse to reference credentials. Its just another crackpot theory followed by some wild eyed radicals that place theory over reality.
You're kidding right? Hayek won a Nobel Prize, and the Queen made him a Knight or something at the request of Thatcher for his contributions to Economics. Lmao. I can't tell if you're trying to provoke me, or if you're being intentionally facetious with the intent to humor. Already answered the former, and the latter is my secret weapon when you have exhausted your kamikaze attacks upon reason. I guess, if you consider many of this nations greatest leaders "wild eyed radicals", and the Constitution "theory". You got enough vitriol and indignation to reply to korr? Or is this just another "stalk guerilla" post? Have a nice night Earl.
Let time I checked the president elects the chairman of the reserve, then the chairman gets voted in by members of congress, similar to how supreme court judges are put into position as well as other members of congress. The Chairman then heads to congress every 6 months to testify on the state of the economy and its outlook, he is then grilled by members of congress on a number of matters. After every fed meeting, the Fed mins are released basically a run down of everyones opinion on the economy and inflation, then Fed releases its state telling everyone what its going to do. I know all this is very secretive, I wish others parts of government were as secretive as the fed.
I'll respond to Korr when I have more time. I guess you referenced him because he referenced that he has a degree. That implies that he had to take tests and write papers that were critiqued. Good for him. I recall your references to nations that supposedly used this philosophy in their governments. You referenced Hong Kong, Iceland, and (cough, cough) China. Hong Kong is a protectorate. It is not a nation. Iceland has a total population of around 300,000 mostly all living near one city....and China. Give me a break. Hong Kong has a great economy no doubt. It has relatively low taxes. Its a an example of how a relatively small one track pony of an economy can thrive. More power to it. We should all be so fortunate to live in Hong Kong or Singapore that have become powerful trade centers for the economic engine that has become China. Iceland is simply too small and too homogenious to serve as a model for a large nation. China.....China. Where did you come up with that? China's govt absolutely runs what goes on. China is currently killing Tibetans. You should read current events a little bit. Most people of most nations don't want a facsimile of a government that can't or won't protect them when conditions go to pot. Its that simple. You know, governments are inefficient. I spent two years directly out of college working for a local government. Horrible job. After working in markets for twenty years, where I trained and worked consistently to get the best deal the market would bear at the time, I moved on. I worked for a govt. contractor using my expertise. Another crappy experience for me. I didn't enjoy being a mouthpiece for people that want to spend taxpayers money on projects that seemed brutally wasteful. But I also met talented people, including some with a similar perspective who over decades managed to convert some projects and change some perspectives to develop projects with govt funding that were not wasteful and tried elegantly to respect the use of taxpayer money in an economical fashion. The perspective that anyone who ever enters govt. immediately become evil, inefficient, and unproductive is a disservice to many people with good work habits and good effort. The guy who joined Peterson's foundation is an example of one such person that you yourself applauded. Most people care little for govt. and seem disenfranchised. Modern big national govt. is sooooooooo disconnected from most people. Its a terrible shame. On the other hand, when the sh!t hits the fan in people's lives because of impacts that are way beyond their control they value help. Some day when your parents no longer give you an allowance you may respect that. The basic theoretical premise that all govt is always the cause of all economic problems is so off-base. It is simply not based in reality. Its a typical crackpot theory. You should work for a while or go to school or both. It would broaden your perspective beyond that of being a propagandist.
And why would that be a problem? They aren't my theories. And I've answered Earl on this, but he leaves an important one out. The US of A.
I certainly hope you find the time. You seem to place a lot more emphasis on the credentials of the person you are discussing with, than what they have to say. I can wait until you find time to respond to him, I promise I'll still be here. You forgot the US. Of course, you didn't know we built private roads in this country until I pointed you to an article on it. So maybe you forgot. Until 1913, this country for the most part, practiced libertarianism in government and the economy. This was probably the rationale for feudalism. Why can't people protect themselves? This is a beautiful story Earl. I love hearing more about you. Btw, I'm ok with local government. The prevailing notion is decentralization, not central planning. Hence why I would support "state's rights". I agree. Who thinks stuff like that! If it was true, we wouldn't have Mark Sanford. or Ron Paul. or Barry Goldwater. or Dennis Kucinich. Or Walter Williams. Sure. But help doesn't have to be federal. It can be local. Katrina is a pretty good example of the failures of central economic planning. I'm getting a little tired of you talking sh1t about my family. You don't know them, and you don't know me. You don't know where I come from, what I have done to get where I am today, or where I am headed. I agree. Whose theory is this? I tolerate your personal attacks because I find them amusing, and a little sad that your day revolves around them. If you truly annoyed me, you would be on ignore like GTech. You don't know me Earl. You resort to petty personal attacks because quite frankly, I think you're not clever enough to debate the subject matter on its merits. Which is fine. I'm ignorant of many things myself. Debate is one way of learning. Except you have resorted to exaggeration, mis-characterization and outright slander etc. instead of improving your arguments and increasing the level of discourse for both of us. Bring some game, and back off talking about me or mine personally. You deserve to represent yourself better.
Well it ain't Harvard, but it'll do... It’s Hard to Thaw a Frozen Market http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/b...mc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Excerpt Ah the beauty of the Austrian School, remembered in the NYT during a time of economic uncertainty.... Three cheers for crackpot theory!