It's more than likely a similar economic crisis would occur sometime soon. Hell, it could happen as early as tomorrow if interest rates increase by 0.70%. But then again, the economic properity would not be a pleasant cause for economists, shareholders etc.
@shanedk: first of all: the 0.7% is only the tip of the iceberg. The economic status submitted by the Federal Reserve will start off by targeting middle class residents across the country simply because they either didn't pay off their mortgage loans within the 360-day period; and therefore their bank accounts would be frozen until their mortgages are paid off.
@shanedk: and secondly, if there happens to be a crisis in the economic field which was bought up upon not just big businesses, but also the Federal Reserve and several leading banks in the country; it will take more than 10 years approximately to recover because people are over-indulged with money supplies to keep the system flowing. And it's not just central banks we're talking about, we're talking about virtually every type of bank there is.
@shanedk Yet they inflate the money supply and cause the business cycle. Just because I don't do business with them, doesn't mean I am not affected by their actions.
@shanedk The central bank keeps the whole banking system up. Remove the lender of last resort and it will not end well as a dip in the economy will lead to runs on the bank with people losing their life savings. No matter what reserve ratio you are using, there is NO safe fractional reserve bank
@professornuclearbomb Because they charge modest fees for demand deposits, and time deposits they can loan out as long as they get the money back by the time the time deposit matures.
@Corporatism It should be said that fractional reserve doesn't create inflation on its own; it multiplies the effect of inflation. You still need something like a central bank to jump start the process.
You are wrong... as I said Tariffs "Protect" a nation's economy. They encourage citizens to buy domestic products and employ their own people... Trade only accounted for 3% of the total US Economy in 1929...not nearly enough to do the damage you speak of. Globalists don't like Protectionism but then again they oppose National Sovereignty.
Tariffs were not the cause., The GNP collapsed about 50%, But the total of imports and exports totaled less than 3% and could not have been the reason for The Depression. ..
1) The depression of 21 was caused by a transition from a war economy and changes in the labor market, it ended before anyone even had a chance to do anything and interest rates weren't at the lower bound.
2) The Roaring 20s were the result of massive supply-side tax cuts
3) Almost every economist (including Friedman) has said Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the depression, what prolonged it was the Fed's austerity after the bubble burst in 29.
@AndroidPolitician Friedman didn't say that AT ALL. He said Smoot-Hawley BY ITSELF wouldn't have created the Depression. So the ONE part of your post that was actually verifiable is completely bogus.
Yeah but his point was it had an extremely minor impact, moreover all of Friedman's research said that what prolonged it was Fed austerity (aka the opposite of what Bernanke is doing) which is the monetarist's way of saying lack of demand.
4) Child labor was in decline but it was effectively ended in the 30s, but my larger point about business costs is what matters.
5) The whole "everyone was overseas" thing is irrelevant since unemployment is based on those that stayed behind.
@AndroidPolitician "The whole "everyone was overseas" thing is irrelevant since unemployment is based on those that stayed behind."
LAMEST...EXCUSE...EVER!!! You are REMOVING TEN MILLION PEOPLE FROM THE POPULATION! Blather your pathetic cultist mouth all you want about "it's based on those that stayed behind," because that's MINUS TEN MILLION PEOPLE!!!
Geez, do you not even understand the concept of SUBTRACTION???
Are you literally insane? The unemployment rate is determined by the relative domestic workforce.
If tomorrow there were only 10,000 Americans in the US there would be a new number of people in the workforce and of those in the workforce that are unemployed would be the unemployment rate.
You don't subtract it when people go overseas.
"As I also said in the video. So again, what's your problem?"
Then why are you against Fed expansion now if not doing so caused the depression?
@AndroidPolitician "The unemployment rate is determined by the relative domestic workforce."
And that "relative domestic workforce" was LOWER BY TEN MILLION than it was before!!! Are you REALLY so stupid that you can't see the significance of that???
"Then why are you against Fed expansion now if not doing so caused the depression?"
Why do you fucking dogmatists have such a problem with the concept of "equilibrium"? Too much is too bad just as too little is!
No you literally still don't understand. If there were only 50 people in the workforce today and 10 of them couldn't find jobs then we would have 20% unemployment.
The number doesn't matter it's the percent that matters.
"Too much is too bad just as too little is!"
Except that Friedman was advocating for massive expansion to make up for the depression.
That's nothing. My online econ text aid stated crime is a result of supply and demand (or of costs of crime, versus costs of more law enforcement). I wish I was making that up...
I mean, surely, you and Virgil0211 MUST have thought it was a bit weird that so many people go to government schools to learn how to run a business and/or learn economics. To use one of Stefan's metaphor's that's a chubby person going to a morbidly obese, chain smoker to learn to lose weight and how to live a healthy lifestyle!
@AndroidPolitician Yes, and supply and demand results in EQUILIBRIUM--FULL employment. The ONLY time you can have any sort of significant unemployment is when government's monkeying around with things.
Not to mention, as you even said in the video AP clearly did not watch (at least not without his cult blinders on anyways), what got us out of the GD was the Fed releasing its strangle-hold on the money supply. That would have allowed those increases in supply/demand in labor as the money supply was closer to equilibrium. Not to mention the vast amount of rationing going on during the war: for all practical purposes the GD DIDN'T end until AFTER the war.
@shanedk That's the way I understood it. I mean, even then, it was primarily in order to prevent deflation, not to 'spur economic activity'. For example, it would've been better to just divy up the money among the populace and mail everyone a check than use the money to start 'works programs' and such. As I understand it, a big problem with deflation is debt deflation. Not unusual for deflation to be a problem after an artificial credit expansion and people take on more debt than normal.
@Virgil0211 Yes, unfortunately no one really took debt-deflation theory seriously until the 21st Century. It was formulated by Irving Fisher, because of is epic fail in saying stocks had reached a permanently high plateau days before the October 29 crash. So people ignored him in favor of Keynes. But didn't Fisher do what any scientist should: throw out a theory when the observations falsify it and adopt a new one?
Actually if Smoot-Hawley would have been left in place, they country would have recovered, much faster than it did. I generally ignore Murry Rothbard, can't believe you would use a Austrin Economist as reference. It is apparant you are a free trader and a child of the austrin school. Of course you competely ignore that the application of the theory to our economy has totally devistated the country.
@louiethegreater "Actually if Smoot-Hawley would have been left in place, they country would have recovered, much faster than it did." [citation needed]
"I generally ignore Murry Rothbard" As you ignore everyone who disagrees with your pathetic delusions.
"can't believe you would use a Austrin Economist as reference."
Yeah, they were only the ones who PREDICTED the GD AHEAD OF TIME...
@shanedk Well, thats a no brainer, I would think that even you could figure that one out. Outsourcing labor intrensic industries, and deindustrializaton of the country. Even Donald Trump figured that one out.
No, that's due to GOVERNMENT economists over-regulating the industries, WHICH THE AUSTRIANS WARNED ABOUT.
"and deindustrializaton of the country." Before the most recent recession hit, real manufacturing GDP per capita was the highest it had been in American history. More of your ignorance.
The fact is, NO Austrian economists have been in power to do these things. It's all PRO-GOVERNMENT guys.
@shanedk Na, oursourcing labor intrensic industries is the cause, you deregulation mouth pieces are pro-multinational corporation. The austrians school is a bunch of gloalist intent on greater wealth for a small percentage of people. You actually believe you are among the elitist who will be the masters of the plantation. You are chickens rooting for colonial sanders. Yes, manufacturng output was up, because the industries left are highly automated high, production that does not employ people.
@louiethegreater "oursourcing labor intrensic industries is the cause"
And the cause of the outsourcing is...?
"you deregulation mouth pieces are pro-multinational corporation"
Despite the fact that the Federal regulations INcrease by TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES EVERY YEAR...the fact that businesses in America spend more money complying with government regulations that they make in profits...more uncomfortable facts for you.
Since when do airline companies not employ people?
@shanedk Thats a no brainer also, employ cheap labor, no enviromental or labor protections, means 400% profits. Your 2nd statement is absurd those giant multinational corporations became giant multinational corporations in the U.S. You mean the poor babies are mad because they are not allowed to dump toxic chemicals in the enviroment, they actually cannot contaminate our subterraniean water with taxins and heavy metals. Wow I feel so sorry for them, they should be allowed to kill asians; right
Ignoramus. The price of labor has NEVER been an incentive to move countries.
"You mean the poor babies are mad because they are not allowed to dump toxic chemicals in the enviroment,"
Another of your FUCKING LIES. You KNOW the truth, yet you continue the slander. I believe I've already given you two warnings; this is the third AND LAST. You are a disgusting, immoral, cultist LIAR.
@shanedk You must really enjoy preaching to the choir. Whats the matter getting you butt kicked, you don't like it. What are you talking about two warnings, I have no idea what your are talking about. Nor do I understand your last statement.
@louiethegreater You have been given two warnings in the past, and now a third, for violating Rule #5 of this channel. One more and you'll be blocked.
You came to my channel and right off the bat started spreading lies and making false accusations against others. I don't put up with that crap here. This is a place for intelligent, rational discussion.
@shanedk Wow shanedk if you want to continue preaching to the choir, just say so, if you want to continue in your ignorance, that is OK with me. You would be difficult to teach anyway, because folks that know everything are extremely difficult to teach. Hey if you don't want any whisper of truth on your channel than I will not post again, and for the forums information you did not warn me of anything. It appears you just do not want any apposing argument on your channel.
@shanedk Someone should tell you that you have a real phobic reaction to creationist. Insomuch as I never mentioned creationism I am puzzled at you reaction.
@louiethegreater Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension knows full well what I meant: you employ the EXACT same dishonest tactics and make the EXACT same logical fallacies as they!
But you, in your incredible dogma, don't want to admit that--so you have to LIE ONCE AGAIN in order to avoid facing your own faults, because your incredible ego just won't allow you to have any.
4). Ending child labor etc. during the depression also allowed for older Americans to work, and the idea of "high business costs" is ridiculous based on economies of scale, a business's cost is less than it's output.
5). With the exception of 1937 (FDR tried to balance the budget) unemployment was decreasing during the 30s and was ended when with the massive stimulus of WWII.
5) It's easy to grow when you're at the bottom. Besides, how do you account for all the rationing? Send 10 million people overseas to fight a war and OF COURSE your unemployment rate will go down! But how much better off will people be, really?
5) There's no guarantee that the people who stayed behind would of been employed if it weren't for the massive war effort which more than tripled production.
I was talking about employment not growth, if government spending made things worse than unemployment would have been increasing throughout the 30s in relation to spending but the exact opposite happened.
@AndroidPolitician "There's no guarantee that the people who stayed behind would of been employed if it weren't for the massive war effort which more than tripled production."
BULLSHIT! Have you not ONE WORD to say about the rationing??? The rationing proves that your blather is just insane garbage! Geez, they even had to resort to (gasp!) having the womenfolk go to work! All so families could STRUGGLE TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.
And now you shit all over their suffering. You make me sick!
I didn't know all economist agree that Smoot- Hawley caused the great depression. Did you just pluck that informaton out of the air. Smoot-Hawley tariffs only applied to 1.3% of the GNP. Quite a stretch to believe that triggered a 46% drop in the GDP, and sent unemployment to 25%. Na, I don't buy into the con job that Smoot-Hawley caused the depression. Actually total imports in 1930 was only 4% of GDP.
@shanedk You said most, sorry about the all, but where did you get the most, in a dream? This never became an issue untill Al Gore's claim that Smoot-Hawley caused the great depression. When the protectionist community, began to challenge Al Gores statement, free trading, neo-liberals like yourself began to make the claim that most economist believed it caused the depression. If prices would not have plummited the tariff rate would have stayed at 41% which is not high by historical standards.
@louiethegreater "This never became an issue untill Al Gore's claim that Smoot-Hawley caused the great depression."
Total ignorant BULLSHIT. Murray Rothbard said so in his 1963 book "America's Great Depression." And before it passed, over 1000 economists petitioned against it, warning that would happen--see "1,028 Economists Ask Hoover To Veto Pending Tariff Bill," The New York Times, May 5, 1930.
With every post, you show yourself for the amazing ignoramus you are.
@shanedk I am not impressed you economist asking Hoover to veto the bill. Actually Smoot-Hawley had nothing to do with the great depression. All those economist petitioning the president is only a example that the politics of the country has not changed. There has always been a group of Von Mises worshipers in the country. They just never had the support of the government untill the 1960. After that the total destruction of the ameican economy began.
@shanedk It doesn't strike you as being unusual that a tariff on 1.3% of the nations GDP caused the greatest destruction of wealth in modern history. Smoot-Hawley did not raise tariffs to unprecidented high levels. Smoot-Hawley only applied to one third of imports. The Tariff of Abominations applied to 92% of imports. The Morrill tariff 96%, the McKinley tariff 48%. Smoot-Hawley ranks the lowest in % of imports than any post Civil War tariff except he Underwood Tariffs of 1913.
@louiethegreater "It doesn't strike you as being unusual that a tariff on 1.3% of the nations GDP caused the greatest destruction of wealth in modern history."
No one is saying it was the SOLE cause. But it WAS a major contributor, and if you'd bother to read the sources I gave you instead of just spouting your own dogma like a fundamentalist you'd see how the statistics you're spewing are irrelevant.
@shanedk How could a moderat tariff (moderate for the time frame it was passed in) even have been a factor in the depression. You are just spouting off Al Gores rhetoric, when he debated Ross Perot concerning the Passage of NAFTA.
@Coughlan616 how's your comedic career coming along? Just saw a clip of you trying to do stand up. I had a great laugh at your expense :P You really suck. No wonder you're spending all your time on youtube trying to hock T-shirts.
lol good luck with that. And what happened with this Peach character? XD
A known problem is I was born in 1966 and I always wanted a 1955 Chevy Belaire or a 1941 Cadilac. The 1932 ford was the best known workiing vehicle of it's time. The popular GTO, Corvette, and Mustang was products of the 60's.
Current popular auto is of college effort like the Chrylser product Dodge Viper2 still known as the fastest car and best usable design like Cobra.
It is good that somebody said on video that there will be the worst stock market crash ever and the a like black out depression that may never recover.
THIS VIDEO IS A LIE! WHY WOULD ANYBODY MOCK THE LAST KNOWN CHANCE ANYBODY OF SANE MIND WOULD HAVE CALLED THE GOVERNMENT AS ALL COUNTIRES HAVE.
You ask me nobody here gives a shit about borrowed money as the abount trillion is over come. Massive debt that China found out that there is no possiable way the United States will ever be able to pay back. Britian is worst off with the loss of BMW, Rolls Royce and Bentely. Vietnahm was said to be a answer to many who was sent there as they was called baby boomer yupies that of parents who had money invested in manufacturing. Yupie caused damage at site and demand product said corvette.
J.P. Morgan is a common known name in the FAA. The FAA is full of educated employees who have invested in a large some of net worth as set asside mostly banked and incomed of Russia. J.P. Morgan likes to say it can give some borrowed money from said to be aging relative and take it back day by day demanding it makes money at others loss and not paying for luxury. This has been proven then and know not legal. J.P. Morgan as others appear to reprsent can be resposible for loss of massive $Bil
Vehicles was provided to police action of damage cost. Last known vehicles common seen as of ford LTD or Mercury Grand Marquies. Latest known college effort known Dodge Charger or Chylser 300 Dodge trucks. Nothing sense has been provided and many patents have been given to Canada to supply manufactured good given or half assembled as tooling equipment provided. No improvement of future is said to happen if so trades of needs should be given. Canadas one mistake outer public.
5:56 HUB was damaged from behavior of protesting rich who did not pay for or offer any effort towards tax deduction was all they earned. I never did learn all of or who regading one individual who recieved severe injury at the time. Quite some time (10 years) went by before the individual achieved some wellness as the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TURNED TO PRIVATE PUBLIC to cover massive epenses for the individual provided of every country. As a witness the same mass debt. and new act of war starts
08:05 After yelling pounding and anoying screaming of people everywhere they locked LIMON money somewhere so people don't take cars from lots and leave them there at banks broken with no gas yelling once again no money not paying for junk as it sits. LIMON is hub of Colarado. The LIMON name is that of Spain. Culumbus was dispatched from spain to plan land that low bread mexican/indians cluttered. Craig is a common name used to determine use of HUB once again in Colardao. None sense.
4:54 hoover stoped organizations for miss using funds to give out grants and throw away bailouts to family owned business unable to earn what was said they own to with hope pay there employees. Hoover wanted to stop the miss use of welfare and use action to give people who suffered from worth while work of any organization and govt. field stating they did there fare share but was. Most refused to pay unionized social security Hoover treatened to end it. Rosevelt gave the new deal
@shanedk But can't debt stimulate investment? For example, most people can't pay for college, so they get a loan to get an education, which is an investment. Or look at morgages.
@professornuclearbomb No, not even then--you NEVER get something for nothing! You're just trying to sell a free lunch, the economic equivalent of perpetual motion.
@professornuclearbomb Except why on Earth would I go without $2,000 for 2 months without getting something extra back? Why do you think you could just have that $2,000 for free?
@shanedk Maybe becuase I, say, have a brillant mind and one doesn't want to see go to waste and pay for my tution. Just an example, i really don't think I need to pay for tution at this rate.
@professornuclearbomb To see why it is a free lunch reverse the order. Loan someone else $2000 for 2 months at 0%. Take all the risks you won't get paid back and with inflation get back less in purchasing power thanks to your central bank.
@johnrainrules I relized you were going to factor in risk just after I posted my comment. I get back to that maybe tomorrow. But just to nitpick most inflation comes from private commerical banks. Also, in your video, you implied the Fed created fractional reserve bank,however this has existed since acient times.
@professornuclearbomb Uh yeah, all inflation comes from fractional reserve banking and fiat currency possible only with a central bank. With legal tender laws every one is required BY LAW to accept a devaluing currency regardless of who creates the funny money. Also explain how QE1 and QE2 were not deliberate attempts by the Fed to devalue our currency done by Fed direction and explicitly stating that was their aim.
@johnrainrules Fractional Reserve banking has existed before fait currency. The first bankers were goldsmiths whose vaults were used by other to keep their gold safe and used their recipits of deposit to buy things. When the goldsmith reliezed that most people didn't remove their gold from his vault, he printed more banknotes out in loans.
@professornuclearbomb Yup, but since you don't actually legally have to accept these bank notes before the invention of fiat currencies, inflation was held at bay by people being selective what notes they would accept and some bankers screw ups made individual banks implode without actually imploding the economy or causing the value of every single bank note, or actual ounce of gold to devalue by more than 95% in less than a hundred years.
@professornuclearbomb The one caused when the Second Bank of America (a central bank) collapsed because they caused run away inflation and people started excepting payment only in specie?
1. Bad argument because it was caused by a central bank producing inflation, and ended because the market corrected itself with a backlash against fractional reserve banking.
Also 20 years after the war inflation was accelerating for no good reason because of the War of 1812? Especially since the U.S. experienced a boom just after the War of 1812. Not buying it. Too bad they didn't have people like you to loan them money at 0%
@johnrainrules The inflation was caused by lending out too much money due the rise of American agriculture to too many bad borrowers. When the SBUS called in on those loans, it lead to the crash of 1819. Jackson's removal of the SBUS lead to the rise of wildcat banking, whose over-speculation lead to the crash of 1837, a completely independent crisis.
@professornuclearbomb The crash was caused by people using specie instead of notes because they didn't trust the notes that were issued by the 2nd bank that caused the inflation. How is that "over-speculating".
So now the inflation was caused by lending to too many bad borrowers (that would suck at 0% interest) not the war? And why did all these problems cause inflation that only existed while the bank was running and ceased immediately before and after?
@professornuclearbomb Then why did you call it the Crash of 1836 15 minutes ago. The over issuance of banknotes was done during the second bank, the crash occurred when banks stopped taking the notes 6 months, not a year after it closed. They did this because your second banks over issuance of notes wrecked the economy due to inflation. Google Business cycle to see how long periods of inflation can cause depression. It's in any beginning macro-economics course.
You can keep using the term "Wild Cat Banking" like it means anything, but your Second Bank of the United States created massive inflation for 20 years that ended the day banks refused to take anything but specie which is the exact opposite of over-speculation.
@johnrainrules Also you can pretend a central bank using an inflationary policy for 20+ years had nothing to do with a credit cycle unwinding, or you can pretend banks somehow "over-speculated" in 6 months since the end of the Second Bank and somehow all of those bad loans came due in less than a year and were all bad.
Which is more likely 20+ years of bad policy causing a crisis, or somehow bad loans made and due in less than 6 months caused the crisis.
@johnrainrules Inflation was accelerating because the Treasury was part of the banking system. Polk removed that in the 1840s and that was when it stopped.
@johnrainrules Ignore the previous response to your comment. The Second Bank was created to fight inflation from the increase of private banknotes in circulation.
@professornuclearbomb And yet both before your Second Bank and after your Second Bank inflation was much less. The Government created a program that did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. Kind of like the War on Drugs.
@shanedk I don't trust the Austrian School of economics because they don't use the scientific method. I understand the Scientific Method contains the Induction Fallacy, but your other videos support the Method.
The current crisis, the Great Depression, the prosperity following WWII, and pretty much every single Boom/Bust Cycle since and including the Great Depression, actually.
@professornuclearbomb What vspqbd, plus the S&L crisis, the high unemployment, inflation, and interest rates of the '70s, and the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union.
@professornuclearbomb This coming from the guy who supports a government regulated 0% interest rate even though history provides numerous examples of what happens when interest rates are held too low buy fiat. I'm not sure what you think the Scientific Method is.
@professornuclearbomb NO! Inflation comes from expansion of the money supply--which can ONLY be done by a central monetary authority, usually a central bank.
Fractional reserve banking formally existed in this country with the National Banking Act of 1862. Before then, it was a form of fraud, but none of the states every did anything about it. To "fix" the problem, instead of making the states act, the feds just made it legal.
@professornuclearbomb I know all about the Free Banking Era. You apparently don't, or you wouldn't have tried to laughably bring it up in response to YOUR point!
@professornuclearbomb Cool, since a central bank requires stealing resources from others, how about you start that non-profit organization and invest in my perpetual motion machine company. Together we can create free electricity for every one on the planet.
@johnrainrules First of all, why would it be considered stealing if a central bank offered you a loan? The intial sourse of money in a central bank is normally private individuals and it revenue comes from the intreset on loans. Second, why would the people in the npo be considered less smart than those in the business comunity?
@professornuclearbomb Because the only way a central bank can do it is to create money out of thin air--counterfeiting, which is a form of theft as it decreases the value of everyone else's savings and paychecks.
If you just have individuals saving and investing, and that's the source of your money, you don't NEED a central bank!
@shanedk But what if you don't have individuals investing because, say, THE ENTIRE ECONOMY COLLASPED. (caps added for funny empathus, this is a video on the the depression after all)
@professornuclearbomb The reason why nobody was investing during the Depression was because Fed policy pushed interest rates down to NEGATIVE numbers!!!
@shanedk I thought the fed kept interest rates high during the great depression? Isn't that why Bernake insists on so much easing now? Also, didn't people save as much as 25% of their income during the depression?
for some reason i feel like this guy is a retard
WormsCommando 1 week ago
It's more than likely a similar economic crisis would occur sometime soon. Hell, it could happen as early as tomorrow if interest rates increase by 0.70%. But then again, the economic properity would not be a pleasant cause for economists, shareholders etc.
Ringvireot 3 weeks ago
@Ringvireot How do you come to that conclusion? And where do you get 0.7% from?
shanedk 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Ringvireot 3 weeks ago
@shanedk: first of all: the 0.7% is only the tip of the iceberg. The economic status submitted by the Federal Reserve will start off by targeting middle class residents across the country simply because they either didn't pay off their mortgage loans within the 360-day period; and therefore their bank accounts would be frozen until their mortgages are paid off.
Ringvireot 3 weeks ago
@shanedk: some families might not be aware of that circumstance until 2-3 weeks afterhand.
Ringvireot 3 weeks ago
@shanedk: and secondly, if there happens to be a crisis in the economic field which was bought up upon not just big businesses, but also the Federal Reserve and several leading banks in the country; it will take more than 10 years approximately to recover because people are over-indulged with money supplies to keep the system flowing. And it's not just central banks we're talking about, we're talking about virtually every type of bank there is.
Ringvireot 3 weeks ago
that last sgovernment slide was epic
managarm1349 2 months ago
So in other words if the government would have stayed out of economics the great depression would have been avoided.. let that be a lesson to us all.
lonewolf031 6 months ago
@lonewolf031 Some, it seems, just don't want to learn the lesson.
shanedk 6 months ago
@Corporatism Presonaly, I hate banks. They are a glorified parasite.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb You are always free not to do business with them.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Yet they inflate the money supply and cause the business cycle. Just because I don't do business with them, doesn't mean I am not affected by their actions.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb That's the CENTRAL bank that does that. That's what needs to go.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk The central bank keeps the whole banking system up. Remove the lender of last resort and it will not end well as a dip in the economy will lead to runs on the bank with people losing their life savings. No matter what reserve ratio you are using, there is NO safe fractional reserve bank
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Meaning we'd have to go back to full reserve banking.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Explain FRB to me please. I heard of it yet I don't know how it works. Then the question is how to we push banking in that direction.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb You need to end the Fed and start enforcing laws against fraud on the banks.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk You answered my second question, now please answer my first.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Full Reserve Banking just means that the bank has enough reserves to cover all deposits.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Yes I know, but how is it profitable?
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Because they charge modest fees for demand deposits, and time deposits they can loan out as long as they get the money back by the time the time deposit matures.
shanedk 6 months ago
@Corporatism It should be said that fractional reserve doesn't create inflation on its own; it multiplies the effect of inflation. You still need something like a central bank to jump start the process.
shanedk 6 months ago
You are wrong... as I said Tariffs "Protect" a nation's economy. They encourage citizens to buy domestic products and employ their own people... Trade only accounted for 3% of the total US Economy in 1929...not nearly enough to do the damage you speak of. Globalists don't like Protectionism but then again they oppose National Sovereignty.
jimeckland 6 months ago
@jimeckland "as I said Tariffs "Protect" a nation's economy."
Yeah, they protect it from things like growth and economic wealth creation...
You SERIOUSLY need to read up on your Ricardo.
"They encourage citizens to buy domestic products and employ their own people."
Which results in higher prices and lower consumption, like ALL protectionism.
"Trade only accounted for 3% of the total US Economy in 1929."
It's already been explained to you why this is irrelevant.
shanedk 6 months ago
Tariffs were not the cause., The GNP collapsed about 50%, But the total of imports and exports totaled less than 3% and could not have been the reason for The Depression. ..
jimeckland 6 months ago
@jimeckland There was no "the" reason. But the tariffs sure kicked the economy when it was down!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Ugghh where to begin?
1) The depression of 21 was caused by a transition from a war economy and changes in the labor market, it ended before anyone even had a chance to do anything and interest rates weren't at the lower bound.
2) The Roaring 20s were the result of massive supply-side tax cuts
3) Almost every economist (including Friedman) has said Smoot-Hawley didn't cause the depression, what prolonged it was the Fed's austerity after the bubble burst in 29.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Friedman didn't say that AT ALL. He said Smoot-Hawley BY ITSELF wouldn't have created the Depression. So the ONE part of your post that was actually verifiable is completely bogus.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Yeah but his point was it had an extremely minor impact, moreover all of Friedman's research said that what prolonged it was Fed austerity (aka the opposite of what Bernanke is doing) which is the monetarist's way of saying lack of demand.
4) Child labor was in decline but it was effectively ended in the 30s, but my larger point about business costs is what matters.
5) The whole "everyone was overseas" thing is irrelevant since unemployment is based on those that stayed behind.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician "Yeah but his point was it had an extremely minor impact,"
He didn't say that, either. He said it wasn't the main cause. So did I. So what's your problem?
"moreover all of Friedman's research said that what prolonged it was Fed austerity"
As I also said in the video. So again, what's your problem?
"4) Child labor was in decline but it was effectively ended in the 30s,"
No, child labor was gone by the 1910s. It was TEENAGE labor they banned.
shanedk 7 months ago
Comment removed
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician "The whole "everyone was overseas" thing is irrelevant since unemployment is based on those that stayed behind."
LAMEST...EXCUSE...EVER!!! You are REMOVING TEN MILLION PEOPLE FROM THE POPULATION! Blather your pathetic cultist mouth all you want about "it's based on those that stayed behind," because that's MINUS TEN MILLION PEOPLE!!!
Geez, do you not even understand the concept of SUBTRACTION???
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Are you literally insane? The unemployment rate is determined by the relative domestic workforce.
If tomorrow there were only 10,000 Americans in the US there would be a new number of people in the workforce and of those in the workforce that are unemployed would be the unemployment rate.
You don't subtract it when people go overseas.
"As I also said in the video. So again, what's your problem?"
Then why are you against Fed expansion now if not doing so caused the depression?
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician "The unemployment rate is determined by the relative domestic workforce."
And that "relative domestic workforce" was LOWER BY TEN MILLION than it was before!!! Are you REALLY so stupid that you can't see the significance of that???
"Then why are you against Fed expansion now if not doing so caused the depression?"
Why do you fucking dogmatists have such a problem with the concept of "equilibrium"? Too much is too bad just as too little is!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
No you literally still don't understand. If there were only 50 people in the workforce today and 10 of them couldn't find jobs then we would have 20% unemployment.
The number doesn't matter it's the percent that matters.
"Too much is too bad just as too little is!"
Except that Friedman was advocating for massive expansion to make up for the depression.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician And if you took 10 of those people and shipped them overseas to fight a war the 10 unemployed could get those jobs!
Come on--do you REALLY not see that?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Nope than you have 40 people in the workforce and 8 people can't find jobs.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician How the FUCK do you get that?
50 people, 40 jobs; send 10 overseas and it's 40 people 40 jobs!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
The number of available jobs changes depending on how many people are in the country.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Bullshit.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Do you seriously think that if 20 million people left the US tomorrow that supply and demand would stay the same?
The reason why unemployment was low was because everyone that was left behind had to meet the demand of war production.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Most of what was being produced WAS FOR THE WAR, YOU FOAMING IMBECILE!!!
Do you REALLY think that American families were buying planes, tanks, and bombs???
Idiot.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Yeah no shit, I hope you understand that demand comes from all sectors of spending.
But apparently you still think that supply and demand remain static even as millions leave the country.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician 'But apparently you still think that supply and demand remain static even as millions leave the country.'
Please support this assertion with quotes from ShaneDK (with context), citations, and explanations of your logic.
Virgil0211 7 months ago
@Virgil0211
"How the FUCK do you get that?
50 people, 40 jobs; send 10 overseas and it's 40 people 40 jobs!"
Because apparently people leaving the country doesn't alter supply and demand.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Apparently YOU think unemployment is a RESULT of supply and demand!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
That's nothing. My online econ text aid stated crime is a result of supply and demand (or of costs of crime, versus costs of more law enforcement). I wish I was making that up...
vspqbd 7 months ago
@vspqbd Man, and there was a time when I was actually wondering why economic thought in this country was so screwed up...
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Indeed. It's like I say, having the state teach economics is like having the church teach biology.
vspqbd 7 months ago
@vspqbd Except a lot of religious schools actually do a pretty good job teaching biology. That's telling!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Indeed.
I mean, surely, you and Virgil0211 MUST have thought it was a bit weird that so many people go to government schools to learn how to run a business and/or learn economics. To use one of Stefan's metaphor's that's a chubby person going to a morbidly obese, chain smoker to learn to lose weight and how to live a healthy lifestyle!
vspqbd 7 months ago
@shanedk
Of course it is. Haven't you ever seen a supply and demand chart of a labor market?
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician
He sure has. He even made a video on it.
vspqbd 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Yes, and supply and demand results in EQUILIBRIUM--FULL employment. The ONLY time you can have any sort of significant unemployment is when government's monkeying around with things.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Not to mention, as you even said in the video AP clearly did not watch (at least not without his cult blinders on anyways), what got us out of the GD was the Fed releasing its strangle-hold on the money supply. That would have allowed those increases in supply/demand in labor as the money supply was closer to equilibrium. Not to mention the vast amount of rationing going on during the war: for all practical purposes the GD DIDN'T end until AFTER the war.
vspqbd 7 months ago
@vspqbd Exactly.
shanedk 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician People are NOT unemployed because of supply and demand!
shanedk 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician 'Except that Friedman was advocating for massive expansion to make up for the depression.' Citation, please.
Virgil0211 7 months ago
@Virgil0211 Actually, he was just advocating enough expansion to cover the gold the Fed had gotten from overseas.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk That's the way I understood it. I mean, even then, it was primarily in order to prevent deflation, not to 'spur economic activity'. For example, it would've been better to just divy up the money among the populace and mail everyone a check than use the money to start 'works programs' and such. As I understand it, a big problem with deflation is debt deflation. Not unusual for deflation to be a problem after an artificial credit expansion and people take on more debt than normal.
Virgil0211 7 months ago
@Virgil0211 Yes, unfortunately no one really took debt-deflation theory seriously until the 21st Century. It was formulated by Irving Fisher, because of is epic fail in saying stocks had reached a permanently high plateau days before the October 29 crash. So people ignored him in favor of Keynes. But didn't Fisher do what any scientist should: throw out a theory when the observations falsify it and adopt a new one?
shanedk 7 months ago
Actually if Smoot-Hawley would have been left in place, they country would have recovered, much faster than it did. I generally ignore Murry Rothbard, can't believe you would use a Austrin Economist as reference. It is apparant you are a free trader and a child of the austrin school. Of course you competely ignore that the application of the theory to our economy has totally devistated the country.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater "Actually if Smoot-Hawley would have been left in place, they country would have recovered, much faster than it did." [citation needed]
"I generally ignore Murry Rothbard" As you ignore everyone who disagrees with your pathetic delusions.
"can't believe you would use a Austrin Economist as reference."
Yeah, they were only the ones who PREDICTED the GD AHEAD OF TIME...
shanedk 7 months ago
@louiethegreater OK, go on, amuse me: how has Austrian economics "totally devistated (sic) the country"?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Well, thats a no brainer, I would think that even you could figure that one out. Outsourcing labor intrensic industries, and deindustrializaton of the country. Even Donald Trump figured that one out.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater "Outsourcing labor intrensic industries"
No, that's due to GOVERNMENT economists over-regulating the industries, WHICH THE AUSTRIANS WARNED ABOUT.
"and deindustrializaton of the country." Before the most recent recession hit, real manufacturing GDP per capita was the highest it had been in American history. More of your ignorance.
The fact is, NO Austrian economists have been in power to do these things. It's all PRO-GOVERNMENT guys.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Na, oursourcing labor intrensic industries is the cause, you deregulation mouth pieces are pro-multinational corporation. The austrians school is a bunch of gloalist intent on greater wealth for a small percentage of people. You actually believe you are among the elitist who will be the masters of the plantation. You are chickens rooting for colonial sanders. Yes, manufacturng output was up, because the industries left are highly automated high, production that does not employ people.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater "oursourcing labor intrensic industries is the cause"
And the cause of the outsourcing is...?
"you deregulation mouth pieces are pro-multinational corporation"
Despite the fact that the Federal regulations INcrease by TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PAGES EVERY YEAR...the fact that businesses in America spend more money complying with government regulations that they make in profits...more uncomfortable facts for you.
Since when do airline companies not employ people?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Thats a no brainer also, employ cheap labor, no enviromental or labor protections, means 400% profits. Your 2nd statement is absurd those giant multinational corporations became giant multinational corporations in the U.S. You mean the poor babies are mad because they are not allowed to dump toxic chemicals in the enviroment, they actually cannot contaminate our subterraniean water with taxins and heavy metals. Wow I feel so sorry for them, they should be allowed to kill asians; right
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater "Thats a no brainer also, employ cheap labor"
Ignoramus. The price of labor has NEVER been an incentive to move countries.
"You mean the poor babies are mad because they are not allowed to dump toxic chemicals in the enviroment,"
Another of your FUCKING LIES. You KNOW the truth, yet you continue the slander. I believe I've already given you two warnings; this is the third AND LAST. You are a disgusting, immoral, cultist LIAR.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk You must really enjoy preaching to the choir. Whats the matter getting you butt kicked, you don't like it. What are you talking about two warnings, I have no idea what your are talking about. Nor do I understand your last statement.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater You have been given two warnings in the past, and now a third, for violating Rule #5 of this channel. One more and you'll be blocked.
You came to my channel and right off the bat started spreading lies and making false accusations against others. I don't put up with that crap here. This is a place for intelligent, rational discussion.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Wow shanedk if you want to continue preaching to the choir, just say so, if you want to continue in your ignorance, that is OK with me. You would be difficult to teach anyway, because folks that know everything are extremely difficult to teach. Hey if you don't want any whisper of truth on your channel than I will not post again, and for the forums information you did not warn me of anything. It appears you just do not want any apposing argument on your channel.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater Spoken like a creationist who knows he cannot defend his lies. Hear it from them all the time. They're your ilk.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Someone should tell you that you have a real phobic reaction to creationist. Insomuch as I never mentioned creationism I am puzzled at you reaction.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater Anyone with the slightest amount of reading comprehension knows full well what I meant: you employ the EXACT same dishonest tactics and make the EXACT same logical fallacies as they!
But you, in your incredible dogma, don't want to admit that--so you have to LIE ONCE AGAIN in order to avoid facing your own faults, because your incredible ego just won't allow you to have any.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Hey this channel is silent, wonder why?
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@shanedk
(Cont.)
4). Ending child labor etc. during the depression also allowed for older Americans to work, and the idea of "high business costs" is ridiculous based on economies of scale, a business's cost is less than it's output.
5). With the exception of 1937 (FDR tried to balance the budget) unemployment was decreasing during the 30s and was ended when with the massive stimulus of WWII.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician 4) Child labor ended DECADES before the Depression.
5) It's easy to grow when you're at the bottom. Besides, how do you account for all the rationing? Send 10 million people overseas to fight a war and OF COURSE your unemployment rate will go down! But how much better off will people be, really?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
(Cont)
5) There's no guarantee that the people who stayed behind would of been employed if it weren't for the massive war effort which more than tripled production.
I was talking about employment not growth, if government spending made things worse than unemployment would have been increasing throughout the 30s in relation to spending but the exact opposite happened.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician "There's no guarantee that the people who stayed behind would of been employed if it weren't for the massive war effort which more than tripled production."
BULLSHIT! Have you not ONE WORD to say about the rationing??? The rationing proves that your blather is just insane garbage! Geez, they even had to resort to (gasp!) having the womenfolk go to work! All so families could STRUGGLE TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE.
And now you shit all over their suffering. You make me sick!
shanedk 7 months ago
I didn't know all economist agree that Smoot- Hawley caused the great depression. Did you just pluck that informaton out of the air. Smoot-Hawley tariffs only applied to 1.3% of the GNP. Quite a stretch to believe that triggered a 46% drop in the GDP, and sent unemployment to 25%. Na, I don't buy into the con job that Smoot-Hawley caused the depression. Actually total imports in 1930 was only 4% of GDP.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater Where did I claim that ALL economists agree on anything?
"Smoot-Hawley tariffs only applied to 1.3% of the GNP."
And the relevance of this is what?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk You said most, sorry about the all, but where did you get the most, in a dream? This never became an issue untill Al Gore's claim that Smoot-Hawley caused the great depression. When the protectionist community, began to challenge Al Gores statement, free trading, neo-liberals like yourself began to make the claim that most economist believed it caused the depression. If prices would not have plummited the tariff rate would have stayed at 41% which is not high by historical standards.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater "This never became an issue untill Al Gore's claim that Smoot-Hawley caused the great depression."
Total ignorant BULLSHIT. Murray Rothbard said so in his 1963 book "America's Great Depression." And before it passed, over 1000 economists petitioned against it, warning that would happen--see "1,028 Economists Ask Hoover To Veto Pending Tariff Bill," The New York Times, May 5, 1930.
With every post, you show yourself for the amazing ignoramus you are.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk I am not impressed you economist asking Hoover to veto the bill. Actually Smoot-Hawley had nothing to do with the great depression. All those economist petitioning the president is only a example that the politics of the country has not changed. There has always been a group of Von Mises worshipers in the country. They just never had the support of the government untill the 1960. After that the total destruction of the ameican economy began.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater "They just never had the support of the government untill the 1960. After that the total destruction of the ameican economy began."
If that were the case, government would have gotten SMALLER; instead, it's gotten WAY, WAY BIGGER.
You are nothing but a FUCKING LIAR. No better than a creationist.
shanedk 7 months ago
@louiethegreater Here's a full reprint of the petition, including the list of signatories: gooDOTgl/h7A3e
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk It doesn't strike you as being unusual that a tariff on 1.3% of the nations GDP caused the greatest destruction of wealth in modern history. Smoot-Hawley did not raise tariffs to unprecidented high levels. Smoot-Hawley only applied to one third of imports. The Tariff of Abominations applied to 92% of imports. The Morrill tariff 96%, the McKinley tariff 48%. Smoot-Hawley ranks the lowest in % of imports than any post Civil War tariff except he Underwood Tariffs of 1913.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater "It doesn't strike you as being unusual that a tariff on 1.3% of the nations GDP caused the greatest destruction of wealth in modern history."
No one is saying it was the SOLE cause. But it WAS a major contributor, and if you'd bother to read the sources I gave you instead of just spouting your own dogma like a fundamentalist you'd see how the statistics you're spewing are irrelevant.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk How could a moderat tariff (moderate for the time frame it was passed in) even have been a factor in the depression. You are just spouting off Al Gores rhetoric, when he debated Ross Perot concerning the Passage of NAFTA.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater How am I "just spouting off Al Gores rhetoric" when I'm referencing economists from LONG before that???
Once again, you show you have no desire to learn, only to maintain your pathetic dogma.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk No I am just saying you are not qualified to teach. It is as simple as that.
louiethegreater 7 months ago
@louiethegreater That's like Eric Hovind saying Richard Dawkins isn't qualified to write a book on evolution.
Go join the creationists, your ilk--and your BETTERS.
shanedk 7 months ago
Wow this guy explaining the cause of the great depression, is like a termite explaining the taste of a Cedar Tree.
louiethegreater 8 months ago
@Coughlan616 how's your comedic career coming along? Just saw a clip of you trying to do stand up. I had a great laugh at your expense :P You really suck. No wonder you're spending all your time on youtube trying to hock T-shirts.
lol good luck with that. And what happened with this Peach character? XD
arainysundaymorning 9 months ago
@Coughlan616 you're an idiot. :)
arainysundaymorning 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A known problem is I was born in 1966 and I always wanted a 1955 Chevy Belaire or a 1941 Cadilac. The 1932 ford was the best known workiing vehicle of it's time. The popular GTO, Corvette, and Mustang was products of the 60's.
Current popular auto is of college effort like the Chrylser product Dodge Viper2 still known as the fastest car and best usable design like Cobra.
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
Comment removed
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
WE ALL KNOW THE LOCAL sheriff DEPARTMENT OR ELECTED POLITICIAN IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND SAID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIABLE.
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
It is good that somebody said on video that there will be the worst stock market crash ever and the a like black out depression that may never recover.
THIS VIDEO IS A LIE! WHY WOULD ANYBODY MOCK THE LAST KNOWN CHANCE ANYBODY OF SANE MIND WOULD HAVE CALLED THE GOVERNMENT AS ALL COUNTIRES HAVE.
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
You ask me nobody here gives a shit about borrowed money as the abount trillion is over come. Massive debt that China found out that there is no possiable way the United States will ever be able to pay back. Britian is worst off with the loss of BMW, Rolls Royce and Bentely. Vietnahm was said to be a answer to many who was sent there as they was called baby boomer yupies that of parents who had money invested in manufacturing. Yupie caused damage at site and demand product said corvette.
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
J.P. Morgan is a common known name in the FAA. The FAA is full of educated employees who have invested in a large some of net worth as set asside mostly banked and incomed of Russia. J.P. Morgan likes to say it can give some borrowed money from said to be aging relative and take it back day by day demanding it makes money at others loss and not paying for luxury. This has been proven then and know not legal. J.P. Morgan as others appear to reprsent can be resposible for loss of massive $Bil
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
Comment removed
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
Vehicles was provided to police action of damage cost. Last known vehicles common seen as of ford LTD or Mercury Grand Marquies. Latest known college effort known Dodge Charger or Chylser 300 Dodge trucks. Nothing sense has been provided and many patents have been given to Canada to supply manufactured good given or half assembled as tooling equipment provided. No improvement of future is said to happen if so trades of needs should be given. Canadas one mistake outer public.
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
Comment removed
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
5:56 HUB was damaged from behavior of protesting rich who did not pay for or offer any effort towards tax deduction was all they earned. I never did learn all of or who regading one individual who recieved severe injury at the time. Quite some time (10 years) went by before the individual achieved some wellness as the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TURNED TO PRIVATE PUBLIC to cover massive epenses for the individual provided of every country. As a witness the same mass debt. and new act of war starts
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
08:05 After yelling pounding and anoying screaming of people everywhere they locked LIMON money somewhere so people don't take cars from lots and leave them there at banks broken with no gas yelling once again no money not paying for junk as it sits. LIMON is hub of Colarado. The LIMON name is that of Spain. Culumbus was dispatched from spain to plan land that low bread mexican/indians cluttered. Craig is a common name used to determine use of HUB once again in Colardao. None sense.
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
Comment removed
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
4:54 hoover stoped organizations for miss using funds to give out grants and throw away bailouts to family owned business unable to earn what was said they own to with hope pay there employees. Hoover wanted to stop the miss use of welfare and use action to give people who suffered from worth while work of any organization and govt. field stating they did there fare share but was. Most refused to pay unionized social security Hoover treatened to end it. Rosevelt gave the new deal
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
Comment removed
redviper2GAMER 9 months ago
Massive inflation in the 1920s? Between 1922 and 1929, the economy deflated on a month-to-month basis about two times more than it inflated.
xtrastage 10 months ago
@xtrastage No, a dollar in 1929 was only worth 86% what it was in 1920.
shanedk 10 months ago
Shanedk, could have this be avioded if the goverment offered 0% interest rate loans, given people the money they need to kick start the economy?
professornuclearbomb 10 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Um, no. The Fed was actually doing that!
What we need is HIGHER interest rates to encourage investment, NOT debt!
shanedk 10 months ago
@shanedk But can't debt stimulate investment? For example, most people can't pay for college, so they get a loan to get an education, which is an investment. Or look at morgages.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Not if it isn't deferred wealth, it isn't. REAL investment is deferred wealth. Government stimulus is a free lunch.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk A zero percent interest rate is not a government stimulus. It is the only real sutainible investment.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Are you high??? How is zero-interest investment going to work AT ALL???
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk It can only work via a non-profit organization or a central bank.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb No, not even then--you NEVER get something for nothing! You're just trying to sell a free lunch, the economic equivalent of perpetual motion.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk How is this a free lunch? I borrow, say $2000, from you and in, say 2 mounths, I pay you $2000. That is not a free lunch.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Except why on Earth would I go without $2,000 for 2 months without getting something extra back? Why do you think you could just have that $2,000 for free?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Maybe becuase I, say, have a brillant mind and one doesn't want to see go to waste and pay for my tution. Just an example, i really don't think I need to pay for tution at this rate.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb To see why it is a free lunch reverse the order. Loan someone else $2000 for 2 months at 0%. Take all the risks you won't get paid back and with inflation get back less in purchasing power thanks to your central bank.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules I relized you were going to factor in risk just after I posted my comment. I get back to that maybe tomorrow. But just to nitpick most inflation comes from private commerical banks. Also, in your video, you implied the Fed created fractional reserve bank,however this has existed since acient times.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Uh yeah, all inflation comes from fractional reserve banking and fiat currency possible only with a central bank. With legal tender laws every one is required BY LAW to accept a devaluing currency regardless of who creates the funny money. Also explain how QE1 and QE2 were not deliberate attempts by the Fed to devalue our currency done by Fed direction and explicitly stating that was their aim.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules Fractional Reserve banking has existed before fait currency. The first bankers were goldsmiths whose vaults were used by other to keep their gold safe and used their recipits of deposit to buy things. When the goldsmith reliezed that most people didn't remove their gold from his vault, he printed more banknotes out in loans.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Yup, but since you don't actually legally have to accept these bank notes before the invention of fiat currencies, inflation was held at bay by people being selective what notes they would accept and some bankers screw ups made individual banks implode without actually imploding the economy or causing the value of every single bank note, or actual ounce of gold to devalue by more than 95% in less than a hundred years.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules Are you saying when banks collapsed on the gold standrad the economy was not affected? What about the Crash of 1836?
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb The one caused when the Second Bank of America (a central bank) collapsed because they caused run away inflation and people started excepting payment only in specie?
1. Bad argument because it was caused by a central bank producing inflation, and ended because the market corrected itself with a backlash against fractional reserve banking.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules The Second Bank of America didn't collapse, Jackson closed it.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb After printing excessive paper currency and causing runaway inflation.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules For trying to pay the debt incurred during the War of 1812.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb So central banks cause runaway inflation, deficits, and war. Great argument.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
Also 20 years after the war inflation was accelerating for no good reason because of the War of 1812? Especially since the U.S. experienced a boom just after the War of 1812. Not buying it. Too bad they didn't have people like you to loan them money at 0%
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules The inflation was caused by lending out too much money due the rise of American agriculture to too many bad borrowers. When the SBUS called in on those loans, it lead to the crash of 1819. Jackson's removal of the SBUS lead to the rise of wildcat banking, whose over-speculation lead to the crash of 1837, a completely independent crisis.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb The crash was caused by people using specie instead of notes because they didn't trust the notes that were issued by the 2nd bank that caused the inflation. How is that "over-speculating".
So now the inflation was caused by lending to too many bad borrowers (that would suck at 0% interest) not the war? And why did all these problems cause inflation that only existed while the bank was running and ceased immediately before and after?
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules Which crash are you talking about? The Second Bank of the United States' charter ran out before the crash of 1837 by a year.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Then why did you call it the Crash of 1836 15 minutes ago. The over issuance of banknotes was done during the second bank, the crash occurred when banks stopped taking the notes 6 months, not a year after it closed. They did this because your second banks over issuance of notes wrecked the economy due to inflation. Google Business cycle to see how long periods of inflation can cause depression. It's in any beginning macro-economics course.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Lending by the Second Bank of the U.S.
You can keep using the term "Wild Cat Banking" like it means anything, but your Second Bank of the United States created massive inflation for 20 years that ended the day banks refused to take anything but specie which is the exact opposite of over-speculation.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules Also you can pretend a central bank using an inflationary policy for 20+ years had nothing to do with a credit cycle unwinding, or you can pretend banks somehow "over-speculated" in 6 months since the end of the Second Bank and somehow all of those bad loans came due in less than a year and were all bad.
Which is more likely 20+ years of bad policy causing a crisis, or somehow bad loans made and due in less than 6 months caused the crisis.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules Inflation was accelerating because the Treasury was part of the banking system. Polk removed that in the 1840s and that was when it stopped.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
"Inflation was accelerating because the Treasury was part of the banking system. Polk removed that in the 1840s and that was when it stopped."
That's a reason why Polk got an 'A' for a grade as a president from you, isn't it?
vspqbd 6 months ago
@vspqbd One big reason, yes. Refusing to obey Congress's order to go to war with Canada and seek a compromise instead is another.
shanedk 6 months ago
@johnrainrules Ignore the previous response to your comment. The Second Bank was created to fight inflation from the increase of private banknotes in circulation.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb And yet both before your Second Bank and after your Second Bank inflation was much less. The Government created a program that did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. Kind of like the War on Drugs.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Here's a good video on that: Economic Cycles Before the Fed: /watch?v=TxcjT8T3EGU
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I don't trust the Austrian School of economics because they don't use the scientific method. I understand the Scientific Method contains the Induction Fallacy, but your other videos support the Method.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb How come the Austrian school is the one that has passed the most testable predictions?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Please give me an example.
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb
The current crisis, the Great Depression, the prosperity following WWII, and pretty much every single Boom/Bust Cycle since and including the Great Depression, actually.
vspqbd 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb What vspqbd, plus the S&L crisis, the high unemployment, inflation, and interest rates of the '70s, and the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union.
shanedk 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb This coming from the guy who supports a government regulated 0% interest rate even though history provides numerous examples of what happens when interest rates are held too low buy fiat. I'm not sure what you think the Scientific Method is.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb NO! Inflation comes from expansion of the money supply--which can ONLY be done by a central monetary authority, usually a central bank.
Fractional reserve banking formally existed in this country with the National Banking Act of 1862. Before then, it was a form of fraud, but none of the states every did anything about it. To "fix" the problem, instead of making the states act, the feds just made it legal.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk Look up the Free Banking Era
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb I know all about the Free Banking Era. You apparently don't, or you wouldn't have tried to laughably bring it up in response to YOUR point!
shanedk 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Cool, since a central bank requires stealing resources from others, how about you start that non-profit organization and invest in my perpetual motion machine company. Together we can create free electricity for every one on the planet.
johnrainrules 6 months ago
@johnrainrules First of all, why would it be considered stealing if a central bank offered you a loan? The intial sourse of money in a central bank is normally private individuals and it revenue comes from the intreset on loans. Second, why would the people in the npo be considered less smart than those in the business comunity?
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb Because the only way a central bank can do it is to create money out of thin air--counterfeiting, which is a form of theft as it decreases the value of everyone else's savings and paychecks.
If you just have individuals saving and investing, and that's the source of your money, you don't NEED a central bank!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk But what if you don't have individuals investing because, say, THE ENTIRE ECONOMY COLLASPED. (caps added for funny empathus, this is a video on the the depression after all)
professornuclearbomb 6 months ago
@professornuclearbomb The reason why nobody was investing during the Depression was because Fed policy pushed interest rates down to NEGATIVE numbers!!!
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk I thought the fed kept interest rates high during the great depression? Isn't that why Bernake insists on so much easing now? Also, didn't people save as much as 25% of their income during the depression?
interstate317 6 months ago