@frodly Let me guess you are calculating this using the GDP using the Fed's CPI figures and expecting no one to notice how full of shit you are. Let me guess you'll also deny that the worst crash in US history occurred under the Federal Reserves watch. I bet you will deny that it ever happened as well.
@Joe11Blue The BLS (part of Commerce Dept) does the CPI, not the Fed. And the GD was so bad (at least according to Friedman) because the Fed DID NOT print more money; it held the monetary base steady while the money multiplier collapsed due to rising currency/deposit ratio. The Fed was not expansionary when it needed to be.
@hoodoo961 The Fed does their own CPI calculations.
Friedman was a statist, a less gregarious and partial to Free-Markets, but still a statist. He started out supporting Keynes, so that right there should tell you why Friedman isn't a valid source for anything related to Hayek or Austrian Theory.
@tonygmilan7 Keynes was right, if thats what you mean. The British did not experience inflation (at least not before the war) and sterling didn not fall too far even once it left the gold standard regime in 31.
It's pretty cool to see some actual footage of Keynes. This is the first one I've ever come across. I just loaded the "Economic Consequences of the Peace" onto my Kindle. I look forward to diving into his mind a little bit.
@Danlovesmakinvids Um, actually the first economist I know of who saw this coming was a Keynesian called Dean Baker. As usual, Austrians playing fast and loose with the facts(though if they didn't they wouldn't be Austrians).
Why such hatred towards Keynes on this page ? At least show some respect if you don't agree with his ideas , even your idols M.Friedman and Hayek saw him as a great man who could think outside the box and change his mind when needed. Keynes was not a socialist , he believed that in times of economic slow/meltdown government should step in to stimulate the economy and let the private sector after confidence restored do the job. What his disciples made of his theory is another story.
@hamzyboy because the internet is filled with a bunch of dumb libertarian kids who read mises.org and like ron paul. whats funny is that keynes (and his post war successors like paul samuelson) clobbered hayek so badly that he gave up the debate altogether.
How about we celebrate the death of this asshole. His voodoo bullshit has empowered governments to impoverish their own citizenry and basically destroyed free markets, which have historically been the engine for improving mankind's living standards. The only good thing about it all is he's finally been exposed as a charlatan.
He changed his mind so many times, because he could grasp the ever changing world economy, and hence adapt. That's what world economy has been doing ever since our existence. Adapting. For the past 30 years we have been tasting free market so much that a cock is put up our arse and we are ordered to run. I would pick any charlatan of his caliber over a fanboy.
Libertarians shouldn't celebrate the death of someone who proposed an alternative theory. It goes against the whole libertarian creed. Simply prove him wrong
Money is not real value and the creation of it does not add any value to society. But it tends to transfer wealth to a government handpicked group. When the fresh money finally reaches the common people, prices have already gone up.
Tell that to the Zimbabweans, Turks, Yugoslavians, Argentinians, Venezuelans, post-revolution Americans, 1970s Americans and Chileans, Weimar Germans, 1719 French, 1789 French, post-WWII Greeks and Hungarians... and the list goes on and on.
@17Spartacus76 inflationistas? that's a new one. take your list and subtract any other economy. ie you can live with inflation, where as deflationary spiral always causes total collapse
That's a joke right? I can show you dozens of inflations that caused total collapse. Can you even show me one deflation that caused the same level of carnage?
Hyperinflation =/= inflation. Yes, needing a wheelbarrow full of money to buy bread is terrible. Back in real life however, we're talking ~2% inflation vs. ~2% deflation. The former is not a big deal, the latter leaves millions of families suddenly unable to stretch their income far enough.
Yes, the industrial revolution was a horrible time for the working class. It was before the rise of labor unions and they were basically slaves. You know many of them didn't get paid in US currency, right? They got credits to be redeemed at factory stores, which had grossly inflated prices. But yeah, those were good times, huh?
That's a lot less wonderful if you don't have any cash to hold because you're living paycheck to paycheck. Does this really not occur to you?
HAHAHA, real wages skyrocketed, lifespans increased, standards of living for most people rose. Products and services that were previously reserved only for the super-rich became commonplace. You're an idiot if you think the revolution made people worse off.
Those store credits were limited to a tiny amount of factories, way to have perspective. Take your brainwashing elsewhere.
Standards of life improving were due to advances in technology, especially transportation and medicine, they had nothing to do with deflation. Way to completely change the subject though, its helpful when you don't have a case.
You've still yet to comment on what happens to those with more debt than savings. This applies to the working poor as well as fledgling entrepreneurs.
Lol, you put up the industrial revolution as a terrible period to be alive, I refuted it. Way to change the subject, that's certainly helpful when you know you're full of it but want to keep talking.
You've yet to bring up a point to discuss. The industrial revolution benefited the masses, there was moderate deflation during that period as well. You haven't made an argument against that yet so just what am I supposed to debate you on?
Because we aren't talking about the industrial revolution, we're talking about deflation. Saying deflation is good because the IR was ultimately (but absolutely not locally) a good thing is fallacious. It's utterly without merit.
Neither of those were the dreaded "deflationary spiral" boogeyman that the Keynesians keep warning about. They keep warning about these total destruction, end of the world scenarios. But that only happens during hyperinflations, which is the total opposite.
@17Spartacus76 ever heard this thing called great depression? second bank of america? japan in and after 90? basicly in the boom and bust cycle, latter is caused by deflation
ony reason those catastrofies haven't really happened after great depression, is that central banks have made their n.1 priority that economies never dry out. so instead of collapses they've had constanly more money created.
None of those events are the deflationary spiral's the Keynesians warn about. The GD was terrible because of gov't interventions, same with Japan. The crash of 1921 was over in under a year and there was no action by central banks. I ask again, name one country that was destroyed by a deflationary spiral.
There is a natural floor to deflation. Once the bad investments are liquidated and prices drop sufficiently, the economy goes back to work. Not so with inflation.
Lol, so you've gone from denying 100% could exist, to accepting that they do. At least you're not completely incorrigible. Time deposits are very popular, they're called CD's these days.
Show me a single hyperinflation that wasn't preceded by massive amounts of money printing and you may have a point. Otherwise it just seems you're still in denial.
We don't have capitalism. Maybe this is the source of your confusion. CB's are plank #5 of the communist manifesto.
I see you've provided no rebuttal to my point. Time deposits do indeed exist in today's world as well.
Hyperinflation causes political instability, not the other way around. CB's and governments print money in to oblivion. Every single one can be traced back to those culprits. There are no exceptions.
CB's and fiat have caused more economic destruction than just about anything. No amount of denial by you changes that. Post WW2 has been highly unstable as well.
Thanks for proving you have no idea how the banking system works. Research the difference between time and demand deposits. Then visit the Free Lakota Bank and tell them that they can't exist.
Recessions/depressions have been empirically much worse under CB's and fiat. The fact that you actually believe that there hasn't been a single depression under fiat flies in the face of the 100's of hyperinflations that have occurred under them. You're just another fiat ideologue.
No, they were caused by their respective central banks and idiotic government policies as well. There should be a free banking system. And no, 100% reserve wouldn't abolish banking. You clearly don't understand finance.
Recessions and depressions have been WORSE since central banks. That's why they called it the GREAT depression, get it?? Since CB's and fiat, recessions have been more frequent and more severe. Read some history instead of being a mindless parrot.
Great depression caused by credit expansion by the Fed in 1927, depression of 1837 caused by expansion by the second bank of the USA and was the reason why Jackson shut it down. I could go on.
You do realize that central banks and fiat currency were introduced by bankers so that they could use a fractional reserve money system and always be able to be bailed out right? They've been nothing but bad since the beginning. Time for you to read some history.
There were dozens of recessions in the time period between 1836(with the end of the Second Bank of the United States) and 1913(with the introduction of the Fed). We had Gold based currency for almost all of that period(excepting the Civil War), and yet we saw the most serious and destructive boom-bust cycles in our history. So no Spartacus, you are wrong. That is not my opinion, you are objectively wrong. Your claim is false, boom-bust cycles cannot be traced to fiat currencies.
Sorry frodly, you're just plain wrong. The government repeatedly meddled with currency between those periods. You really need to read a book on this topic. It's you that's objectively wrong.
ABCT works and has successfully predicted every recession since its development. Keynes has been wrong about everything. You may as well be denying evolution.
You said all recessions were caused by fiat currency and central banks, an objectively untrue statement. The recessions between 1870 and 1913, a period when no central bank existed, saw terrible and prolonged recessions.
The 1873 "recession" is no longer considered one because productivity soared, wages increased, and unemployment decreased. Your knowledge of history is severely lacking.
Every recession has been preceded by monetary expansion, either from a CB or other government meddling. The fact that you ignored that statement proves you're nothing but an ideologue and cannot be taken seriously.
My statement about CB's and fiat has been proven true. Denial of the facts is not an argument.
So the dozen or so recessions that happened in the nineteenth century, when there was no central bank and no fiat currency helps your argument? My word, what a ludicrous notion. It is about time I leave this discussion, because as Thomas Paine said, "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead." At this point medicine will have no impact. Though this is unsurprising as the free market fanatics never reference evidence or reason.
Are you stupid or something? I've repeatedly said that depressions are caused by monetary and credit expansion. This can happen with or without a CB.
EVERY SINGLE RECESSION has been preceded by a detachment of the currency from specie, period, end of story. You can't find a single one where this didn't happen.
There's no such thing as a free market fanatic, the fact that you use this term only proves you know you're a socialist fanatic that will say anything to support the faith.
@frodly I used to think wonder too until I researched the cause of the Panic of 1893, the biggest economic collapse in US history at the time; it actually vindicates the Austrian School argument.
@frodly This statement makes no sense. Considering that banking and currency was still provided using a centralized methodology rather than created via market resources (the Independent Treasury System ran pretty much like a central bank, honestly), I can't see how you're justified in saying of what you're saying. There was still profound centralization and consistent meddling in currency manipulation. Simply because you have a gold standard does not make the economy better. Not at all, actually
@frodly You should read Murray Rothard. He does alot of work on 19th century booms and bust. He shows we have never been without a baking cartel advocating an expansionary monetary policy. "The panic of 1819" is one of his best.
@jbrack Actually in "The Panic of 1819" Murray Rothbard does not give the causes for the banking panic. He only gave insight into what happened to the money supply after the Panic. You should look up Bill Still who refutes this "gold standard" myth by showing that it is always in the interest of the most powerful banks to restore a gold standard since the majority of people have little or no access to it. It happened during Julius Caesar's time in the Roman Republic and happened again in the US.
There was still fiat currency. There were several banks that printed bonds that were basically their own form of currency, and these were backed by the government.
Or why don't you try looking up the United States Note and take note of how long it has been in circulation.
@frodly What recessions in the nineteenth century? Please reference these so called recessions. There was a spike in gold price during the Civil War (more money had to be printed). Other major economic catastrophes happened during the twentieth century. Notably the currency crisis in Germany and the following First World War and the Great Depression. I have not renounced my reason, and am a great admirer of Thomas Pain. I'm here for you in case you want to cohere and expound.
@Joe11Blue Actually Joe, that is objectively false nonsense. In fact, they were exponentially more severe. Since the great depression, we have not had a single recession that is even close to as severe as any of the pre-1913 recessions. The more severe recessions pre-1913 saw as much as a 30% decreases in national production(a couple of times). Our recent recession actually saw production increase. Educate yourself, as I can't do so adequately on facebook.
@frodly You speak as if this is some grand refutation, when this is well known by Austrian School economists. Murray Rothbard, for example, wrote extensively on 19th century recessions and how they are explained under ABCT, for example his book "The Panic of 1819" was published almost 50 years ago. Either you are unaware of the responses to this criticism and are simply amateurishly parroting it off Wikipedia, or you are just trying to score a cheap point with an old cookie-cutter argument.
@StatelessLiberty 1819 was not part of the free banking period, so I don't care about it. The free banking period, during which time a metal backed currency was in place, took place between 1837 and 1913. That is the period where no recessions should exist, at least if your idiotic theories were correct. But in actuality, recessions of unmatched severity took place. I know Austrians hate inductive thinking, but they should still reference evidence from time to time.
@frodly What I find so ironic, is that the ABCT was conceived to explain the typical 19th century business cycle, yet you feel so confident in citing the 19th century as some kind of great disproof. Even on YouTube you can find lectures on this topic (watch?v=TxcjT8T3EGU).
Like I said before, either you are unaware of the rebuttals or you're just trying to score a cheap point.
@frodly Dude, the government made regular suspensions on the payment of specie, and inflated the paper money supply numerous times during this period. If it weren't for your comment being typed out, I would doubt you knew how to read.
@17Spartacus76 Uh, what ARE you talking about? The NBER rates 1873 as the longest recession in US history, with 65 months of contraction. So the fact that it eventually ended means that it never occurred? "Denial of the facts is not an argument" is not much an argument itself, if the facts are made up.
Economists have revised the 1873 narrative because they realized that real wages, productivity and many other economic indicators SURGED during that period. The NBER lists it as a recession because prices generally fell during that period. That's just stupidity typical of Keynesians though. Prices are supposed to fall as an economy becomes stupendously more productive. This has been known for decades now, you're quite behind in the times.
@17Spartacus76 Ah, so you say that the egg came first, but that's completely irrelevant to this, isn't it? Inflation remained low. Wages rose and so did spending. Why didn't prices go up to meet rising demand? (Oops!)
What are you talking about? Why should prices rise at all when productivity is going up, and why should you gauge the health of an economy solely based on the price level?
@17Spartacus76 The only recession that can compare after that time period is the great depression, but since then, no recession has even come close. The current recession is bad, but we have seen no loss in productivity. Late 19th century recessions saw declines in productivity sometimes reaching 30%. So it is in fact you who needs to read some history, instead of pushing your free market fairy tale propaganda on us all!!
No doubt Keynes was a smart man but unfortunately, like all egotistical smart men, he underestimates market forces and overestimates his ability to centrally plan. Generations have suffered and will continue to suffer as long as his ideas aren't completely rejected.
"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud." - Benito Mussolini
lmao.... "There is no danger of a serious rise in the cost of living, The worst i should expect, would be a return to the prices of 2 'ye-ahs' ago". How Wrong he was.
@BigDaddyDJD perhaps you have an idea oh do the same as the last 30 years deregulate and fuck over everyone. That seems to have worked out well-not. Milton Friedman was an ass
@franks2732 I never mentioned Friedman. All I did was state the fact that he was wrong about inflation. But that's not a surprise. When you look back at Keynes past predictions, he was usually wrong about almost everything.
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
@kmupia When Keynes published his book he knows very well his theory just apply to certain specific circumstances (1930) and not the future. Hayek let us know those details. Main problem were his pupils, not Keynes itself. All over the history happened the same, politician manipulate great minds ideas for his own purposes. For instance Nietszche, he said when he sees his ideas used in antisemitic prospect, he get physically ill, his ideas were totally manipulated, as know we perfectly know.
what an evil evil man
CommSense 1 month ago
@frodly Let me guess you are calculating this using the GDP using the Fed's CPI figures and expecting no one to notice how full of shit you are. Let me guess you'll also deny that the worst crash in US history occurred under the Federal Reserves watch. I bet you will deny that it ever happened as well.
Joe11Blue 2 months ago
@Joe11Blue The BLS (part of Commerce Dept) does the CPI, not the Fed. And the GD was so bad (at least according to Friedman) because the Fed DID NOT print more money; it held the monetary base steady while the money multiplier collapsed due to rising currency/deposit ratio. The Fed was not expansionary when it needed to be.
hoodoo961 2 months ago
@hoodoo961 The Fed does their own CPI calculations.
Friedman was a statist, a less gregarious and partial to Free-Markets, but still a statist. He started out supporting Keynes, so that right there should tell you why Friedman isn't a valid source for anything related to Hayek or Austrian Theory.
Joe11Blue 2 months ago
Comment removed
ilmedico13 2 months ago
What an idiot....
kjakobsen 2 months ago
So UK how has that worked out for you so far? LOL!
Joe11Blue 2 months ago
@Joe11Blue shit mate.
PrivateAckbar 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
tonygmilan7 2 months ago 7
@tonygmilan7 Keynes was right, if thats what you mean. The British did not experience inflation (at least not before the war) and sterling didn not fall too far even once it left the gold standard regime in 31.
hoodoo961 2 months ago
The "gold cage" is exactly right! The gold standard has been an absolute disaster everywhere it has been tried.
cpklapper 2 months ago
It's pretty cool to see some actual footage of Keynes. This is the first one I've ever come across. I just loaded the "Economic Consequences of the Peace" onto my Kindle. I look forward to diving into his mind a little bit.
TheCapitalistdog 2 months ago in playlist Keynes Clips
austrians saw the collapse of 2007-2008 coming and keynesians couldn't see it coming like a blind kid running into the broadside of a barn.
ron paul 2012.
Danlovesmakinvids 2 months ago
@Danlovesmakinvids
sorry but i am austrian and no... as a matter of fact i did not "see it coming"
please don't refer to nations as one mind.
(especially not in war-ish situations...)
MissiMissborn 2 months ago
@Danlovesmakinvids Um, actually the first economist I know of who saw this coming was a Keynesian called Dean Baker. As usual, Austrians playing fast and loose with the facts(though if they didn't they wouldn't be Austrians).
frodly 2 months ago
Keynes was a religious thinking twat.
mip0larity 2 months ago
No gold standard... "Woo Hoo! We can create money out of thin air!"
stevewellz 3 months ago
british factory workers are now all gone unemployed. great jobs keynes.
knightschwartz 3 months ago
Why such hatred towards Keynes on this page ? At least show some respect if you don't agree with his ideas , even your idols M.Friedman and Hayek saw him as a great man who could think outside the box and change his mind when needed. Keynes was not a socialist , he believed that in times of economic slow/meltdown government should step in to stimulate the economy and let the private sector after confidence restored do the job. What his disciples made of his theory is another story.
hamzyboy 3 months ago
@hamzyboy because the internet is filled with a bunch of dumb libertarian kids who read mises.org and like ron paul. whats funny is that keynes (and his post war successors like paul samuelson) clobbered hayek so badly that he gave up the debate altogether.
csmguitar1 2 months ago
Its funny how sure he was that the cost of living wouldnt go up...
Rhabavvi 4 months ago
How about we celebrate the death of this asshole. His voodoo bullshit has empowered governments to impoverish their own citizenry and basically destroyed free markets, which have historically been the engine for improving mankind's living standards. The only good thing about it all is he's finally been exposed as a charlatan.
pretorious700 4 months ago
@pretorious700 balderdash
franks2732 3 months ago
@pretorious700
He changed his mind so many times, because he could grasp the ever changing world economy, and hence adapt. That's what world economy has been doing ever since our existence. Adapting. For the past 30 years we have been tasting free market so much that a cock is put up our arse and we are ordered to run. I would pick any charlatan of his caliber over a fanboy.
VonManavis 3 months ago
Libertarians shouldn't celebrate the death of someone who proposed an alternative theory. It goes against the whole libertarian creed. Simply prove him wrong
Bastiat90 1 month ago
Money is not real value and the creation of it does not add any value to society. But it tends to transfer wealth to a government handpicked group. When the fresh money finally reaches the common people, prices have already gone up.
Fuck Keynesian economics and socialism!!!
Arnarstyrb 4 months ago
Krugman sent me here!
omairhr 4 months ago 2
He sounds just like Daniel Hannan! :-)
lesboerin 4 months ago
23 people failed macroeconomics.
TheNotoriousYJX 4 months ago 4
@skljdfsad Facts? - You're arguing with facts?! You don't know these people very well, do you?
If only we had a video of Keynes warning about the power of bad ideas.
dolapdere 4 months ago
“Ron, no great nation that abandoned the gold standard has remained a great nation.” – Ron Reagan to Ron Paul. 1981.
excerpt from “END THE FED” by Ron Paul
iannetta11 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
deflation is so much more dangerous than inflation.
escobari 5 months ago 19
@escobari
Tell that to the Zimbabweans, Turks, Yugoslavians, Argentinians, Venezuelans, post-revolution Americans, 1970s Americans and Chileans, Weimar Germans, 1719 French, 1789 French, post-WWII Greeks and Hungarians... and the list goes on and on.
You inflationistas are a funny bunch.
17Spartacus76 4 months ago
@17Spartacus76 inflationistas? that's a new one. take your list and subtract any other economy. ie you can live with inflation, where as deflationary spiral always causes total collapse
escobari 4 months ago
@escobari
That's a joke right? I can show you dozens of inflations that caused total collapse. Can you even show me one deflation that caused the same level of carnage?
17Spartacus76 4 months ago
@17Spartacus76
Hyperinflation =/= inflation. Yes, needing a wheelbarrow full of money to buy bread is terrible. Back in real life however, we're talking ~2% inflation vs. ~2% deflation. The former is not a big deal, the latter leaves millions of families suddenly unable to stretch their income far enough.
RichardMNixon 4 months ago 3
@RichardMNixon
Since when? 2% deflation is roughly what the USA experienced throughout the industrial revolution... what a horrible time :P
It would be a wonderful thing if everyone got 2% richer each year just by holding cash.
17Spartacus76 4 months ago
@17Spartacus76
Yes, the industrial revolution was a horrible time for the working class. It was before the rise of labor unions and they were basically slaves. You know many of them didn't get paid in US currency, right? They got credits to be redeemed at factory stores, which had grossly inflated prices. But yeah, those were good times, huh?
That's a lot less wonderful if you don't have any cash to hold because you're living paycheck to paycheck. Does this really not occur to you?
RichardMNixon 4 months ago
@RichardMNixon
HAHAHA, real wages skyrocketed, lifespans increased, standards of living for most people rose. Products and services that were previously reserved only for the super-rich became commonplace. You're an idiot if you think the revolution made people worse off.
Those store credits were limited to a tiny amount of factories, way to have perspective. Take your brainwashing elsewhere.
17Spartacus76 4 months ago
@17Spartacus76
Standards of life improving were due to advances in technology, especially transportation and medicine, they had nothing to do with deflation. Way to completely change the subject though, its helpful when you don't have a case.
You've still yet to comment on what happens to those with more debt than savings. This applies to the working poor as well as fledgling entrepreneurs.
RichardMNixon 4 months ago
@RichardMNixon
Lol, you put up the industrial revolution as a terrible period to be alive, I refuted it. Way to change the subject, that's certainly helpful when you know you're full of it but want to keep talking.
You've yet to bring up a point to discuss. The industrial revolution benefited the masses, there was moderate deflation during that period as well. You haven't made an argument against that yet so just what am I supposed to debate you on?
17Spartacus76 4 months ago
@17Spartacus76
Because we aren't talking about the industrial revolution, we're talking about deflation. Saying deflation is good because the IR was ultimately (but absolutely not locally) a good thing is fallacious. It's utterly without merit.
RichardMNixon 4 months ago
@17Spartacus76 how 'bout the Great Depression? How 'bout the Japanese deflation 1989- present?
jvbryant 4 months ago
@jvbryant
Neither of those were the dreaded "deflationary spiral" boogeyman that the Keynesians keep warning about. They keep warning about these total destruction, end of the world scenarios. But that only happens during hyperinflations, which is the total opposite.
17Spartacus76 4 months ago
@17Spartacus76 ever heard this thing called great depression? second bank of america? japan in and after 90? basicly in the boom and bust cycle, latter is caused by deflation
ony reason those catastrofies haven't really happened after great depression, is that central banks have made their n.1 priority that economies never dry out. so instead of collapses they've had constanly more money created.
escobari 4 months ago
@escobari
None of those events are the deflationary spiral's the Keynesians warn about. The GD was terrible because of gov't interventions, same with Japan. The crash of 1921 was over in under a year and there was no action by central banks. I ask again, name one country that was destroyed by a deflationary spiral.
There is a natural floor to deflation. Once the bad investments are liquidated and prices drop sufficiently, the economy goes back to work. Not so with inflation.
17Spartacus76 4 months ago
Comment removed
batman93oo 5 months ago 12
hi mr keynes
pucu4444 5 months ago
@skljdfsad
Lol, so you've gone from denying 100% could exist, to accepting that they do. At least you're not completely incorrigible. Time deposits are very popular, they're called CD's these days.
Show me a single hyperinflation that wasn't preceded by massive amounts of money printing and you may have a point. Otherwise it just seems you're still in denial.
We don't have capitalism. Maybe this is the source of your confusion. CB's are plank #5 of the communist manifesto.
17Spartacus76 6 months ago
@skljdfsad
I see you've provided no rebuttal to my point. Time deposits do indeed exist in today's world as well.
Hyperinflation causes political instability, not the other way around. CB's and governments print money in to oblivion. Every single one can be traced back to those culprits. There are no exceptions.
CB's and fiat have caused more economic destruction than just about anything. No amount of denial by you changes that. Post WW2 has been highly unstable as well.
17Spartacus76 6 months ago
@skljdfsad
Thanks for proving you have no idea how the banking system works. Research the difference between time and demand deposits. Then visit the Free Lakota Bank and tell them that they can't exist.
Recessions/depressions have been empirically much worse under CB's and fiat. The fact that you actually believe that there hasn't been a single depression under fiat flies in the face of the 100's of hyperinflations that have occurred under them. You're just another fiat ideologue.
17Spartacus76 6 months ago
@skljdfsad
No, they were caused by their respective central banks and idiotic government policies as well. There should be a free banking system. And no, 100% reserve wouldn't abolish banking. You clearly don't understand finance.
Recessions and depressions have been WORSE since central banks. That's why they called it the GREAT depression, get it?? Since CB's and fiat, recessions have been more frequent and more severe. Read some history instead of being a mindless parrot.
17Spartacus76 6 months ago
@skljdfsad
Great depression caused by credit expansion by the Fed in 1927, depression of 1837 caused by expansion by the second bank of the USA and was the reason why Jackson shut it down. I could go on.
You do realize that central banks and fiat currency were introduced by bankers so that they could use a fractional reserve money system and always be able to be bailed out right? They've been nothing but bad since the beginning. Time for you to read some history.
17Spartacus76 6 months ago
@skljdfsad - woof!
kasyapa 6 months ago
I should say ALL boom and bust cycles cannot be traced to fiat currencies. Which anyone with even a passing knowledge of history would know.
frodly 6 months ago
There were dozens of recessions in the time period between 1836(with the end of the Second Bank of the United States) and 1913(with the introduction of the Fed). We had Gold based currency for almost all of that period(excepting the Civil War), and yet we saw the most serious and destructive boom-bust cycles in our history. So no Spartacus, you are wrong. That is not my opinion, you are objectively wrong. Your claim is false, boom-bust cycles cannot be traced to fiat currencies.
frodly 6 months ago 3
@frodly
Sorry frodly, you're just plain wrong. The government repeatedly meddled with currency between those periods. You really need to read a book on this topic. It's you that's objectively wrong.
ABCT works and has successfully predicted every recession since its development. Keynes has been wrong about everything. You may as well be denying evolution.
17Spartacus76 6 months ago
@17Spartacus76
You said all recessions were caused by fiat currency and central banks, an objectively untrue statement. The recessions between 1870 and 1913, a period when no central bank existed, saw terrible and prolonged recessions.
frodly 5 months ago
@frodly
The 1873 "recession" is no longer considered one because productivity soared, wages increased, and unemployment decreased. Your knowledge of history is severely lacking.
Every recession has been preceded by monetary expansion, either from a CB or other government meddling. The fact that you ignored that statement proves you're nothing but an ideologue and cannot be taken seriously.
My statement about CB's and fiat has been proven true. Denial of the facts is not an argument.
17Spartacus76 5 months ago
@17Spartacus76
So the dozen or so recessions that happened in the nineteenth century, when there was no central bank and no fiat currency helps your argument? My word, what a ludicrous notion. It is about time I leave this discussion, because as Thomas Paine said, "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead." At this point medicine will have no impact. Though this is unsurprising as the free market fanatics never reference evidence or reason.
frodly 5 months ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@frodly
Are you stupid or something? I've repeatedly said that depressions are caused by monetary and credit expansion. This can happen with or without a CB.
EVERY SINGLE RECESSION has been preceded by a detachment of the currency from specie, period, end of story. You can't find a single one where this didn't happen.
There's no such thing as a free market fanatic, the fact that you use this term only proves you know you're a socialist fanatic that will say anything to support the faith.
17Spartacus76 5 months ago
@frodly I used to think wonder too until I researched the cause of the Panic of 1893, the biggest economic collapse in US history at the time; it actually vindicates the Austrian School argument.
Trimbler00 5 months ago
@frodly This statement makes no sense. Considering that banking and currency was still provided using a centralized methodology rather than created via market resources (the Independent Treasury System ran pretty much like a central bank, honestly), I can't see how you're justified in saying of what you're saying. There was still profound centralization and consistent meddling in currency manipulation. Simply because you have a gold standard does not make the economy better. Not at all, actually
Audiofalcon7 4 months ago
@frodly You should read Murray Rothard. He does alot of work on 19th century booms and bust. He shows we have never been without a baking cartel advocating an expansionary monetary policy. "The panic of 1819" is one of his best.
jbrack 3 months ago
@jbrack Actually in "The Panic of 1819" Murray Rothbard does not give the causes for the banking panic. He only gave insight into what happened to the money supply after the Panic. You should look up Bill Still who refutes this "gold standard" myth by showing that it is always in the interest of the most powerful banks to restore a gold standard since the majority of people have little or no access to it. It happened during Julius Caesar's time in the Roman Republic and happened again in the US.
AdversusHaereses 1 month ago 6
@frodly Which dozen recessions are you writing about?
AgimA74 3 months ago
@frodly
There was still fiat currency. There were several banks that printed bonds that were basically their own form of currency, and these were backed by the government.
Or why don't you try looking up the United States Note and take note of how long it has been in circulation.
You clearly haven't done the reading.
Ilikemustard 3 months ago
@frodly What recessions in the nineteenth century? Please reference these so called recessions. There was a spike in gold price during the Civil War (more money had to be printed). Other major economic catastrophes happened during the twentieth century. Notably the currency crisis in Germany and the following First World War and the Great Depression. I have not renounced my reason, and am a great admirer of Thomas Pain. I'm here for you in case you want to cohere and expound.
Otzmatron 2 months ago
@Otzmatron uhhh 1893?
csmguitar1 2 months ago
@csmguitar1
uhhh Govt manipulation of the Silver price?
probert2436 2 months ago
@frodly The depth and severity of the recessions were never as drastic as the ones since 1913
Joe11Blue 2 months ago
@Joe11Blue Actually Joe, that is objectively false nonsense. In fact, they were exponentially more severe. Since the great depression, we have not had a single recession that is even close to as severe as any of the pre-1913 recessions. The more severe recessions pre-1913 saw as much as a 30% decreases in national production(a couple of times). Our recent recession actually saw production increase. Educate yourself, as I can't do so adequately on facebook.
frodly 2 months ago 2
@frodly You speak as if this is some grand refutation, when this is well known by Austrian School economists. Murray Rothbard, for example, wrote extensively on 19th century recessions and how they are explained under ABCT, for example his book "The Panic of 1819" was published almost 50 years ago. Either you are unaware of the responses to this criticism and are simply amateurishly parroting it off Wikipedia, or you are just trying to score a cheap point with an old cookie-cutter argument.
StatelessLiberty 2 months ago
@StatelessLiberty 1819 was not part of the free banking period, so I don't care about it. The free banking period, during which time a metal backed currency was in place, took place between 1837 and 1913. That is the period where no recessions should exist, at least if your idiotic theories were correct. But in actuality, recessions of unmatched severity took place. I know Austrians hate inductive thinking, but they should still reference evidence from time to time.
frodly 2 months ago
@frodly What I find so ironic, is that the ABCT was conceived to explain the typical 19th century business cycle, yet you feel so confident in citing the 19th century as some kind of great disproof. Even on YouTube you can find lectures on this topic (watch?v=TxcjT8T3EGU).
Like I said before, either you are unaware of the rebuttals or you're just trying to score a cheap point.
StatelessLiberty 2 months ago
@frodly Dude, the government made regular suspensions on the payment of specie, and inflated the paper money supply numerous times during this period. If it weren't for your comment being typed out, I would doubt you knew how to read.
t3hsauce 2 months ago
@17Spartacus76 Uh, what ARE you talking about? The NBER rates 1873 as the longest recession in US history, with 65 months of contraction. So the fact that it eventually ended means that it never occurred? "Denial of the facts is not an argument" is not much an argument itself, if the facts are made up.
dolapdere 4 months ago
@dolapdere
Economists have revised the 1873 narrative because they realized that real wages, productivity and many other economic indicators SURGED during that period. The NBER lists it as a recession because prices generally fell during that period. That's just stupidity typical of Keynesians though. Prices are supposed to fall as an economy becomes stupendously more productive. This has been known for decades now, you're quite behind in the times.
17Spartacus76 4 months ago
@17Spartacus76 Ah, so you say that the egg came first, but that's completely irrelevant to this, isn't it? Inflation remained low. Wages rose and so did spending. Why didn't prices go up to meet rising demand? (Oops!)
eveningstarnm 4 months ago
@eveningstarnm
What are you talking about? Why should prices rise at all when productivity is going up, and why should you gauge the health of an economy solely based on the price level?
Oops!!!
17Spartacus76 4 months ago
Comment removed
dolapdere 4 months ago
@17Spartacus76 The only recession that can compare after that time period is the great depression, but since then, no recession has even come close. The current recession is bad, but we have seen no loss in productivity. Late 19th century recessions saw declines in productivity sometimes reaching 30%. So it is in fact you who needs to read some history, instead of pushing your free market fairy tale propaganda on us all!!
frodly 5 months ago
@skljdfsad
Boom/bust happens because of unbacked (fiat) currency. Show me a boom/bust and I will show you the fiat culprit.
Austrians have been right all along.
17Spartacus76 6 months ago
In what year was this video recorded ?
archetype0 6 months ago
@skljdfsad "self-limitation" isn't a relevant quality.
kasyapa 6 months ago
Leaves. We need to make leaves our currency. The USA has more land to grow 'em on so it's a guarantee that we'll always be rich.
apk1215 6 months ago
idiotic. the gold standard is the only viable monetary system.
kasyapa 6 months ago
@skljdfsad There is this thing called the boom and bust cycle. GDP isn't real growth. The Austrians were right.
LibertarianChristian 6 months ago
@skljdfsad of course he was right, during that period they were looting the pockets of every saver in the country, can only go on so long though...
ratz203 6 months ago
No doubt Keynes was a smart man but unfortunately, like all egotistical smart men, he underestimates market forces and overestimates his ability to centrally plan. Generations have suffered and will continue to suffer as long as his ideas aren't completely rejected.
whitechocolatespace 6 months ago
Or in other words: Banksters of the World, Unite!
carolm62 6 months ago
This fucking asshole was a moron. Milton Friedman >> Keynes!!!
LogicalFlawDetector 6 months ago
"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud." - Benito Mussolini
TigerbythetailFilms 6 months ago
Sucks to be that wrong.
strokjl 6 months ago
lmao.... "There is no danger of a serious rise in the cost of living, The worst i should expect, would be a return to the prices of 2 'ye-ahs' ago". How Wrong he was.
BigDaddyDJD 6 months ago 6
@BigDaddyDJD perhaps you have an idea oh do the same as the last 30 years deregulate and fuck over everyone. That seems to have worked out well-not. Milton Friedman was an ass
franks2732 3 months ago
@franks2732 I never mentioned Friedman. All I did was state the fact that he was wrong about inflation. But that's not a surprise. When you look back at Keynes past predictions, he was usually wrong about almost everything.
BigDaddyDJD 3 months ago
Comment removed
SteinbergRothschild 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please note that my book Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Shaped Modern Economics is published by W.W.Norton in October.
Professor John B.Taylor says that: “Nicholas Wapshott brings the Keynes-Hayek fight of the 20th century back to life, making the clash both entertaining and highly relevant for understanding economic crises of the 21st century.”
Read an extract at: sites.google.com/site/wapshottkeyneshayek/
Nicholas Wapshott
nhwapshott 8 months ago
keyenes is "criminal" for people
kmupia 8 months ago 3
@kmupia I prefer the term 'commie'. It's a bit more accurate at his case.
AlexNOSAM 7 months ago
@AlexNOSAM You must be american........
boydni 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boydni And you must be illiterate because you couldn't read on my channel that I'm an Israeli...
AlexNOSAM 6 months ago
@kmupia When Keynes published his book he knows very well his theory just apply to certain specific circumstances (1930) and not the future. Hayek let us know those details. Main problem were his pupils, not Keynes itself. All over the history happened the same, politician manipulate great minds ideas for his own purposes. For instance Nietszche, he said when he sees his ideas used in antisemitic prospect, he get physically ill, his ideas were totally manipulated, as know we perfectly know.
NikolaTeslaLife 7 months ago
Comment removed
kmupia 10 months ago