I usually agree with the great economist Milton Friedman. However, I disagree with him that the Federal Reserve should have gave the banks the money that was demanded by the depositors. The reason I do is because it would have caused massive inflation, maybe even hyperinflation. I think the best solution to avoid anymore great depressions is to abolish the Federal Reserve.
@clevebrowns3 Absolutely. Even so, we can't do it overnight. It must be a long term decision and process. We're not on a Gold Standard. It'll take a lot of time to get there. Unfortunately, we may never get there with a government that changes every four to six years.
@ThePenWolf I'm glad to see you agree with me. I hope that someday our voices will be heard. I think that our best chance of abolishing it would be if Ron Paul became President. However, the chances of that aren't that high.
Well, it would take a fundamental, practically religious state of mind. Even if Paul became president, Congress would have to repeal the Fed. That means that Socialism, in any shred of a form, has to be dismantled as a viable choice for these morons. And for that to happen you have to replace it with moralilty, Faith, and Character. This is why John Adams said that they made a Constitution for a truly religious people.
@hoodoo961 he admits it needs a steady supply of money, such as an automatic increase of 3-5% a year. I believe he did not advocate a rampant and reckless increase in monetary supply due to the spendthrift decision of some faceless, anointed official but I'll let his books, debates, and videos speak for themselves. Try his book "Monetary Mischeif" if your actually interested, and if you happen to be a troll, then I would suggest you get lost or shut up.
@ipwnallnubscuzirock while, I will check my math again, but last time I looked, an INCREASE of 3-5% a year qualifies as "more money." Maybe you are confused about the definition of "increase" and "more."
Kagar got to the root of the problem of why the great depression occurred, why the us today just had a repression as well false numbers created by the FED.
At the same time when a bank failed and people started withdrawing Friedman is correct (give people their money by selling securities) this would have stopped the run on banks, but not resolved the entire issue. Other speeches does address that the fact that the fed stopped growth , stopped the economy.
False. Printing more money wouldn't have solved the problem at all, it would have postponed the depression by putting the pressure on our currency, thereby inducing hyperinflation and eventually eroding our wealth. The problem lies in the factional reserve banking system itself. All money MUST be accounted for, 100% reserves.
Hyperinflation is a massive and rapid increase in the amount of money, which is not supported by growth in the output of goods and services. No hyperinflation would've occurred with this extra money, because the economy was growing and the Feds had let the supply of money fall by 3%. If the Federal Reserves had bought enough govt securities so that people can withdraw their money, then no panic and no massive withdrawals. The system would've stayed intact and no great depression.
That's preposterous. The economy wasn't undergoing natural growth, it was being pumped up with easy credit from the Fed. The unnatural supply of money distorted the market and resulted in severe malinvestment which brought about the depression. The supply increase of money that would have been required to support the declining economy would have risen exponentially, resulting in hyperinflation and a Zimbabwean currency devaluation.
The Fed was (and still is) working for their shareholders i.e. the big banks. They wanted the smaller banks to collapse to further consolidate the banking power in the big banks of New York.
I usually agree with the great economist Milton Friedman. However, I disagree with him that the Federal Reserve should have gave the banks the money that was demanded by the depositors. The reason I do is because it would have caused massive inflation, maybe even hyperinflation. I think the best solution to avoid anymore great depressions is to abolish the Federal Reserve.
clevebrowns3 2 years ago
@clevebrowns3 Absolutely. Even so, we can't do it overnight. It must be a long term decision and process. We're not on a Gold Standard. It'll take a lot of time to get there. Unfortunately, we may never get there with a government that changes every four to six years.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
@ThePenWolf I'm glad to see you agree with me. I hope that someday our voices will be heard. I think that our best chance of abolishing it would be if Ron Paul became President. However, the chances of that aren't that high.
clevebrowns3 2 years ago
Well, it would take a fundamental, practically religious state of mind. Even if Paul became president, Congress would have to repeal the Fed. That means that Socialism, in any shred of a form, has to be dismantled as a viable choice for these morons. And for that to happen you have to replace it with moralilty, Faith, and Character. This is why John Adams said that they made a Constitution for a truly religious people.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago
Even Friedman admits an economy needs more money, not deflation. Austrians get a clue.
hoodoo961 2 years ago
@hoodoo961 he admits it needs a steady supply of money, such as an automatic increase of 3-5% a year. I believe he did not advocate a rampant and reckless increase in monetary supply due to the spendthrift decision of some faceless, anointed official but I'll let his books, debates, and videos speak for themselves. Try his book "Monetary Mischeif" if your actually interested, and if you happen to be a troll, then I would suggest you get lost or shut up.
ipwnallnubscuzirock 1 year ago
@ipwnallnubscuzirock while, I will check my math again, but last time I looked, an INCREASE of 3-5% a year qualifies as "more money." Maybe you are confused about the definition of "increase" and "more."
hoodoo961 1 year ago
kagar and kawika are both correct.
Kagar got to the root of the problem of why the great depression occurred, why the us today just had a repression as well false numbers created by the FED.
At the same time when a bank failed and people started withdrawing Friedman is correct (give people their money by selling securities) this would have stopped the run on banks, but not resolved the entire issue. Other speeches does address that the fact that the fed stopped growth , stopped the economy.
jetrpg22 2 years ago
Banks should be non profit societies or trusts, which look after the people instead of themselves. Highly accountable!
Otherwise it's just a continuous conflict of interest.
Nolen229 2 years ago
False. Printing more money wouldn't have solved the problem at all, it would have postponed the depression by putting the pressure on our currency, thereby inducing hyperinflation and eventually eroding our wealth. The problem lies in the factional reserve banking system itself. All money MUST be accounted for, 100% reserves.
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago
Hyperinflation is a massive and rapid increase in the amount of money, which is not supported by growth in the output of goods and services. No hyperinflation would've occurred with this extra money, because the economy was growing and the Feds had let the supply of money fall by 3%. If the Federal Reserves had bought enough govt securities so that people can withdraw their money, then no panic and no massive withdrawals. The system would've stayed intact and no great depression.
Kawika477 2 years ago
That's preposterous. The economy wasn't undergoing natural growth, it was being pumped up with easy credit from the Fed. The unnatural supply of money distorted the market and resulted in severe malinvestment which brought about the depression. The supply increase of money that would have been required to support the declining economy would have risen exponentially, resulting in hyperinflation and a Zimbabwean currency devaluation.
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago
be wary whenever you hear someone say the solution to a problem is: print more money
nerdyasian 3 years ago
The Fed was (and still is) working for their shareholders i.e. the big banks. They wanted the smaller banks to collapse to further consolidate the banking power in the big banks of New York.
WSOR4025 3 years ago