President Hillary--The Implications

[erfalf]

No, you need to study the history of depressions in this country, especially in the 19th century. You are just flat wrong. The depression was in fully ugly swing by the FDR came to office.

Where am I wrong. Point it out, because nothing you said refuted anything I said.

[heironymouspasparagus]

None of that refutes the fact that they did not act as they should have during time after the stock market bust in the 20's. Liquidity dried up because the FED wasn't purchasing bonds. They did take a hands off approach, which was the exact opposite approach their predecessors took.

The reasons for the hands off approach can be speculated, but most of the speculation has to do with the fact that the most important people at the FED were on the east coast, and most of the leading problems were in the midwest. They thought they were letting competition banks fail, and never thought it would reach their doorstep. But again, that is complete speculation. Even more wild speculation would be that the WH was dictating this policy.

Because of Coolidge/Hoover... again.  The reasons are the same reasons the RWRE today is saying the same stuff that the clowns then said.  And BIG tax cuts for the richest, of course...

And geez...where do you get this stuff??   No.  The leading problems were NOT in the midwest - it was policies, or rather lack of same, from the eastern bankers and Wall Street - the same Wall Street that is still in New York - near the east coast.

WH was dictating NO policy.  That was the problem - nobody in the govt was doing anything.  It was very clear case of continuation of Nero's policy - let it burn while they fiddle.

[erfalf]

Because of Coolidge/Hoover... again.  The reasons are the same reasons the RWRE today is saying the same stuff that the clowns then said.  And BIG tax cuts for the richest, of course...

And geez...where do you get this stuff??   No.  The leading problems were NOT in the midwest - it was policies, or rather lack of same, from the eastern bankers and Wall Street - the same Wall Street that is still in New York - near the east coast.

WH was dictating NO policy.  That was the problem - nobody in the govt was doing anything.  It was very clear case of continuation of Nero's policy - let it burn while they fiddle.

Freak do you read anything I say. The panic happened just as many had before. The greatness happened because of the inaction of the fed to increase liquidity of cash in the market. The speculative reason for the inactivity (not the run on the banks) was that the banks in the midwest were being hurt initially and the banks on the east coast were not. The FED heads were all east coast bankers.

Google New York Clearing House Association. That is why none before were great (among many other reasons). And while none since are called great, the swings since the FED have been bigger and bigger. Probably just a coincidence though.

And D.C. wasn't doing nothing.

1. Realizing that tax revenues of 1930 and 31 were lower (naturally) the largest peacetime tax increase was passed (pre-FDR). I'm sure you will inform me that this helped the recovery.
2. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was passed.
3. Hoover's version of public works got kicked off
4. National Recovery Administration enacted some price and wage controls between 33 and 35 (unconstitutionally might I add) which distorted market prices
5. And I guess I can't say the fed didn't do anything because starting in 36 they raised the reserve requirements, further limiting the monetary supply.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Anybody that read what I said will understand that I did NOT claim that the FED CAUSED the depression. They only led to letting become Great, by not doing the very thing they untrusted to do...provide liquidity. I understand this smile, trust me.

I know you want to be right and peg it on a Republican or some Right Wing conspiracy, but the fact is the inaction by the FED led the that particular depression becoming way worse than it should have. And the depressions prior were dealt with by regional guarantors that were basically put out of business when the fed was created. While maybe not perfect, they didn't allow what happened in the 20s and 30s to happen. It wasn't hands off, it was federal hands off. There is a difference.

Ahhh...the plaintive bleat of the RWRE - beyond the sound bite, name calling!


You ARE saying that somehow the Fed made it worse when ALL the history and evidence shows that it was not that the Fed didn't want to do something - it IS that they were kept from doing something before it got bad - by Coolidge/Hoover, as stated before and obviously ignored before.  And if you look at the fights that Roosevelt had while in office trying to beef up the Fed to make it more effective, you would see that there was huge resistance that did in fact prolong the depression much longer than it should have!

He$$, even after we were in WWII, fighting the Germans - literally! - there was enough resistance to doing the right thing that it took until almost 1943 - over a year after we had started shooting at Germany - and the Germans were killing our kids - before Roosevelt was actually able to get Preston Bush's bank shut down in this country to stop financing the Nazi war machine!!   George's Daddy.  And Baby Bush's granddaddy!  

THAT is the kind of resistance he got!  So, no, you don't know the history!  Or understand the smile.  And prove it repeatedly.

[erfalf]

Ahhh...the plaintive bleat of the RWRE - beyond the sound bite, name calling!


You ARE saying that somehow the Fed made it worse when ALL the history and evidence shows that it was not that the Fed didn't want to do something - it IS that they were kept from doing something before it got bad - by Coolidge/Hoover, as stated before and obviously ignored before.  And if you look at the fights that Roosevelt had while in office trying to beef up the Fed to make it more effective, you would see that there was huge resistance that did in fact prolong the depression much longer than it should have!

He$$, even after we were in WWII, fighting the Germans - literally! - there was enough resistance to doing the right thing that it took until almost 1943 - over a year after we had started shooting at Germany - and the Germans were killing our kids - before Roosevelt was actually able to get Preston Bush's bank shut down in this country to stop financing the Nazi war machine!!   George's Daddy.  And Baby Bush's granddaddy!  

THAT is the kind of resistance he got!  So, no, you don't know the history!  Or understand the smile.  And prove it repeatedly.

Show me where they were kept from acting? by an outside force, presumably the white house.

All of history bears out to what I have been saying. There are those that refute it, so I'll say that it could be wrong, but no less so than you might be. But I'm sure you are sure of yourself.

I'm just going to put this here. The FED technically has admitted to it. So if you want to keep it up, it's at your own risk. I'm sure your take will be I don't know what I'm talking about and neither do those FED chairmen.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_depression

[swake]

Freak do you read anything I say. The panic happened just as many had before. The greatness happened because of the inaction of the fed to increase liquidity of cash in the market. The speculative reason for the inactivity (not the run on the banks) was that the banks in the midwest were being hurt initially and the banks on the east coast were not. The FED heads were all east coast bankers.

Google New York Clearing House Association. That is why none before were great (among many other reasons). And while none since are called great, the swings since the FED have been bigger and bigger. Probably just a coincidence though.

And D.C. wasn't doing nothing.

1. Realizing that tax revenues of 1930 and 31 were lower (naturally) the largest peacetime tax increase was passed (pre-FDR). I'm sure you will inform me that this helped the recovery.
2. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was passed.
3. Hoover's version of public works got kicked off
4. National Recovery Administration enacted some price and wage controls between 33 and 35 (unconstitutionally might I add) which distorted market prices
5. And I guess I can't say the fed didn't do anything because starting in 36 they raised the reserve requirements, further limiting the monetary supply.

You want specifics?

GDP reached a peak in 1929 right after Hoover took office, by 1933, about the time he left office, GDP had fallen by about 25%, unemployment was 25%.
In 1930 Hoover tried the Smoot/Hawley tarrifs and the economy shrank by 8.9%
In 1931 the dust bowl hit and the economy shrank by 6.4%
In 1932 Hoover raised taxes and the economy shrank by 12.9%!!!

How on earth is FDR responsible for a 25% decline in GDP before he ever took office?

In 1934, FDR's first full year in office, the GDP growth rate was 10.8%
In 1935 it was 8.9%
In 1936 it was 12.9%.

Oh, and FYI, the "Great Depression", actually wasn't our worst depression. Again, read up on the economy in the 19th century. Also, the "Austrian School" of economics is more a political system of ideas than real math based economics. It's kinda crap.

>>minored in economics some time ago

[heironymouspasparagus]

Show me where they were kept from acting? by an outside force, presumably the white house.

All of history bears out to what I have been saying. There are those that refute it, so I'll say that it could be wrong, but no less so than you might be. But I'm sure you are sure of yourself.

I'm just going to put this here. The FED technically has admitted to it. So if you want to keep it up, it's at your own risk. I'm sure your take will be I don't know what I'm talking about and neither do those FED chairmen.

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_depression

You didn't even read your own reference.  A very cursory glance through it showed this;

"At the start of the Depression, the Federal Reserve's decision-making structure was decentralized and often ineffective. Each district had a governor who set policies for his district, although some decisions required approval of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, DC. The Board lacked the authority and tools to act on its own and struggled to coordinate policies across districts."


The board lacked the authority!!   Exactly what I have been saying - they were prevented from doing effective things by the Presidents of the time.  Coolidge/Hoover and a Congress that had the same mindset that we have today!

[heironymouspasparagus]

That is why none before were great (among many other reasons). And while none since are called great, the swings since the FED have been bigger and bigger. Probably just a coincidence though.

Bigger and bigger.... Wow!

Ok, Donald... your alternative facts are showing again.  Check that link I provided a while ago - it shows the swings over the entire history of the US.  And as I mentioned a while ago, I knew someone would equate 4-5% swings to 25% swings.... just didn't think you would do it quite this fast!!   Never underestimate the power of the RWRE sound bite culture!!



Think in terms of who was put in charge - one might ask oneself the question about why the EPA is going to be failing soon in it's responsibilities to protect air/water/land.  Scott Pruitt.  Same thing happened with Fed in the 20's.

[erfalf]

Bigger and bigger.... Wow!

Ok, Donald... your alternative facts are showing again.  Check that link I provided a while ago - it shows the swings over the entire history of the US.  And as I mentioned a while ago, I knew someone would equate 4-5% swings to 25% swings.... just didn't think you would do it quite this fast!!   Never underestimate the power of the RWRE sound bite culture!!

And if it hadn't been implemented, the crisis likely would have been averted. Hence my posting of the picture of Woodrow Wilson as the ultimate culprit in the matter. Get it. It all should make sense now.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And if it hadn't been implemented, the crisis likely would have been averted. Hence my posting of the picture of Woodrow Wilson as the ultimate culprit in the matter. Get it. It all should make sense now.

Lol... does that Kook-Aid come in the 64 oz mega-mug??

[erfalf]

Lol... does that Kook-Aid come in the 64 oz mega-mug??

Your best and most effective retort. I'd stick with this line as well if I was you.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Your best and most effective retort. I'd stick with this line as well if I was you.

You have the reality spread out in front of you and typical RWRE sound-bite-world fashion, you are ignoring it - including specific quotes from YOUR references!  Others have also tried to help you to understand.  You ignore them, too.    What does it take to get you to actually read something?  And understand it??  English ain't working for you... Klingon maybe??  Probably not.  The Kook-Aid is strong in this one....

[erfalf]

You have the reality spread out in front of you and typical RWRE sound-bite-world fashion, you are ignoring it - including specific quotes from YOUR references!  Others have also tried to help you to understand.  You ignore them, too.    What does it take to get you to actually read something?  And understand it??  English ain't working for you... Klingon maybe??  Probably not.  The Kook-Aid is strong in this one....

Lecturing me on ignoring the facts from you is going to be a discussion we will NOT agree on. I present facts to substantiate my claims (not contradict as you claim, I even pointed out how it didn't for you, you are welcome). You follow up by saying I don't understand without showing me how I don't understand except regurgitating some old tried and true talking points, and your source is Wikipedia. I know we are all busy and everything. But come on.

And when you are going to realize that what you are trying to prove (and myself as well) is literally UN PROVE ABLE. It's all conjecture. The reason I keep telling you to get off your high horse is because you approach everything from some sort of mythical stance of superiority, when in reality there is no way in hell you can back it up any more than I can, yet I am the delusional one.

There were a lot of moving parts that went into the great depression. You understandably want to simplify and tie it to the nearest conservative available (or Okie because that's a favorite pass time here too), which is par for the course for you.

[erfalf]

You want specifics?

GDP reached a peak in 1929 right after Hoover took office, by 1933, about the time he left office, GDP had fallen by about 25%, unemployment was 25%.
In 1930 Hoover tried the Smoot/Hawley tarrifs and the economy shrank by 8.9%
In 1931 the dust bowl hit and the economy shrank by 6.4%
In 1932 Hoover raised taxes and the economy shrank by 12.9%!!!

How on earth is FDR responsible for a 25% decline in GDP before he ever took office?

In 1934, FDR's first full year in office, the GDP growth rate was 10.8%
In 1935 it was 8.9%
In 1936 it was 12.9%.

Oh, and FYI, the "Great Depression", actually wasn't our worst depression. Again, read up on the economy in the 19th century. Also, the "Austrian School" of economics is more a political system of ideas than real math based economics. It's kinda crap.

>>minored in economics some time ago

You are offering up a Red Herring. Not once did I implicate FDR in this whole mess.

[swake]

None of that refutes the fact that they did not act as they should have during time after the stock market bust in the 20's. Liquidity dried up because the FED wasn't purchasing bonds. They did take a hands off approach, which was the exact opposite approach their predecessors took.

The reasons for the hands off approach can be speculated, but most of the speculation has to do with the fact that the most important people at the FED were on the east coast, and most of the leading problems were in the midwest. They thought they were letting competition banks fail, and never thought it would reach their doorstep. But again, that is complete speculation. Even more wild speculation would be that the WH was dictating this policy.

Crap, I misread. You're blaming the FED? That's a far crazier argument and makes it even more important to research the 19th century. Specifically the period between Jackson ending the Second Bank of the United States in 1833 and the start of the 3rd bank (The Fed) in 1913. Compare the number and severity of recessions and depressions in that time, known as the free banking period, and the time since. The improvement is huge. Especially since FDR. 

In the 80 years of the free banking period there were 18 recessions/depressions with economic shrinkage greater than 10% include five! with greater than 30% shrinkage. That's five events 25-50% worse than the Great Depression.

Since the Fed was instituted we have had just 7 recessions/depressions with of 10% of greater economic shrinkage, the largest being the depression of 1920 at 38.1%, which was worse than the great depression at 26.7%. Since the FDIC was added in 1933 there have been NO depressions and just two large recessions. Our recent great recession was 10.0%, the largest since 1938.  We are doing a good job of managing the economy overall since we went to a Keynesian model management via the FED with FDIC protections.