Rothbard on Mises: Depression Not Inevitable, Result of Central Banks

it is accurate and i remember it from economics 101 class


here's another source:

"The Colonial period produced a wide variety of currencies that fluctuated freely in their relative prices and that were used extensively in domestic transactions. "

http://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/Commentary/1996/101596.htm


here's a third source:

"Money and Prices in Colonial America: a New Test of Competing Theories"

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1800506


and a fourth:

"In the history of the United States we have had competing currencies several times. We had it in colonial times and we had it from 1836 to 1863. It never worked in the past. Why would anyone think it would work in the future?"

http://killtheempire.blogspot.com/2010/12/monopoly-vs-competing-currencies.html


i feel certain this is a preponderance of evidence, especially considering that you have produced none

 

Your say-so is not good enough.

None of your sources indicate that we had over 30,000 competing currencies. And your last source is a blog.

Your evidence is irrelevent because it doens't remotely reflect the system which I am supporting.

 

It may be a component of it. Central banking is a component of Communism, but I certainly wouldn't be willing to make the wild, exaggerated leap that the US has a Communist system. That logic is flawed, and you're attempting to employ it.

 

again you're 100% wrong

"At one time, the nation had more than 30,000 types of currency, which almost any organization, even drugstores, could issue. The confusion was compounded because people could redeem some currencies for gold and silver, while government bonds backed other types of currency."

http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/resources/fedtoday/fedtodayBrochure.pdf




but, the number of currencies isn't the point, it's this:

i would have thought at least if you haven't taken econ 101 that you might have read rothbard's: 'a history of money and banking in the united states'

 

here's another screen shot of some of the currencies





here's a source that shows a number of these currencies and gives detail about which banks issued them, when they were issued, today's price & etc

http://vernpotter.com/VernPotter/Connecticut.htm

Stonington Bank (connecticut) 1831 An early issue engraved by Read, Styles & Co. with full margins, tight at the top, good centering, toning along bottom $140

there's an example of a stonington bill in the image at the top right, above (it's the reddish one)

 

Yeah rite,is rite you mock the internet when you don't agree
With the info.

While in the same verse your using the interent constantly
Too berte what you don't like about. Freemarket economics

The govt an keynesians didn't get the internet too where its at today

Its the freemarket that did period

 

This country uses keynes when the chit hits the fan

It isn't fully keynes. The quasi freemarket is amazing

Even tho the keynes motives are used on it with regularity

 

Thank you for first establishing exactly why I reject your entire argument against Austrians economics! You repeatedly claim that Austrians "don't need data" and "don't use empirical" data yet when the tables (literally) are turned you acknowledge the futility of trying to prove anything about social interaction with "absolute facts". My opening citation is a logical analysis of the banking system's effect on the price system, and as such begs comparison with one's experience and knowledge of history. I never intended to arrogantly propose that a few charts and graphs will settle such a complex question, and I won't waste my breath now. I don't expect you to arrive at the same conclusions as I have, but I have learned much from giving the benefit of the doubt to people like "someone" and others on their very different rationale, and I urge you to try it as well---to at least consider the Austrians' reasoning at a logical level.

 

You dear sir,have made the gravest of mistakes

They can't reason or even listen too an opposing arguement

Which I use too be a modern day liberal

Until I went into my own business an amongest other things

I believed in free health care an the rest of tne goodies

Tho as I gained a vested interest in my liberty

My view started change an rightly so

 

Accuracy has little to do with it---it's ironic that the arguments for statism are always based on such gross misrepresentations of history:

Settling the West:

Seriously? A true "liberal" should be the first to condemn America's bloody conquest of the west---and of course I hardly consider the effectiveness of the state at imperializing one of it's benefits...

Funding Railroads:

Do a little reading on these, for instance, compare private railroaders like James J. Hill to government subsidized ones like Jay Cooke, and you'll inevitably find the difference to be drastic...

On and on down the list it's one similar story after another. Most of the state's "successes" are easily attributed to its ability to deny anyone else the right to compete!

 

I understand Austrian's contributions to economics from a philosophical sense. As in the inability to accurately predict human actions. What I don't agree with Austrian's on is their real world economics. They deal in an imaginary world and they apply more of a philosophical backing to their economic approach.

I'm in a different group. I'm a modern monetary theorist. I deal strictly with operational realities of the system. As in the relationship between the Fed, Treasury, Congress, Banks, and the nonbank public.

Most people do not even understand how the system works and they are spouting off their theories. Libertarian type policies would be a disaster. An absolute disaster. Going back to the gold standard??? Balancing the budget??

All these things they explain in a philosophical sense that makes sense, but in reality they are absolutely disastrous. Which is why we never do it.

Understanding what the national debt actually is and what Govt spending actually is opens up your eyes to a whole new world of economics.

 

That's a good way of putting it. But they don't use Keynes when the country is prospering, meaning they don't pay down the debt and defecit with higher taxes and low spending during times of prosperity. They just keep debt spending and lowering taxes during prosperity. Which is not Keynesian at all. It's just an attestment to the nature of government, which is why Keynesianism could only work in a perfect ideal world where government was efficient.

 

Again you're distorting the facts. The dollar was never on a true gold standard, it was subject to the wild speculative practices of fractional reserve banking.

Clinton and the Republican Congress balanced the budget in the 90s and the economy boomed. Balanced budgets mean lower taxes, lower govt spending, lower inflation. Those are all good things.

Conversely, your ideas of fractional reserve banking and debt spending are what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

again you're 100% wrong

"At one time, the nation had more than 30,000 types of currency, which almost any organization, even drugstores, could issue. The confusion was compounded because people could redeem some currencies for gold and silver, while government bonds backed other types of currency."

http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/resources/fedtoday/fedtodayBrochure.pdf




but, the number of currencies isn't the point, it's this:

i would have thought at least if you haven't taken econ 101 that you might have read rothbard's: 'a history of money and banking in the united states'


here's another screen shot of some of the currencies i refer to




here's a source that shows a number of these currencies and gives detail about which banks issued them, when they were issued, today's price & etc

http://vernpotter.com/VernPotter/Connecticut.htm

Stonington Bank (connecticut) 1831 An early issue engraved by Read, Styles & Co. with full margins, tight at the top, good centering, toning along bottom $140

there's an example of a stonington bill in the image at the top right, above (it's the reddish one)

accuracy has everything to do with it and i'm not arguing for statism, i'm insisting that the truth be told

i'm not a liberal, i'm a conservative businessman that has studied economics, finance and history, among other things

 

So Clinton balancing the budget had nothing to do with the tech boom? And what happened after the velocity of money declined?

Remember those stimulus checks that Bush sent us?

 

It does not cause the creation of sustainable growth or real wealth; if it did, we could just increase the money supply by 10^50 dollars and the country would be in an economic boom for eternity. Your economic hypotheses are so simplistic and childish that only the choicest moron could believe them...

In other words, you're too intellectually lazy to analyze the available economic literature, which you asked for. Carry on, troll boy.

You want me to summarize? Okay. The article talks about various Keynesian policies that have been implemented throughout our country's history and how they failed to accomplish their goals. In other words, it systematically details the numerous failures of Keynesian policy to achieve beneficial macroeconomic outcomes. Now, if you're asking me to regurgitate every detail of the paper, that is just retarded and I will not accommodate your laziness. YOU ASKED FOR THE EVIDENCE, so I provided it. Stop being such a simpleton and read it.

So economic papers cannot contain evidence? Are you retarded?

Your version of the "truth" is about as juvenile and asinine a thing as I've ever seen.

 

The Great Depression and the Great Recession are your idea of "slow, steady economic growth"? That's delusional...

The country has been growing steadily since its inception; economic growth and power did not all of sudden happen after 1913. How stupid does one have to be in order to attribute our economic success and power entirely to the creation of a central bank? It's a totally moronic proposition.

 

This is taking the argument to the extreme. There is no absolutes in economics. Adding more money can lead to more or less growth... the point of the monetary system is to figure out how much money is needed to lead to solid growth. It is not about making stupid statements about increasing the money supply by 10^50.

And you have yet to explain what I'm wrong about. Just giving me a single 34 page paper with out explaining anything about it, is not going to cut it.

Get smarter!

 

Looks pretty steady to me...

 

what's delusional is you insinuating that's what i said

i didn't say it did

i didn't say our country's economic success and power was entirely due to the creation of a central bank

i am saying that having the appropriate means of financing this country's growth made a big difference

http://www.bos.frb.org/about/pubs/begin.pdf

i guess you think you know better than president george washington, he signed the legislation chartering our first central bank


obviously you can't read what i wrote without twisting it into something it's not

 

I'm merely applying your simplistic logic. If increasing the money supply leads to sustainable economic growth and wealth creation, there is no reason at all we couldn't increase the money supply by 10^50 dollars and have perpetual economic prosperity.

Your entire asinine argument is based upon an "absolute". You are asserting that increases in the money supply are responsible for our economic growth, which is an "absolute"; I am merely applying your brain-dead logic in a manner that demonstrates just how fallacious it is.

And how does one figure out how much money is needed to lead to "solid growth" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).

Better yet, quantify and qualify "solid growth" and explain just how the hell you or anyone else can KNOW what "solid growth" is and how to achieve it by manipulating the money supply.

And I'm sorry if you're too lazy to read thirty-four pages of economic literature THAT YOU ASKED FOR, but adults who study and discuss economics usually exchange literature and analyze it; I don't know how they do things in your alternate universe, but I'm under no obligation to accommodate your laziness or your arrogance.

 

And I can show you steady economic growth that occurred in the United States before the creation of the Federal Reserve.

 

You said the creation of the Federal Reserve has been responsible for our slow and steady growth. I don't think the Great Depression and the Great Recession are indicative of slow and steady growth.

If the country was experiencing economic growth before the Federal Reserve, then why bother pointing our the economic growth that occurred after the creation of the Fed?

And where is this "big difference" in the data? I certainly don't see it.

You're comparing our first central bank to the Federal Reserve? LOL! What an idiot...

 

And I can show you a completely and utterly volatile economy prior to the Federal Reserve where there was no control...

 

which is why i didn't say it was indicative of slow and steady growth

what i referenced was monetary policy, not early breakdowns before monetary science was more fully evolved

because the quantity and quality were different

i didn't say anything about data

just look at the differences in standards of living between 1968 and 1912

just the facts:

the federal reserve is a central bank

the first bank of the united states was a central bank