The FED Caused the Great Depression

While historians long discounted accounts that Jefferson had an intimate relationship with his slave Sally Hemings, it is now widely held that he did and had six children by her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

 

Part 2
I didn’t ignore anything you said. Those true goals, as far as I can tell, are just your opinion. My proofs have shown what the goals of the Fed were: see below for more.
As for regulations, the chairman of the Fed follows government policies with respect economics; laissez-faire, and then harder regulatory policies under both Wilson and FDR with respect to financial crises.
As for House and the Lusitania, that sounds a bit conspiratorial. Give me some evidence of that; more than one credible source is preferable.
Now, let’s look at some evidence with respect to the Great Depression and what led up to it:
Depression of 1920: Following WW I domestic prosperity was very high n the early part of 1920. “After reaching a peak in May, commodity prices declined rapidly and gave rise to unprecedented cancellation of orders” (Payne, 22). This drop was the result of the following rumors of a increase in prices due to the prosperity and the following rumors of a buyer’s strike.

Prior to this there had been many financial panics: 1785, 1792, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873,1893 and 1907; “The Rich man’s Panic” (Bruhl, 206-209), caused by railroad consolidation and excessive speculation. Bank credited expanded markedly under Republican William Mckinley. There were runs on Heinze-Morse chain of banks and the American Trust Company. In Oct. Knickebroker Trust closed and its president committed suicide. The panic broke out in Oct of 1907.

What we clearly see here is eight national financial panics, al prior to The Federal Reserve act of 1913; hence the reason for the act to begin with. The Federal Reserve was designed as the key to building a national financial infrastructure that American Banks could count on the way Americans counted on their banks.

1929: “Had so many causes historically, the remarkable fact is that its magnitude surprised many economists who were keeping a close watch on the situation”, (Bruhl, 209). The only part that the Fed played was the lowering of interest rates that were designed to support the British pound. Wages and mass consumption had been failing since 1926 and rather than fix the problem, Wall Street began selling the stock market to the American public as the new road to the American dream: sound familiar? Only 10% down got you in and coupled with mortgages, the public debt sky rocketed: sound familiar? Wall Street knew good an well that all these “new traders” were never going to be able to pay off their stock debts, so Wall Street just kept making 10% the same way today’s banks get $2.50 per person at the ATM. Of course when the panic hit: in Oct, everybody lost their 10%, they lost their jobs, they failed their mortgages and lost their homes: sound familiar?

What we see here are multiple and credible examples of economic failures that were part an parcel to a deregulated set of government policies arising from laissez-faire. Finally, I just don’t see enough evidence to back up the assertion that House was evil incarnate and that he did anything different than say; the Koch Brothers do today. Those two have financial goals and use their money to achieve them. I disagree vehemently and vocally with the Koch brothers based on the record. I just don’t find the same record with respect to House or “the evil Fed”.

 

Cite evidence of rape!

What does Wikipedia say…

 

Actually the Great Plains had an unusually wet period just before the Depression. It wasn't until 1930 that the Dust Bowl intensified the GD. The Dust Bowl was not a cause of the Great Depression so its really irrelevent to this discussion anyway.

Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. 5th Edition. Westlake Village, CA: American Media, 2010.

Unemployment was at full levels before 1930. You're going to have to provide a source for your claim that poverty was "climbing".

Wall Street set the easy credit becuase they were able to borrow from the banking system easily becuase of the Fed's policies of low credit. Fact. We had a repeat of this phenomenon in 2007. Fact. Easy credit is the means by which stock prices are able to artificially rise.

Yes, it does. It's exactly the cause. How else do you think Wall Street was able to obtain easy credit? You haven't adequately explained how it is incorrect.

It's inherently incorrect to claim that we had a laissez-faire system. You cannot have a laissez faire system with a central bank. Central banks are forms of central economic planning. That is not laissez-faire no matter how you spin it. It's not an opinion, it's fact that it directly contradicts the definition. You didn't use multiple sources to back up this claim either. The only source you cited which contained the word "laissez-faire" was some random webpage typed up by a biased John Q. Public. Hardly credible.

Telling me to go "gain some understanding" is an insinuation that my understanding is rudimentary to yours. Though if I misinterpreted your intentions, then I apologize.

And here is one to rebut yours:

http://mises.org/daily/2902

Professor Rothbard was very well known and highly respected, much more than the obscure professor you cited from some community college in Texas. His understanding of laissez faire economics was on a much higher level. My defintion of laissez-faire is consistent with Prof. Rothbard and the dictionary...yours is consistent with a baised community college professor and random webpages.

 

So let me get this straight. You spoke about how great FDR was and his 91% tax rate, but you don't pay taxes/give to charity at such a rate... That is hierocracy! You advocate stealing money from others you don't voluntarily give away yourself. Do you control spending? The DEMOCRATS DO! The largest expenditures in the budget are Democrat created violations of the Constitution. The Democrats keep dreaming up new and improved ways to spend other people's money.

The "panderers... who have ran up trillions in debt" are the Anti-Constitutional Left; mostly Democrats, not Conservatives conserving the Constitution. To state anything else is dishonest, and illegitimate; Leftist speak!

 

Where did I say that?

I've never argued I should be exempt from paying taxes. I pay a lot more than most.

Reagan Bush and Bush who between them ran up $9 trillion in debt would never have admitted to being the anti-constitutional left, but maybe they were.

 

Ah, no... they both got saddled with a lot boundless and limitless unconstitutional Democrat created spending. What did THEY initiate that caused defects/debt not listed in the Constitution?

Won't even go into Obama's TRILLIONS as of yet, but he will have spent more money when finished than all the other presidents put together, and on what? Is that OK BECAUSE he is a Democrat

 

Ah in post 129 below:

 

Because there is more deficit spending. That should be triggering light bulbs for you!

 

What do you think owning a woman and forcing her to have sex with you is called?

 

It's not "idiotic" at all. I hate the Social Security system. I know it is a Ponzi scheme, unconstitutional, and a scourge on freedom and liberty. I know I would retire with a million dollars or more if I were allowed to invest my SS money (including employer matching which I would get in compensation without the Democrat mandate) in real investments my whole working life (ASSUMING Democrats did not crash the stock market every now-and-then trying to redistribute income, or trying to give away "affordable mortgages" to high risk low income borrowers who tend to vote Democrat).

Truth of the matter is I have no "retirement" money, and was heavily invested in real state. Most of that money is now gone because of Democrat violations of the Constitution. Those investments have devalued about 26% from the price paid, and about 48% from their high, with no rebound in sight. I won’t live long enough to recoup that money. People don’t live long enough to recoup the damage caused by Democrat “improvements” in society. I will be old, broke, and destitute BECAUSE of the system in which I live. A system which I hate, and a system that was created by Democrats in violation of the Constitution and my own unalienable rights. All that having been said, I will have to go on SS (if it even exists as that is doubtful) simply because there is no other choice, and all my planning and investments were taken away, stolen from me. If I want to live and survive I will have to do what I hate, and what I decry. That's not hypocrisy. That is survival. I would much rather the system not have been corrupted by Democrats, and I be allowed to self define as I was doing quite well for a very long time BEFORE Democrats stated to GIVE the “right of every family to a decent home.”

 

Cite some historical reference that states Jefferson FORCED any woman to have sex with him free, or otherwise. If you can't, simply admit you are wrong...

 

had the fed stayed clear, the great depression would of ended in less than 2 years!

 

Comparing the institution of slavery to Social Security, is once again, idiotic. Jefferson lived a luxurious life off the backs of the labor performed by his slaves. It was not a question of survival, it was a question of Jefferson buying another bottle of the French wine he became so fond of during his time as ambassador. It was a question of living the lifestyle afforded him by stealing the labor of other human beings, and robbing them of all dignity. To compare that, to a system that keeps half our senior out of poverty is absurd beyond imagination.


PS. As far as the rape thing goes, don't be ridiculous. In a relationship of slave and master, a woman cannot say no without fearing violence. The power relationship between slave and master, is one where all the power lies in the hands of the master. There are no sources which say Jefferson's sex was consensual either. There are no sources which say their sex was based on love. What we know for certain is that Jefferson fathered children by his slaves, and his slaves were in a position where they could not decline sex for fear of violence. Coerced and violent sex is what rape is. How could a sexual relationship exist in such a circumstance where rape did not occur?

 

The creators of the Fed were representatives of competing financial powers at the time: Morgan, Rothschild, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb. Together they represented about 1/4 of the world's entire wealth at the time. Why else would they come together but to create a cartel agreement and pass it into law so that they could maximize their profits while simultaneously eliminating competition? It has failed miserably at its stated objectives that you listed. However, it has succeeded greatly at the objectives I have listed. Why? Becuase the objectives you listed were never the true objectives of its creators in the first place.

Jacking up interest rates and pulling back on the money supply does not somehow equate to "more" regulation, and lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply does not somehow equate to "less" regulation. The methods of control still exist under both circumstances, it is still a form of central economic planning. It is not laissez-faire. You are wrong.

George Viereck worked for the German Embassy which attempted to advertise warnings to US passengers to not ride the Lusitania. For some reason, the US state dept intervened and prevented the warnings from being published. He wrote:

Viereck, George Sylvester. The Strangest Friendship in History: Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House. New York: Liverigllt Publishers, 1932. pp.106-108.

Griffin writes:

Churchill setting the trap for the Lusitania is a totally different story in of itself. The point is that House was involved in initiating the plans for the sinking and the coverup.

Economic prosperity never creates inflation unless it's an inflationary bubble caused by the central banking system. True economic prosperity would cause real prices to move downwards and real wages to move upwards, not cause both to move upwards.

You have to understand that the panics were caused by the inherent flaws with fractional reserve banking. Having a reserve ratio of less than 100% guarantees that not every depositer can be paid back is a run occurs.

The Fed lowered interest rates, which also created new money for the banking system to lend out at rates which were far lower than what the market would have dictated in the first place. Wall St would not have been able to finance this easy credit if the banking system did not make it available. The banking system made it available becuase the Fed allowed them to. It's not very hard when you trace the pattern of cause and effect.

1

You keep claiming laissez-faire and deregulation but I have already disproven this many times. And you haven't found the same record with respect to House or the Fed becuase you haven't done enough research.

 

I notice here that you got screwed by your own

 

It doesn't. When?

 

This is what you said...

"I don't see a correlation. It anything, there is a negative correlation. The debt tends to be growing higher when the economy is contracting."

And I say, what happens when the economy contracts. We have higher deficit spending. That should tell you what it means when we "borrow".

 

Overheated market, speculation and borrowing money to speculate with was the main cause of the great depression.

 

Very well said.

 

What caused the speculation? Where did Wall St get the money they borrowed?

 

The only proof is that the private sector can not be trusted and can not self-regulate.

 

Investment speculation income is taxed at a maximum 15%.

Earned income from production is taxed at a maximum of 35%, plus FICA taxes.

Why would we be surprised our talent and capital is focused on speculative investment income as opposed to earning it.

We are destroying our own earnings and production base with our own tax code.

 

akphidelt,

Why did you bail on our discussion?

For the first time I thought we were actually making some progress towards understanding how control of the money supply really works.