Why End The Fed?

The list clearly represents the fact that the Austrians accurately predicted the bubble.

Many economists have made incorrect predictions, and likewise have failed to make predictions. That doesn't change the fact that the Austrians accurately predicted the Housing Bubble.

They can be a function of low interest rates but not necessarily entirely dependent on low interest rates. The moral hazard is the largest factor affecting their lending practices, but when it is coupled with low interest rates and a high velocity of money, you have a recipe for disaster.

As long as the Fed and govt are willing to bail out institutions that engage in shoddy lending practices.

The list shows 10 factors that affect the velocity of money, one of which I already gave you. Which is what you asked for.

What other markets are you referring to when you say "Look at prices in other free markets"?

Thanks for posting those, but I fail to see what that has to do with Free Banking.

Why would they have taken the economy down with them if they had gone bankrupt?

That's true. What makes you think the government would break them up?

Lehman Brothers.

I disagree with your opinion.

 

Like a broke clock acurrate predicts the time twice a day.

Austrians have made many incorrect perdictions too.

Good case for regulation. Why do low interest rates matter?

Talk to our Republican friends. They are the ones who are blocking any efforts to bust them up.

Stocks, commodities, housing, etc.

You do remember repeatedly referring to Byzantine empire in your argument for free banking a few months ago now?

I never really saw what it had to do with free banking either, since the data was so bogus.

Lots of business rely on loans and without credit people don't buy as much stuff.

Depends on who hold power.

Right, thanks.

Good for you.

 

Misrepresentation of the Austrian prediction. Using a cliche to explain that away is a logical fallacy.

Many? I only saw an example of one incorrect prediction made by one Austrian economist that your link failed to prove represented the majority of Austrian viewpoints.

We've seen what decades of regulation has caused - the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Which itself was caused by regulation. What makes you think more regulation is going to improve the situation?

Low interest rates encourage banks to loan more.

Prove that it is a partisan blocking effort.

What about them?

That's probably because it wasn't an argument for free banking.

What data are you referring to?

Why would businesses and people not be able to get credit if the banks were allowed to fail?

The government has never passed any regulations that were to the detriment of the largest Fed member banks. In fact it has always been the opposite.

Where are these angels you speak of? Why should the government break up businesses?

 

During the dotcom boom, credit was fueling the housing market as well, it just wasn't as pronounced as it was after the dotcom crash. The credit bubble was still going, it just had to pour into real estate. It's still going now, as it pours into government debt. What's next is anyone's guess.

 

See the link to the Mises website, which you outright dismissed without actually debunking anything on the page.

Which is another logical fallacy.

The Bush bailouts were a form of regulation that the lenders loved. And no doubt that you supported.

Prove it.

The Dems passed bills that were lobbied for by the institutions that got bailed out, like Dodd Frank.

An argument for the government backing the dollar with gold.

No kidding. Please be more specific.

A lending institution.

By passing bills that were lobbied for by the largest Fed member banks, like Dodd-Frank?

It's impossible for a business to be too-big-to-fail under a free market. They're only too-big-to-fail when government deems them to be so, and props them up with taxpayer money.

 

No, I pointed out that does not purport to be the universe of mises predictions but a self-serving proclamation in favor of its own bias. You have proved nothing.

No, they were a necessary step to prevent much greater economic damage from the failure to regulate.

Interest rates are lower than ever yet banks are lending far less.

Dodd Frank was lobbied for by the institutions that got bailed out? Prove it.

How would that have prevented it?

It was your reference. Did you forget again?

Not when they out of business.

Proof please.

False. That is what I mean about you just redining the word. "Too big to fail" means an institution or group of them which would cause catastrophic consequences to the economy.

 

The list of Housing Bubble predictions and who made them is there for all to see. Unless you'd care to prove that the list is fabricated.

Please explain how a bailout is not a form of regulation. And after you do that, you can prove that there would have been much greater economic damage had Bush not signed the bailout regulation into law.

Because the velocity of money is slow.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...illed-financial-reform-20120510#ixzz1uys6YW8n

Prevented what?

Nice dodge.

I never forgot it in the first place.

You're suggesting that all lending institutions would have gone out of business had the Fed/govt not intervened?

See above.

...and therefore must be bailed out to "prevent" the catastrophic consequences. Bailouts don't happen in a free market.

 

Because the FED (nearing one hundred years (1913 - 2013), in this time of crisis in this period of history is used for political gain (politicians blamed the FED while the FED was setup because of financial panics)

It was created on December 23, 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, largely in response to a series of financial panics, particularly a severe panic in 1907.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

The US credit crunch started in 2007.

1907 -> 2007
1913 -> 2013

They repeat history, or because they think people can't see it (most people are unaware?), or they want the people to see it to reach the same level of power as happened in Germany when one of their policians start to warn for a repeat of history)
They are after absolute power (and they use the same process, with propably one exception, the warning politician?)

Notice this.

Established December 23, 1913 (1913-12-23) (98 years ago)

People don't need a FED, the system needed a FED.

 

So is the list of hyperinflation predictions. What's your point?

A regulation is a rule or standards governing behavior. A bailout is to save the entity from closing its doors and putting all its employees on the unemployment lines.

Because banks aren't lending, even though interest rates are lower than ever. So much for that claim.

LOL, I'm dodging not explaining what you meant by citing the Byzantine empire? How would I know that better than you?

No kidding?

Not all, but the biggest ones that have the capacity to provide loans to big business.

That doesn't maket them not too big to fail.

It just means we get a great depression instead.

 

You asked for the list of Austrian housing bubble predictions. You have it now.

Where did you come up with that definition?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulation

reg·u·la·tion (rgy-lshn)
n.
2. A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct.
3. A governmental order having the force of law. Also called executive order.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the bailouts were a regulation. Directly contradicting your inaccurate claim that bailouts are not regulations.

So a bailout is not a regulation? Please explain how the bailout was enacted if it wasn't by the force of law AKA regulation.

That's because the velocity of money is slow.

Easy for you to say when you mischaracterize my position.

You made a claim that my data was inaccurate. I'm not sure what "data" you're referring to, but if you pointed it to me, I'd be glad to clarify it for you. Instead of continuing this game of you beating around the bush.

Yup.

So the demand for bigger loans would increase, and thus the largest ones remaining would take their place and expand.

Prove it.

Never in US history had there been such a severe economic downturn. And that makes sense because it was caused by artificial subversion of the free market by government regulation.

Sounds familiar.

 

That isn't what I asked for at all.

My own knowledge, pretty close to this one.

Nonsense. The bailouts were nto a principle, rules, law or order to control or govern conduct.

It wasn't a rule to govern conduct.

You have it precisely backwards. The velocity of money is low because banks are not lending (even though interest rates are low). Velocity is a measurement, it is not determinative.

How did I do that?

Where would they get the money?

We were 1/2 way there as it was.

Never heard of the "great depression" eh?

 

I fail to see how anything else is relevent to this discussion.

There were plenty of rules governing conduct in the bailouts.

There are many other factors affecting the velocity of money. Proven to you already. If the sum of those factors puts enough downward pressure on the velocity of money relative to bank lending, it will slow bank lending down.

Besides, that doesn't disprove the fact that a moral hazard, coupled with low interest rates, coupled with a high velocity of money, is a recipe for shoddy lending practices.

See the above paragraph.

Wherever lending institutions normally get money to lend.

That's not proof that we would have had another Great Depression.

That's what I was talking about.

 

thread bump

 

Only the most uneducated people on earth, such as Libertarian's and Conservatives believe that ending the Fed would be a good thing for the economy. As you can see by Dr. R's posts... these people really do exist, lol.

 

Another ad hominem from the resident troll

 

I'm not the one arguing to end central banking. You have to be a serious troll to be doing that in the 21st century.

 

Another ad hominem from the resident troll