Originally posted by no1marauderSo you are saying that the presence of the fed had nothing to do with the booming economy? You said that the economy was stagnent before the advent of the federal reserve.
I did? Where?
I suppose the most dangerous aspect of those on the left is that they want to meddle in everyones affairs. Then when it goes awry none will stand accountable. It is just the opposite, in fact, as they fight for more power to meddle in order to "fix" things even more.
I say if you meddle you share accountablity!! ðŸ˜
How could it be otherwise?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo this propped up prosperity does not form any catastrophic artificial bubbles?
The country can't become insolvent as the term is generally understood.
"Utopia" is not what 20th Century regulation of the economy was shooting for, just reasonably stable levels of prosperity and growth. That's what New Deal policies and institutions delivered for a half century until right wing Reaganite ideas replaced them.
Originally posted by whodeyThe Fed in and of itself was inadequate. It probably still is which is why I expressed doubt that the present policy will do anywhere near what they hope it will.
So you are saying that the presence of the fed had nothing to do with the booming economy? You said that the economy was stagnent before the advent of the federal reserve.
I suppose the most dangerous aspect of those on the left is that they want to meddle in everyones affairs. Then when it goes awry none will stand accountable. It is just the opposite, ...[text shortened]... even more.
I say if you meddle you share accountablity!! ðŸ˜
How could it be otherwise?
The economy itself is "artificial" created by the human race to serve human needs. A pure laissez faire system leads to vast inequity in wealth, monopolies, low purchasing power for the great mass, poverty, unemployment, under-utilization of resources, etc. It is necessary to develop institutions and rules which minimize these effects which is what was done in the first half of the 20th Century. These institutions and rules served us well for the era of the Great Prosperity.
Originally posted by PalynkaDo you credit the Fed for the prosperity?
Because the clocks didn't stop after the Fed was established. The 20th century was a period of unparalleled prosperity for the US. Do you disagree?
Some may argue the prosperity would have happened anyway, and perhaps been even greater.
To be clear, one might argue there was prosperity DESPITE the Fed's intervention in the markets.
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessI'm sure in your world of delusion, everything is possible. As long as the Fed is to blame, of course. For example, you might believe that even without a proper monetary authority the US dollar could still have been the international currency by excellence. Although I'm sure that with your imagination you can come up with some fictional story on how it could have been even better.
Do you credit the Fed for the prosperity?
Some may argue the prosperity would have happened anyway, and perhaps been even greater.
To be clear, one might argue there was prosperity DESPITE the Fed's intervention in the markets.
Like most of a country's institutions the Fed does not "create prosperity" directly. What it can do is create the right environment for prosperity to be possible. No institution is perfect (and I would prefer a truly federal Fed myself) but its track record is pretty good as monetary authorities go.
Originally posted by Palynka...maybe you can address the question... how finite is the Fed's ability to be a buffer in the system and what would have to happen for it to lose its grip on the economy?
Like most of a country's institutions the Fed does not "create prosperity" directly. What it can do is create the right environment for prosperity to be possible. No institution is perfect (and I would prefer a truly federal Fed myself) but its track record is pretty good as monetary authorities go.
Originally posted by kmax87The Fed's ability is very finite. It can't sustain long-run growth by itself. What it can do is try to use its instruments to avoid some crises and minimize the impacts of other crises.
...maybe you can address the question... how finite is the Fed's ability to be a buffer in the system and what would have to happen for it to lose its grip on the economy?
What would happen if it fails would depend on the situation. Could be banking runs, stagflation or inflation/currency crises if things get really bad. But if things are running smoothly there's not much of a role for it.
The Fed is not a panacea, though, and I think that the reason why people came to look at it as having almost unlimited power over the economy is a testament to its past effectiveness. But, again, there's only so much it can do.
Originally posted by PalynkaThe 20th century was a period of prosperity for most of the world.
Because the clocks didn't stop after the Fed was established. The 20th century was a period of unparalleled prosperity for the US. Do you disagree?
Industry improved efficiency of production and led to that prosperity. Do you disagree?
Why do you want to credit the fed with the prosperity? Even before the fed existed the USA had the highest standard of living in the world and that was in the 19th century when there was no central bank.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Great Depression was caused by the fed reserve and it is a fact accepted by mainstream economics. It is not a theory.
A) You ducked the question.
B) Your knowledge of the economic history of the US is beyond terrible if you think that before the 20th Century was a Golden Age as far as the economic well-being of the vast majority of the population in the US.
C) Trying to blame the Great Depression on the Fed is moronic but something right wingers have been doing for about 80 years.
Your knowledge of the economic history of the US is lacking too. This has nothing to do with the left or right. Facts are facts.