Why would you want to get rid of it when having an organization of smart people actively controlling the amount of money in circulation has demonstrably reduced the number and severity of recessions and by your own admission was the only thing that was able to stop the stagflation we had in the 70s? I've provided (and you as well) several examples of laissez faire working out worse, what examples do you have of laissez faire working better?
What will happen in the economy if 10 year treasury yields hit 5.3% like in 2003?
- Thread starter KINGOFSHORTS
- Start date
My point is that central banks are a fairly new phenomenon and we have lots of recorded history illustrating financial crises pre-1913. Life was not better without central banks lol.
You'll continue this line of reasoning as long as you continue to think there is "debt" that somehow should be paid back, although recognizing, as you do, that it could never be.. We all agree that what the public calls "national debt" -- a terrible misnomer -- will never be paid back, but you somehow think it is supposed to be. It's inexplicable to me.
You must pay your debts back; I must pay mine back. The government doesn't really have debt in the sense that we do, because it has a money machine in the basement. It's job is to make sure it turns the handle in the right direction at the right rate, and for the right reasons... That's what we should be concerned about.
Last edited:
... as Rome burns.
Well I guess you'd say none of us will live long enough to see it completely burn to the ground - so that makes ok.
non c'è pranzo libero
In any language.
One smart person. Not The Fed. LMAO do you really think the econ's did anything?
Volker raised rates, then raised them again. And again and again. Till he no longer needed to.
No QE nonsense, TARP, SMARP, WARP and ZIRP another good one. Look how well Japan has done with that. Even better they went sub-ZIRP Suuuiiiiiirp.
Again The Fed is the number one employer of Economists in the world .... the history of the world. Number one(1), no one else comes close.
And yet crises after crises continues to take place ... and they never see them coming. Come on.
You get rid of the Fed you get rid of the ability of anyone to raise rates to stop inflation in the future. Why would you want to tie your hands like that when we know it's been needed in the past? What happens when inflation starts up again under your model?One smart person. Not The Fed. LMAO do you really think the econ's did anything?
Volker raised rates, then raised them again. And again and again. Till he no longer needed to.
No QE nonsense, TARP, SMARP, WARP and ZIRP another good one. Look how well Japan has done with that. Even better they went sub-ZIRP Suuuiiiiiirp.
Again The Fed is the number one employer of Economists in the world .... the history of the world. Number one(1), no one else comes close.
And yet crises after crises continues to take place ... and they never see them coming. Come on.
I'm also baffled by your internal denial that the "crisis after crisis" we're seeing now is significantly less frequent and of shorter durations than the the "crisis after crisis" we saw with a laissez faire model. I'm not sure how much more clearly I could spell it out for you?
I've asked at least 3 different times in 3 different ways for evidence that laissez faire is a superior model, and every time you just come back with how much the current model sucks. That's not an argument, that's a grumpy old man non-answer.
I've done this before to no avail but try again I must. Then I'm outta here.
As I once heard someone say "In one ear and in the other"
who thought they knew what they meant:-"First, if the bubble were to collapse on its own, would the effect on the economy be exceedingly large? Second, is it unlikely that the Fed could mitigate the consequences? Third, is monetary policy the best tool to deflate a house-price bubble?
My answers to these questions in the shortest possible form are, 'no', 'no', and 'no". {They meant yes, yes, yes - same thing isn't it}
September 27, 2005
+ + +
"It is not the responsibility of the Federal Reserve - nor would be appropriate - to protect lenders and investors from the consequences of their financial decisions". {Yet they did, again same thing right?}
August 2007
+ + +
"While the decline in housing activity has been significant and will probability continue for a while longer, I think the concerns we used to hear about {don't go there} the possibility of a devastating collapse {you went there duh} - one that might be big enough to cause a recession in the U.S. economy - have been largely allayed {yup, sure} ."
January 22, 2007
+ + +
Any guesses who said any of those?
And I got plenty more, but I rather get back to more productive use of my time screaming at passing cars from my front porch like grumpy old men do.
I get it, you don't like the FED and they've made mistakes. You can stop repeating that over and over and over, I've never disputed that. For now the fourth time, what is your evidence that laissez faire is a superior model? Can you answer just one of the questions I've asked, sir, at long last can you answer just one!I've done this before to no avail but try again I must. Then I'm outta here.
As I once heard someone say "In one ear and in the other"
"First, if the bubble were to collapse on its own, would the effect on the economy be exceedingly large? Second, is it unlikely that the Fed could mitigate the consequences? Third, is monetary policy the best tool to deflate a house-price bubble?
My answers to these questions in the shortest possible form are, 'no', 'no', and 'no". {They meant yes, yes, yes - same thing isn't it}
September 27, 2005
+ + +
"It is not the responsibility of the Federal Reserve - nor would be appropriate - to protect lenders and investors from the consequences of their financial decisions". {Yet they did, again same thing right?}
August 2007
+ + +
"While the decline in housing activity has been significant and will probability continue for a while longer, I think the concerns we used to hear about {don't go there} the possibility of a devastating collapse {you went there duh} - one that might be big enough to cause a recession in the U.S. economy - have been largely allayed {yup, sure} ."
January 22, 2007
+ + +
Any guesses who said any of those?
And I got plenty more, but I rather get back to more productive use of my time screaming at passing cars from my front porch like grumpy old men do.
I very clearly pointed out that the question doesn't really make sense given that it isn't possible to disambiguate the effects of going through a significant recession every 3-4 years and interest rates. But if it gets you to answer the question you've been trying oh so hard to dodge for post after post, I'll go ahead and give you a more direct answer.
If we didn't have a Fed actively taking a role in the economy the 2008 recession would have resulted in a 1930's style depression which happened when the relatively new Fed was tiny and ineffective, as you seem to want it to be. We'd still be in it. We'd probably have deflation, as we had in the 1930's, which means interest rates would probably be negative, but the path taken to get there would have been a whole lot more painful and the economy would be stopped so getting out of it would be a whole lot harder. Nearly every single one of us would be significantly worse off than we are now. And if you claim that what led up to 2008 wouldn't have happened without a Fed then, as I've shown you several times but you refuse to read, we'd have had a series of recessions and depressions every 2-4 years that lasted a year or more.
OK, your turn. What is your evidence that laissez faire is a superior model? For someone who is so convinced that laissez faire is such a great model, you should be able to answer that question in your sleep. The fact you clearly can't says everything that needs to be said about the matter, all that's left is for you to realize it.
Let me guess, more random words and shucking and jiving? Maybe a hands thrown in the air, "I just can't explain it to you, you wouldn't understand" tack? Economics is hard but predicting your inability to answer a direct question about economics turns out to be child's play!