Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've never heard of the Depression of 1920?
Because it was over within a year, as the government let it run its course.
The first year of the 1920 Depression was worse than that of 1929. Conditions were horrible.
Yet due to President Woodrow Wilson's stroke near the end of his term, very little was done by the government to stop the economic decline.
By the summer of 1921, recovery was on the way.
It's too bad we're scared into thinking that economic downturns automatically require bold government action. History shows they don't necessarily require any.
The facts, however, do not support the common interpretation. Hoover did indeed begin massive government intervention in the economy, and to such an extent that FDR during the 1932 election actually criticized him for his extravagance. Herbert Hoover, despite the conventional wisdom, was not a laissez-faire capitalist and believed in government intervention in the economy.
As a member of the Harding administration, Hoover recommend government stimulation of the economy to stop the 1920 depression, but Harding ignored his advice and let the recovery take place naturally without bailouts or government spending. Instead, Harding cut taxes on all income groups, cut the budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922 and cut the national debt, not deficit, but debt by one-third! The recovery was swift, with evidence of it beginning in the late summer of 1921. Unemployment fell to 6.7 percent and in 1923 finally to 2.4 percent.
The 1920 Depression is forgotten as is President Harding's sound handling of the crisis. Politicians of today are learning the wrong lessons, once again, copying the strategies that led to more than fifteen years of economic stagnation during FDR's reign.
So the lowering of interest rates by the Federal Reserve which is the CENTRAL BANK below market which led to the mal investment wasn't managed?????
So the Housing loans where lending standards were lowered so that people who normally didn't earn enough to get a loan now could, is not managed??? So the Housing loans where lending standards were lowered so that people who didn't have a history of good credit that normally stopped them form getting a loan, but now could, is not managed??? So the Housing loans where lending standards were lowered so that people who only had 5 percent or less for a down payment because their ability to save like normal good risks, but now could, was not managed?
You know I think people would understand this better if they studied our history from President Jackson's time, when he got rid of our last Central Bank, (The Bank of the United States) and paid off our national debt -- the only President ever to do so --- through to when President Wilson temporarily lost is mind and allowed the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and gave the control of the monetary system back to the banksters 80 years later.
Those 80 years were the best years in our history as far as American's Standard of living was concerned.
All you need to do to see this is to look at the purchasing power of the dollar back then and see how cheap everything was (which meant that more and more people could afford stuff). Also look at how, relatively speaking, everything had gotten so expensive when the Central Bank was still in operation. That shows the money manipulation effects by Central Banks.
Granted, that period of time was no Gravy Train for banksters. Although they still had the Fractional Reserve Banking system which is a ponzi scheme in itself. But all they could do was old fashioned banking.
This time we should not only get RID of them but ALSO get rid of Fractional Reserve Banking. Make them earn an honest living like you have to in every other industry.
I'd love to see it dissolved and then, like in the days of Jackson, see the economy dramatically improve---steadily for 80 years!
Note that all the commenters (or at least the first 40 or so I read) were all in support of Ron Paul! I bet Romney will be lucky to have 20% of the delegates truly backing him at the RNC.
Here's a quote from the article which is an understatement if there ever was one:
<<If the challenges aren't resolved smoothly, there could be bitter fights over how many delegates actually vote for Romney as their presidential nominee on the first ballot, and the hard feelings could intensify battles over the party platform.
All this could make it more difficult for the GOP and the Romney campaign to present a harmonious image at the convention and to enter the final sprint to the lection in a unified position>>
Note a new word - "lection" LOL. You'd think "U.S. News and World Report" could hire editors who had a command of the English language past the 3rd grade level.
By the way, it is Greta Van Susteren interviewing this guy. I wonder if she cared to interview Romney? This guy really sums up I think how the world feels about Ron Paul.
You've never heard of the Depression of 1920?
Because it was over within a year, as the government let it run its course.
The first year of the 1920 Depression was worse than that of 1929. Conditions were horrible.
Yet due to President Woodrow Wilson's stroke near the end of his term, very little was done by the government to stop the economic decline.
By the summer of 1921, recovery was on the way.
It's too bad we're scared into thinking that economic downturns automatically require bold government action. History shows they don't necessarily require any.
The facts, however, do not support the common interpretation. Hoover did indeed begin massive government intervention in the economy, and to such an extent that FDR during the 1932 election actually criticized him for his extravagance. Herbert Hoover, despite the conventional wisdom, was not a laissez-faire capitalist and believed in government intervention in the economy.
As a member of the Harding administration, Hoover recommend government stimulation of the economy to stop the 1920 depression, but Harding ignored his advice and let the recovery take place naturally without bailouts or government spending. Instead, Harding cut taxes on all income groups, cut the budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922 and cut the national debt, not deficit, but debt by one-third! The recovery was swift, with evidence of it beginning in the late summer of 1921. Unemployment fell to 6.7 percent and in 1923 finally to 2.4 percent.
The 1920 Depression is forgotten as is President Harding's sound handling of the crisis. Politicians of today are learning the wrong lessons, once again, copying the strategies that led to more than fifteen years of economic stagnation during FDR's reign.
What makes you think I've not heard of the 1920 Depression?
Did you not even bother to read the link I posted?
Apparently not.
Well here's another that you'll probably not bother reading either:
Both articles essentially say the same thing - that folks like you take away from that event the lessons you WANT to take away from it without really bothering to look at the FULL picture - highlighting what you want to highlight and IGNORING the facts that "spoil your theory".
The fact is, economics is a SOFT science - one where very little is "proveable" and virtually everything is just "theory" - that's WHY there are two main economic "camps". If economics was "proveable" there wouldn't be such disagreement between the Keynesian and Austrian economic camps - but it isn't "proveable". No one can rewind history and say "lets try this approach this time - as compared to that approach last time". Recessions/Depressions are like children in the same family - they all have things in common but no two are exactly alike so comparing one to another is "suspect" at best.
I assumed the rich lost the most during the last recession too. I mean I've not looked it up or anything but it is often pointed out that the wealthy have far more of their net worth invested in things like the stock market, and that dropped from what 14k to 6k? Be an interesting thing to look into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilybh
You know I think people would understand this better if they studied our history from President Jackson's time
(...)
Those 80 years were the best years in our history as far as American's Standard of living was concerned.
Come on, I bet if I sent you back to the 1800s you'd be singing a completely different tune on best years for the standard of living. One trip to the outhouse on a cold winter night and you'd be begging to come back to your nice climate controlled modern home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
