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.
The panics were government induced and most came about because of a dramatic increase in the money supply. Call it by another name but a Central Bank is still a Central Bank. This is what exposes the amateurs. They think when you rename something it's suddenly different.
It should be noted that Keynesian economics helped prolong the Great Depression and helped prolong the current weak economic times, not help out.
When it comes to economics, Keynes was a hack. His theories have never worked and were never intended for our form of government.
So that you know that you don't know what you are talking about, I will explain.
The Panic of 1907 resulted from the collapse of two brokerage firms. It resulted from a six week stretch of runs on banks in NYC. Oddly the earthquake of 1906 in San Francisco contributed to the financial instability.
Since there was no FED in 1907, The Panic of 1907 could not have happened because of a dramatic increase in the money supply.
If I would have known that there were so many people out there who don't know what they are talking about, I would have asked my employers for much more money.
So that you know that you don't know what you are talking about, I will explain.
The Panic of 1907 resulted from the collapse of two brokerage firms. It resulted from a six week stretch of runs on banks in NYC. Oddly the earthquake of 1906 in San Francisco contributed to the financial instability.
Since there was no FED in 1907, The Panic of 1907 could not have happened because of a dramatic increase in the money supply.
If I would have known that there were so many people out there who don't know what they are talking about, I would have asked my employers for much more money.
Sigh..... It's about government involvement, whether it's the Fed (Central Bank) or the House of Cook or the Sec of the Treasury Leslie Shaw in the case of the Panic of 1907
"Shaw made open-market purchases in recessions and violated the Independent Treasury statutes confining Treasury funds to its own vaults, by depositing Treasury funds in favored large national banks. In his last annual report of 1906, Secretary Shaw urged that he be given total power to regulate all the nation's banks.
The Panic of 1907 struck in October, the result of an inflation stimulated by Secretary of the Treasury Leslie Shaw"
From 1900 to 1907 the money supply increased by 75 percent
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 07-06-2017 at 09:29 PM..
Sigh..... It's about government involvement, whether it's the Fed (Central Bank) or the House of Cook or the Sec of the Treasury Leslie Shaw in the case of the Panic of 1907
"Shaw made open-market purchases in recessions and violated the Independent Treasury statutes confining Treasury funds to its own vaults, by depositing Treasury funds in favored large national banks. In his last annual report of 1906, Secretary Shaw urged that he be given total power to regulate all the nation's banks.
The Panic of 1907 struck in October, the result of an inflation stimulated by Secretary of the Treasury Leslie Shaw"
From 1900 to 1907 the money supply increased by 75 percent
Sigh..... It's about government involvement, whether it's the Fed (Central Bank) or the House of Cook or the Sec of the Treasury Leslie Shaw in the case of the Panic of 1907
"Shaw made open-market purchases in recessions and violated the Independent Treasury statutes confining Treasury funds to its own vaults, by depositing Treasury funds in favored large national banks. In his last annual report of 1906, Secretary Shaw urged that he be given total power to regulate all the nation's banks.
The Panic of 1907 struck in October, the result of an inflation stimulated by Secretary of the Treasury Leslie Shaw"
From 1900 to 1907 the money supply increased by 75 percent
The book that you are quoting from is "the case against the FED" written by Murray Rothbard. According to Wikipedia Rothbard is an Anarcho-Capitalist and a revisionist historian. In other words his views are way out there.
Murray Rothbard and David Ricardo are economists whose views are used to achieved a result by people who use these views to make money.
It should be understood that the the writings of Rothbard should only be read as an economic theory among several.
When your only source of economic information is Rothbard, it becomes like only reading and following Marx.
The book that you are quoting from is "the case against the FED" written by Murray Rothbard. According to Wikipedia Rothbard is an Anarcho-Capitalist and a revisionist historian. In other words his views are way out there.
Murray Rothbard and David Ricardo are economists whose views are used to achieved a result by people who use these views to make money.
It should be understood that the the writings of Rothbard should only be read as an economic theory among several.
When your only source of economic information is Rothbard, it becomes like only reading and following Marx.
I take it you didn't like my video of Rothbard then?
The book that you are quoting from is "the case against the FED" written by Murray Rothbard. According to Wikipedia Rothbard is an Anarcho-Capitalist and a revisionist historian. In other words his views are way out there.
Murray Rothbard and David Ricardo are economists whose views are used to achieved a result by people who use these views to make money.
It should be understood that the the writings of Rothbard should only be read as an economic theory among several.
When your only source of economic information is Rothbard, it becomes like only reading and following Marx.
To quote another famous anarcho-capitalist..."not an argument".
The book that you are quoting from is "the case against the FED" written by Murray Rothbard. According to Wikipedia Rothbard is an Anarcho-Capitalist and a revisionist historian. In other words his views are way out there.
Murray Rothbard and David Ricardo are economists whose views are used to achieved a result by people who use these views to make money.
It should be understood that the the writings of Rothbard should only be read as an economic theory among several.
When your only source of economic information is Rothbard, it becomes like only reading and following Marx.
You didn't say anything. You made something up because you cannot debate the issue.
It should be understood the Austrian economists told us the dot com bubble was coming, they told us the housing bubble was coming, they told us the stock market crash that caused the Great Depression was coming. But don't listen to them listen to you?
There have been a number of people who will argue to the death using economic theories that are not part of accepted modern economic doctrine. Modern economic doctrine accepts the free market theories of Milton Friedman, Keynes, Adam Smith, Paul Krugman, Friedrich Hayek, and Karl Marx.
Murray Rothbard's theories are not part of accepted economic practices and should not be taken seriously.
It should be understood or at least suspected that any attempt by publications or Cable networks that give credibility to Murray Rothbards theories have ulterior motives. Those motives would be efforts to undermine structures that are in place to police and regulate the banking industry.
Yes it is. It is most definitely a political tool. Who do you think appoints the head of the Fed?
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.
