I have recently discovered your Xtranormal vids, and frankly find you a very interesting voice in giving folks a clear and concise (albeit, from your perspective - but one I hope a lot of folks give an ear to) introduction to the subjects you choose. I was just busy introducing a few choice folks to your vids on Quantitative Easing, and noticed you just published this new vid. I love what you are doing here. You are making me think in new ways about these subjects.
Example: Person A invests his salary in a banks stock, forgoing instant gratification, and person B takes out a credit card with that same bank just because they wanted to buy stuff now, over time person B gives their hard earned money to person A in the form of interest; one pays interest to the bank, one earns interest from the bank (think of two half filled glasses of water with one pouring into the other). This goes for mortgages, car loans, student loans etc and it happens faster as time passes. Moral, get out and stay out of debt as quickly as possible, stop giving these people your money if you think they are so evil, stop buying things that you don't need with money that you don't have. The rich get richer in a recession because they educated themselves, worked hard, saved money, built their wealth and were then able to buy shares in companies that were now being sold at a discounted price, once the companies recover from the recession the rich make bumper profits, simple. Far from all were born into riches. Read books like 'The millionaire next door', 'Rich dad, poor dad', 'Total Money Makeover', 'Retire inspired' etc... Point is, educate yourself and stop being a victim, and rather than vilify these people, learn from them.
As you've said, that era is ill understood, and there's a lack of data on the subject. How do they even calculated total economic output at that time? But it's a well known that there was a real recession/depression in the 1870s, and it was not only american. It started in Austria I believed and affected many western countries.
Yeah, no. Rich people having too much money isn't what caused the Great Depression. The creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, in 1913, caused the Great Depression. The banks were no longer bound by deposits. They could borrow money from the Federal Reserve. They allowed people to borrow money in the 1920s, and do whatever they wanted with it. The money was still backed by gold, but only on paper. Many people who borrowed this money, invested it in the stock market. This drove the market up to incredible heights. Then, in 1929, (and this has nothing to do with the stock market crash), a run on gold started, because many astute traders could see the increase in the money supply. So, in 1929, the discount rate was raised to 12%, which effectively cut-off money from the markets, and brought down the stock market, but the run on gold still continued. Raising the rate effectively started reigning-in the excess money. A contraction of the money supply is one of the most damaging things to a free market economy because labor contracts, and mortgages, and all sorts of other contracts, are based on a consistent money supply. When the money supply falls, then every other expense MUST fall, to maintain stability in the economy, but this can't be done because of contracts, as mentioned above. Not only that, but both wages and prices must fall, and this is very difficult. So the money supply was reigned in. Then in 1933, after Roosevelt became president, in March, gold was at such a shortage that the federal government was about to go bankrupt, because, at the time, gold was the only legitimate money in the US. At this time, the money supply had already shrunk by over 30%. Roosevelt felt he had no choice but to ban the ownership of gold. This would require every private citizen in the US to return their gold to the treasury. When all was said and done, even though the money supply had shrunk by over 30%, gold was then devalued another 40%, which demonstrated in real terms, how much additional money had been pumped into the economy. The Federal Reserve was created to stop bank runs, and ease credit during the brief recessions of the 1800s, which rarely lasted more than a year. Instead, it created catastrophic recessions which lasted over a decade in the 1930s, and the 1970, and arguably since 2008, today.
Actually, the creation of the Fed wasn't the ultimate CAUSE of the great depression, or any depression, rather it was and is a TOOL used to enrich a select few at the expense of all others. Basically depressions are but one part of the Fed induced "economic cycle." First, The Fed lowers interest rates to member banks, who in turn lower their consumer loan rates and relax lending standards. Businesses and people, that are otherwise unqualified, borrow money for projects that would be unprofitable or items that would be unaffordable without the easy money. As a result, businesses and people are in deep debt. Next, The Fed increases the interest rates to member banks, who in turn increase their consumer loan rates and tighten lending standards (because since they must pay higher rates, they need to be sure to lend to better credit risks). As a result, once profitable projects become unprofitable at the new higher interest rates, thus businesses decline to borrow and expand operations, or some, once dependent on the easy money, scale back operations, leading to layoffs. Some people, once qualified to borrow under easy money policy, are no longer qualified, so they can't borrow. Others that did borrow, now laid off from work, can't keep up loan payments leading to repossessions, dispossessions, evictions, and foreclosures. Because money for the vast majority of people and businesses is tight, demand goes down, while desire and need to sell off items, from manufactured goods and food to stock and real estate, vastly increases, leading to lower selling prices. In comes the rich: since prices have gone down, especially so for financial instruments and real estate, they snap up the remaining supply for pennies on the dollar. THAT is how the rich remain rich or get richer while the average Joe gets poorer during a depression. Further, those that control the Fed plan and execute booms and busts and the main reason why they "appear" to be randomized is because the Fed refuses to share its money policy plans with the masses in advance of their execution.
@@EnergeticWaves yes i was about to say that, the devaluation was temporary and discouraged ppl from buying gold and encouraged to sell. Once the ownership of gold was low, if became "rare" and its price boomed ever since.
@@macplatt6183 exactly. In summary: The rich buy the dip in the economy crises, and sell at tops. Also now they encourage pandemics for v4xine profits from directly selling to the governments (pfizer, j&j, moderna, etc). Its the best investment strategy and the worst scam in history lmfao.
The quotes are from Herbert Hoover's acceptance speech for renomination for the Republican nomination in August 17th 1932. As FDR's Treasury Secretary stated, FDR continued and expanded Hoover's interventionist policies. FDR's policies were, in fact, devised by the Hoover administration.
If you've read the famous work of Friedman, his argument is that the contraction of the money supply was indeed the CAUSE for the depression. Not the crash, but the ensuing long depression And no, the contraction wasn't caused by "interventions that prevented liquidation", it was caused by the systemic bank failures and the recessive spiral. Friedman's point is precisely this: that the Fed needed to intervene to save the banks and provide credit. But it DIDN'T
For those reading this exchange, Majlerin is touting the Keynesian line. This economic theory is the same one that caused the problem, the one that is perpetuating it. Keynesians told everyone that everything was just fine right up to the collapse, then said that no one could have predicted it. My point of view is the Austrian theory, which did in fact predict the crisis and explains why we are still in the dumps, 'because' of what the Keynesians are doing. More...
Essentially, Friedman believed that that the Fed/government should have prevented bank failures by supporting them with loans, monetize debt by expanding the money supply; prevent firms from failing by bailouts, and keep wages high by liquidity injections by the Fed into the economy. Japan did all of this post 1990. The USA is doing the same. It doesn't work. Treating symptoms is not a cure.
FYI Google: " FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate" But it was actually Hoovers interventionist policies that got it started. FDR made it worse.
Still more frequent than today ;) And that's "MAJOR banking panics". Minor banking panics, bank runs, were much more common than today. And from that same article: "panics were a substantial source of economic instability prior to the founding of the Federal Reserve"
"From 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for real GDP and 4.5% for real GDP per capita, despite the panic of 1873. The economy repeated this period of growth in the 1880s, in which the wealth of the nation grew at an annual rate of 3.8%, while the GDP was also doubled." :"The highest decadal rate [of growth of real reproducible, tangible wealth per head from 1805 to 1950] for periods of about ten years was apparently reached in the eighties with approximately 3.8 percent."
"In December 1982,the CWRIC issued its findings on Executive order 9066 in "Personal Justice Denied", concluding that the incarceration of Japanese Americans had not been justified by military necessity. The report determined that the decision to incarcerate was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." On August 10, 1988, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, based on the CWRIC recommendations, was signed into law by Ronald Reagan."
"Perhaps the greatest modern champion of central economic planning was the 20th century English economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes, who was a political socialist and for a time a central banker, advocated the idea that the government should play a large, active role in the economy. Among the consequences of Keynes' economic theories, whether intended or unintended, is the fact that Western economies today are characterized by large, central governments, central banks and massive debts."
The issue to the whole problem isn't the fact that people such as warren buffet or other super wealthy people don't get taxed the issue is that we aren't taxing them in the right area. The biggest tax that you will ever pay is EARNED INCOME look up Robert Kiyosaki he explains this. If you put money in savings and get interest or punch a clock at work you make earned income and uncle Sam can take as much as 50% of your salary. Rich people don't get taxed because their money comes from INVESTMENTS. Their real estate homes, apartments, stocks, bonds, options, futures. And they protect all of these assets by putting them into a trust which is tax-free. Wealthy are intelligent when it comes to money their not stupid. Because they know the laws and loopholes they will keep their billions and use tax write offs by lowering their income to being as much as a poor person.
I only blame big government. I never made more than 30,000K until a couple of years ago. Yet, I got a quarter million saved. I avoid debt like the plague. The only ones fighting for what I want is the Tea Party. More power to them. They're the only ones trying to shrink the size of government. More taxes and regulation=less freedom.
Truth! Having said that, it doesn't make a fuck bit of difference because many of the plebs will still hate you regardless of what kind of rich you are.
As shown in my other comment, the DEFLATIONARY period between 1870-to 1895 had the greatest economic growth in American History: "The highest decadal rate [of growth of real reproducible, tangible wealth per head from 1805 to 1950] for periods of about ten years was apparently reached in the eighties with approximately 3.8 percent." There is your Milton Friedman quote>
I meant the late 1970s - early 1980s. Keynesianism was forsaken at that time. Thus we entered the 'dark age of economics' Name one central banker since the 1980s that was 'keynesian'. And btw, the Great Society was just a social program, it wasn't keynesian at all, it wasn't meant to increase demand or mitigate a recession. Inflation was already too high at the time, that's why they brought Volcker in to reduce it
For example a office building that was built specifically for mortgage brokers would have sold for a premium during the housing boom. When there is reduced demand for mortgages due to a burst bubble, the building could be converted to say a physical fitness firm. But not at a premium price. It must be liquidated to make financial sense. If the gov't props up the market costs of maintaining it resources are wasted else the asset is idle or it depreciates in value.
The price inflation context was OVER the first 120 years. AGAIN I said the bank panics were overestimated in frequency and effect on the economic growth of the USA. This has now been confirmed in multiple studies. The claims on bank panics frequency were based on the Kemmerer series now found to be erroneous and based on serious flaws. If you are unable to keep up with recent economic studies, this is a waste of time.
USA industrialized rapidly after the first two decades of the 19th Century. By the 1870's the USA passed Great Britain as the worlds most industrialized nation. That is the period we are talking about.Recent studies by economic historians show conclusively that bank panics have been exaggerated and had caused minimal effect on the growth of the US economy. Those bank panics were caused by excessive expansion of credit. The very thing that Keynesians think solves the problem is the problem.
There was no inflation in those countries. It was a deflationary period, A structural deflation existed from 1873 until the cycle upswing that started in 1896. Milton Friedman (-1.7%/year, USA .8% in GB) Note also that the economic data over that period is being reworked. The claimed recessions over that time were actually shorter and milder than thought. The bank panics were caused by excessive credit expansion and prosperity and GDP growth were much higher: Thus "the gilded age".
The bubble was caused by excessive credit expansion as a result of ECB monetary policy. When a bubble collapses, credit backed by nothing causes a bust. Toxic bank debt needed to be liquidated at market prices. That would not have destroyed the Spanish (or our) economy. A sharp economic downturn would have ended by now. Instead, we have a crippled economy.
The US entered WWI in April, 1917; Russia left the war in December of '17. Government regulation in the Progressive era did help certain corporations over others, but its very existence was still a departure from 19th century "pure" capitalism. Wilson and Roosevelt as presidents could only take Progressivism so far, much like Kennedy with civil rights.
I did not say 'all' small and medium sized banks were healthy, I said the vast majority, and they were. The ones that were not should have been allowed to fail. Their assets, those that were not toxic, would have been bought by solvent institutions. The only things that would have collapsed are those things that 'should' do so, as they are loosing money (businesses) or essentially fraudulent (toxic assets).
No, i never said that "the last quarter of the 19th was a inflationary period". That was some other guy replying to me, and he was probably being ironic "Then you claimed that deflation couldn't coexist with economic expansion:" It was a generalization. Obviously it can exist, but it's difficult, because in normal conditions, and namely today, it hurts growth
"We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action…. No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times….:" Herbert Hoover 1932.
My description was unfortunately vague due to the limit of only 500 characters in a RU-vid comment. An individual investor loosing would not be bailed out. But if they were invested in an investment bank that was "too big to fail", then they would be bailed out by the bank being bailed out. Tarp for instance was a rescue plan for the super wealthy, paid for by the poor, the middle class and the unborn.
What video in Spain? I remember one with a Austrian unknown chap who blabbed on about 'Japan soaring inflation' Spain didn't "adopt Krugman's methods". Spain has been trying to cut its deficit since 2009 or so. Spain had a huge housing bubble, mainly targeted at wealthy northern europeans, and it wasn't caused by any 'monetary expansion'. The euro is like a gold standard, there's no expansion.
"People" didn't "allow" the government to "grow past its limited constitutional functions." The corporate special interests grew by deliberate state non-intervention, based on compliant politicians and judges, especially in the latter quarter of the 19th century. It then became necessary for national legislation to oversee interstate corporate trade. Government as regulator *of* businesses, as opposed to a regulator *for* business, is a product of the Progressive era.
Government should not have bailed out anyone NOR given a stimulus check to anyone. Because of that, the economy did not deflate like it normally would during a recession. Instead, the dollar remained neutral while wages still decreased and layoffs happened. Government action made the recession far, far worse than it otherwise would have been.
"Keynesian economics requires Central Banks" but central banks don't require Keynesianism, Einstein. Central banks existed for more than a century in Europe before any keynesnism All major countries had central banks in the CLASSICAL GOLD ERA (1950-1914)
In raw numbers. Adjust for inflation. Also capital gains have increased, and taxes are even more deeply cut. "Gov. spending" also covers "corporate welfare" and things like Medicare/Medicaid, which subsidizes the private health industry. That's why gov. spending can increase, capitalist profits go up, and the rest are left swimming in the leftovers.
The issue is if deflation dampened the prosperity. It's likely that it did. In a deflationary period, like that one, nominal-valued debts become unsustainable.
Paul Krugman quotes 2002: "Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer." "To fight this recession the Fed needs…soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. [So] Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." "To be honest, a new bubble now would help us out a lot even if we paid for it later. This is a really good time for a bubble" Keynesian s didn't predict they advocated..
"The logical chain beginning with Keynes' fundamental idea that government, supported by a central bank, should play a large and active role in the economy sets the stage for a centrally planned economy and ultimately produces a corporate state."
Much can be said of the period. The business press at least was very negative at times. Business expectations affect the level of investment The issue is not if the period was good compared to previous times, of course it was. But that prosperity came from spurious factors: a tech revolution, peace (after the 1948 revolutions in Europe and the civil war in America), colonialism, increasing globalization etc. As well as a refinement of business and economic knowledge
The bubble then crashed when the recession hit. House prices have fallen dramatically since, and the whole economy with it. The 'toxic' bank debt that resulted would have destroyed the spanish economy if the govt and foreign lenders hadn't stepped in
You were originally talking about Teddy Roosevelt. The incarceration of Japanese resident nationals and Japanese-American citizens under FDR is already well known.
Karl Denninger has been explaining that it's really not a free market when other countries don't have to play by the same labor and environmental rules, and conform to first-world notions of human rights. If they did, labor would not be nearly as cheap in those other countries...............
Just because you are too uncreative to come up with ideas to make money, it doesn't mean other people are like you too, and so they are lying. But to answer your question, I got into investing and business after I found investopedia (which is a great free source of valuable info btw). After that I started saving money and buying books and after a while I had enough knowledge and confidence to turn my savings into assets which in turn produced more money for me. And I was referring to Hungary.
So you want a system where banks wouldn't lend to one another? Let's see how such a system would work: 1) you put yours moneys in a small bank. 2) the bank lends out your money 3) Some of the loans default, the bank cannot repay the depositors, and there's a run on the bank 4) Congrats, you've just lost all your money because the bank cannot loan from other banks hurray
When the US and global economy collapses, our problems will initially be much worse. Like how to find food to eat, water to drink, and defend ourselves from the criminally desperate. But eventually a better system will rise from the ashes. How long that process takes is the million dollar question...
Read about the great depression and you'll see it was the lower and middle class who got slammed; the unemployment was incredible. The wealthy got richer as a result of the depression; cash was king; it was a great time to accumulate tangible assets like real estate. My parents and grandparents lived through it; the poverty was devastating. I don't want to see it happen again.
First, it's impossible to achieve stable prices *without* a central bank controlling the money supply. Supply and demand of goods always change, so even with a constant money supply, prices would change. Second, steady growth can be done without inflation, but it will general be slower, simply because there's less incentive to invest in non-capital, non-monetary stuff. When there's inflation, people don't hoard money
Then why was the economy so much better with higher wages and a much larger middle class when Unions were a plenty. I don't agree with Unions in the public sector, but advocate them in the large private corporations.
How to make money during recession: when the recession is coming, you sell all your stock. And get $b in cash. Then you buy the shares which are now very cheap, and have them grow when recession is over.
The growing wealth gap is caused by the Federal Reserve and it's low interest, inflationary policy. Inflation is 'deliberately' manufactured so prices will rise by ~3% instead of fall by ~5% which they would in a true free market. That 8% annual reduction in purchasing power kills the poor and middle class. Meanwhile the wealthy can avail themselves of artificially low interest rates (literally negative) to leverage their investments, & if they fail, their losses are covered by government.
Spain adopted Keynesian Fiscal policy long before 2009. For decades. And monetary policy: "The single European monetary policy was too loose for the rapidly growing GIIPS" from THE EURO IN CRISIS - Carnegie Endowment No ,monetary expansion???? EU M3 rose dramatically from 2001. It had tripled by the end of 2008. Source: ECB Stastical Data Warehouse.
"Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for men and women. Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom…. We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction"
Not quite. The first revolution and the overthrow of the Czar was in Feb 1917. The provisional government had announced it's intention to withdraw from the war earlier, and Russian forces had already ceased operations against the Germans several months earlier. Although the OFFICIAL date was later in Dec, 1917, the reality was the Russians were out of the war. See Chris Hedges work on that subject. Progressive became a alliance of special interests: big corporations, big labor and gov't.
Inflation doesn't "kills the poor and middle class." Inflation hurts above all those who live off nominal rents. The rentier class. Such as bond holders and creditors. Which are all mainly well-off. Those who BENEFIT from inflation are the 'poor and middle class': those who live off inflation-adjusted wages, and the unemployed who get jobs b/c of the boosted economy,
I didn't "confuse" T Roosevelt with FDR. I assumed anyone with knowledge of history would understand my reference. Fact is that regulation WAS set up by progressives for Corporate interests. The largest misuse of the Commence Clause was FDR when WW 2 started many young failed the physical due to malnutrition due to FDR's Ag policies to create food shortages and increase prices. Your Arnold reference is just weird given his career.
When did I say I'm unemployeed, what does any of this have to do with employement? Again, somebody else missed the point articulated by the good man Malekanoms and lashed out on the internet community in their moments of confusion.
That article is written by a gold bug lol. Anyway, you could say he's a keynesian now, because of the recent crisis. It's perfectly natural for a RATIONAL individual to be keynesian now, simply because the Monetarist recipe for reviving the economy isn't working that well. But Bernanke's still mainly monetarist, and he's known for that. His academic works, especially on the G.B., had mostly a monetarist view if i'm not mistaken Of course the real world tends to be different than academia :)
FDR. Executive order 9066 incarcerated 144,000 Americans of Japanese descent. Including many that were born in the US. 16,000 German and Italian Americans were also imprisoned, This was a direct violation of Article One, Section 9 and violated the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments. This continued the progressive assault on civil rights began by Woodrow Wilson who arrested 175,000 people for criticizing his regime. Wilson's methods were later cited by the Nazi's as "inspiring".
I said I reposted all those comments. I just remove them to edit the orthography. and then post them again No need to whine and complain about it dude. You just have to press the 'refresh' button, or use the auto-update option
"expansionary FISCAL policy" may be done by various reasons. It's keynesian when it's keynesian. There's many reasons to use them other than to meet keynesian goals. Bernanke is a Monetarist, not a keynesian
The point of the video is that in the current system the rich get richer via government bailouts ie government spending. Not the creation of new capital.
Another point is that savers and people on fixed incomes are getting destroyed. All of the wealth is going into commodities like oil and gold, and the stock and bond market. If you want to protect yourself from all this money printing, buy gold and silver!
Yeah, a guy who says Fractional reserve banking is "evil and immoral" is certainly a unbiased very serious scholar :) Lots of economic studies that he did to arrive at that conclusion i'm sure
Look up the Austrian business cycle for how the economy would work free from the control of central banks, and governments. It's an interesting contrast to the current system.
but before anyone can invest or buy anything they all must work and they all must earn there necessities to sustain biological energy production to avoid self dissassembling which means agreements verbally or contractually
As much as I loved the Quantitative Easing Explained video, this may be the best in this series. I loved "The Bernank" and "Buffay" in their own words, and their arrogant celebrations of their deceits and anti Robin Hood behavior.
Most of that 'expansion of govt spending' came in the Bush years and from its policies (hence it was not countercyclical stimulus), and from the contraction in GDP 2009. The fiscal stimulus ended in 2010 in any event. Since then the spending hasn't increased much: $6trillion in 2009, same for 2010, $6.1tn in 2011, $6.3tn in 2012 As a % of GDP it actually DECREASED from 43% in 2009 to 41% in 2012
The banks don't "receive the new money early". The banks create the money. They are the money. If banks didn't lend you 'money', you wouldn't have any. And without inflation, they wouldn't lend you money. It's the central bank/govt itself that "gets money early", and then passes it on by lending to other banks, spending it, buying bonds etc. Money is just that - credit Anyway, with a typical stable, predictable inflation, most wages and benefits are adjusted accordingly.
In the area where I live many young people had everything handed to them. Some are family relatives. Prior to the 80's, huge wealth was generated by the local coal industry. However, the coal industry was crushed by environmentalists, and the jobs are long gone. The kids of those who worked so hard to make their fortunes were handed the money. In almost every case they are lazy and are squandering it. Some of them have entered politics in an attempt to maintain their illusion of self-importance.
I don't have any problem with it. I'm just saying that you are using a particular definition of the term "central planning" - your own made up definition. And that muddles the discussion. Please use the standard terms
Only Keynesian sources are "unbiased"?.....BTW I used those references since that seems to be at your level. But go ahead and read: >Friedman, Schwartz. A Monetary History of the United States: 1867-1960. >A.E. Musson. "The Great Depression in Britain, 1873-1896: a Reappraisal", The Journal of Economic History (1959), 19: 199-228 > George Selgin. "Less Than Zero - The Case for a Falling Price Level in a Growing Economy", The Institute of Economic Affairs, 1997, p.49-53. Especially the last
I would be happy to invest in a period of zero monetary inflation as was the case over the vast majority of the history of the USA. Knowing what materials and labor would cost stabilizes risk in production. Profit is profit, and a return on investment knowing that that return is worth the same, or in the case of lowering prices even more is attractive. The difference is that speculation and leverage are NOT rewarded and are more risky. Results are steady growth instead of booms and busts.
You talked of "zero price inflation for the first 120 years", which didn't happen. Bank panics existed and were very common. And the 'excessive credit' was also very real - the easy credit was exactly one of the reasons for the rapid growth of America. If you are saying that "excessive credit" was a problem, you really have it backwards lol. Without that same excessive credit the US economy would have grown much slower.
No, but Rothbard!? lol. People who say thinks that "F.R.B is evil"? Austrians have been predicting collapses since the 19th century ;) They say always the same thing. Post-Keynesians also predicted the collapse in 2002 Krugman never advocated for a housing bubble. He was commenting on the situation, and saying the Greenspan couldn't offset the Nasdaq bubble he created with monetary policy *alone*, as he was trying to do
If you have enough debt, you can blackmail the banks into not calling your loans. If you're rich enough, you can blackmail the government into bailing out the banks. Either way the rest of us are screwed.
This began as a good video (investing now can yield terrific results decades from now), but it derailed. The bank bailouts were designed to keep more banks from failing. More bank failures means more mortgages going under, and less liquidity for businesses and individuals. This would contract the money supply further and that would affect everyone, rich and poor. Its true some people profited heavily from the bailouts, but most banks and AIG paid back the money they borrowed.
Wrong. The entire period was an attempt to stimulate after the crash in 2000. And no, the fiscal stimulus didn't end in 2010. Government spending (state, local and federal ) is 41% of GDP Higher if you subtract the deficit spending of 7% and re-figure ir honestly (41%/100%-7% or 44%. In FY 2000 total government spending was 33%. So government spending is up by 24% or 33% depending on how you figure it. The stimulus is ongoing.
The rich have been getting richer exponentially since Reagan. They actually got considerably poorer in the 2008 crisis (but they recovered already) Why? The expansion of Wall Street. Tax cuts. Deregulation. Market liberalization. Reaganomics - a bonanza for the rich
This is good but it really misses the mark as to why the government does this kind of stuff. You need to go back to the start of the Progressive era of gov't which was pushed by guys like JP Morgan. He understood that involving gov't in private contracts under the guise of protecting labor, would make gov't the backstop to their wealth. He knew you can't protect labor without protecting their employer. So long as gov't believes that its job is to create jobs, the wealthy will benefit.
No., The study cited both major and minor. Using the "minor" criteria, the results showed there were even more bank crisis after 1913. Add in the Great Depression, Stagflation of the 1970's til '82 and now. and the results are dismal. for the Fed. You didn't read the cited study and are not keeping up with current work. .
Did I make any commentary on the economy? No, the video we all just watched did, and I just agreed with it and made a statement about how knowing seems to not be enough to solve the problem. So why don't you take a little more time to articulate your thoughts when speaking to a "stupid stoner" like me... Also, did I blame all my problems on the 1%, no I don't utter hyperboles at random... It's very obvious you missed the point of this video and my comment regarding it.
