What is "Unfettered Capitalism"?

[Flopper]

No, I'm referring to our government's responsibility to keep our free markets free of corruption and protection of the health and safety of the public; specifically full disclosure of investor information so it's available to not just to the wealthy and power but all Americans, banking regulations that guarantee the safety of deposits, product regulations particularly health and safety that insure that the food we eat and our medicines are safe, and protection of our most precious resources, the air we breath and water we drink.

Well, you're wrapping up quite a bit there. Transparency in trade is important, and I'd agree the state has a responsibility to punish fraud. But "safety" is dubiously subjective. "Protecting" people from their own willingness to accept risk isn't a coherent concept. If I'm willing to drink raw milk, or try out drugs that haven't yet been approved by government, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

To be blunt, I simply don't buy the idea that government is there to protect us from our own ignorance. That's rationalizing tyranny.

Imagine an American in which people were wary of putting their money in banks or putting their retirement savings in the hands of financial institutions, an America in which businesses were free to use any tactic to sell their products with no fear of government intervention. That's not an America where I would want to live.

I have no problem with taking risks in business or investing as long I'm not playing with a stacked deck. However, when it comes to the health and safety of my family, I'm not a risk taker and I doubt many other Americans are.

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

 

[SwimExpert]

I never made those claims. Go post it up.

Right here:

There's no such thing as a free market.

Don't blame me for your own statements amounting to stupidity, leading to getting yourself called out. Get informed and come back when you're smarter.

Go fuck yourself you smug prick. What I said is true, you can't twist it into whatever you want. No market is totally free, that's anarchy and exists no where except a Mad Max movie. I made that point clear since day one.

Dumb fuck!

Wow, your signature to this post is so perfect, nice job Mr. Dumb Fuck.

My signature is the same in every post, asshole. I made the same point since day one, you two go do what you do best.

That was clearly over weasel's head.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, you're wrapping up quite a bit there. Transparency in trade is important, and I'd agree the state has a responsibility to punish fraud. But "safety" is dubiously subjective. "Protecting" people from their own willingness to accept risk isn't a coherent concept. If I'm willing to drink raw milk, or try out drugs that haven't yet been approved by government, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

To be blunt, I simply don't buy the idea that government is there to protect us from our own ignorance. That's rationalizing tyranny.

Imagine an American in which people were wary of putting their money in banks or putting their retirement savings in the hands of financial institutions, an America in which businesses were free to use any tactic to sell their products with no fear of government intervention. That's not an America where I would want to live.

I have no problem with taking risks in business or investing as long I'm not playing with a stacked deck. However, when it comes to the health and safety of my family, I'm not a risk taker and I doubt many other Americans are.

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

The economy expanded far faster between 1860 and 1920 than it did in the period afterwards.
Obviously people used banks. But if you think we havent had bank failures since thn you're sadly mistaken.

 

[Contumacious]

Well, you're wrapping up quite a bit there. Transparency in trade is important, and I'd agree the state has a responsibility to punish fraud. But "safety" is dubiously subjective. "Protecting" people from their own willingness to accept risk isn't a coherent concept. If I'm willing to drink raw milk, or try out drugs that haven't yet been approved by government, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that?

To be blunt, I simply don't buy the idea that government is there to protect us from our own ignorance. That's rationalizing tyranny.

Imagine an American in which people were wary of putting their money in banks or putting their retirement savings in the hands of financial institutions, an America in which businesses were free to use any tactic to sell their products with no fear of government intervention. That's not an America where I would want to live.

I have no problem with taking risks in business or investing as long I'm not playing with a stacked deck. However, when it comes to the health and safety of my family, I'm not a risk taker and I doubt many other Americans are.

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

 

[rightwinger]

Imagine an American in which people were wary of putting their money in banks or putting their retirement savings in the hands of financial institutions, an America in which businesses were free to use any tactic to sell their products with no fear of government intervention. That's not an America where I would want to live.

I have no problem with taking risks in business or investing as long I'm not playing with a stacked deck. However, when it comes to the health and safety of my family, I'm not a risk taker and I doubt many other Americans are.

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

The economy expanded far faster between 1860 and 1920 than it did in the period afterwards.
Obviously people used banks. But if you think we havent had bank failures since thn you're sadly mistaken.

How profound...

Post Civil War America saw the rise of the Railroads, Steel, Oil and Communications

As usual, Rabbi only tells half the story

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

The economy expanded far faster between 1860 and 1920 than it did in the period afterwards.
Obviously people used banks. But if you think we havent had bank failures since thn you're sadly mistaken.

How profound...

Post Civil War America saw the rise of the Railroads, Steel, Oil and Communications

As usual, Rabbi only tells half the story

thanks!

 

[Flopper]

Imagine an American in which people were wary of putting their money in banks or putting their retirement savings in the hands of financial institutions, an America in which businesses were free to use any tactic to sell their products with no fear of government intervention. That's not an America where I would want to live.

I have no problem with taking risks in business or investing as long I'm not playing with a stacked deck. However, when it comes to the health and safety of my family, I'm not a risk taker and I doubt many other Americans are.

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

The economy expanded far faster between 1860 and 1920 than it did in the period afterwards.
Obviously people used banks. But if you think we havent had bank failures since thn you're sadly mistaken.

Not so.
Real GDP growth expanded in the 60 year period from 1860 to 1920 330%. In the period from 1950 to to 2010, real GDP expanded 590%. What makes the economic growth in the second half of the 20th century so much more impressive than that of 19th century is the growth in middle class. The economic growth in second half of the 19th century was a boom or bust economy which left out most of the lower and middle class workers because they had essential no equity in American business.
.

US Gross Domestic Product GDP History United States 1950-2010 - Federal State Local Data

 

[Flopper]

Imagine an American in which people were wary of putting their money in banks or putting their retirement savings in the hands of financial institutions, an America in which businesses were free to use any tactic to sell their products with no fear of government intervention. That's not an America where I would want to live.

I have no problem with taking risks in business or investing as long I'm not playing with a stacked deck. However, when it comes to the health and safety of my family, I'm not a risk taker and I doubt many other Americans are.

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

And how many US banking crisis have occur after the 1930's banking reforms. Exactly zero. How much money has been lost by depositors in federally insured banks during that period. Exactly Zero. Only a fool would choose 19th century banking over the heavily regulated banks of today.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

And how many US banking crisis have occur after the 1930's banking reforms. Exactly zero. How much money has been lost by depositors in federally insured banks during that period. Exactly Zero. Only a fool would choose 19th century banking over the heavily regulated banks of today.

So the Petrodollar crisis in the 1970s, the S&L crisis in the 1980s and the banking crisis of 2008 never happened? Kewl!

 

[Flopper]

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

And how many US banking crisis have occur after the 1930's banking reforms. Exactly zero. How much money has been lost by depositors in federally insured banks during that period. Exactly Zero. Only a fool would choose 19th century banking over the heavily regulated banks of today.

So the Petrodollar crisis in the 1970s, the S&L crisis in the 1980s and the banking crisis of 2008 never happened? Kewl!

Those were not banking crisis in the US. A banking crisis is a series of unexpected cash withdrawals caused by a sudden decline in depositor confidence or fear that the bank will close.

Banking crisis

 

[The Rabbi]

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

And how many US banking crisis have occur after the 1930's banking reforms. Exactly zero. How much money has been lost by depositors in federally insured banks during that period. Exactly Zero. Only a fool would choose 19th century banking over the heavily regulated banks of today.

So the Petrodollar crisis in the 1970s, the S&L crisis in the 1980s and the banking crisis of 2008 never happened? Kewl!

Those were not banking crisis in the US. A banking crisis is a series of unexpected cash withdrawals caused by a sudden decline in depositor confidence or fear that the bank will close.

Banking crisis

So now you get to go back and redefine terms to fit your agenda.
What you describe is a bank run. And there have been those as well.

 

[Flopper]

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

And how many US banking crisis have occur after the 1930's banking reforms. Exactly zero. How much money has been lost by depositors in federally insured banks during that period. Exactly Zero. Only a fool would choose 19th century banking over the heavily regulated banks of today.

So the Petrodollar crisis in the 1970s, the S&L crisis in the 1980s and the banking crisis of 2008 never happened? Kewl!

Those were not banking crisis in the US. A banking crisis is a series of unexpected cash withdrawals caused by a sudden decline in depositor confidence or fear that the bank will close.

Banking crisis

So now you get to go back and redefine terms to fit your agenda.
What you describe is a bank run. And there have been those as well.

A bank run, bank panic, and banking crisis are essentially the thing, lose of confidence resulting in unexpected withdrawals, or closures. Bank runs simply don't occur in federal insured banks because the fed pays depositor if the bank can't. There are many problems banks can have that are not banking crises. You have given several examples. BTW Saving & Loans were not banks in the 1980's and were not regulated as FDIC banks which was at the heart of their problem. Had S&L been regulated as were federal insurance banks, there would have been no S&L crisis.

 

[Contumacious]

OK, let's play.
Let's say you had an America where people didnt want to put money in banks. What would banks do? Sit there and go out of business from lack of funds?
Or would they respond by advertising how solid they were? Because this was the situation prior to FDR. There was no insurance. Banks and their directors were responsible for depositors' money. One bank went so far as to have physical gold in sufficient quantity to cover depositors' funds. They displayed it in the lobby.
The problem with libs is they think without government programs people would just sit on the curb and wait to die.

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

And how many US banking crisis have occur after the 1930's banking reforms. Exactly zero. How much money has been lost by depositors in federally insured banks during that period. Exactly Zero. Only a fool would choose 19th century banking over the heavily regulated banks of today.

HUH?


WTF?

Are you fucking sober?

The Great Depression of 1935 was a direct consequence of the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD - like the Bank of England in 1825 - the fuckers issued MORE PAPER MONEY THAN THERE WERE GOLD RESERVES CAUSING THE GREAT DEPRESSION, FORCED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND FORCED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ABANDON GOLD AND SILVER AS CURRENCY AND USE PAPER FUCKING MONEY, INSTEAD



.

 

[rightwinger]

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

And how many US banking crisis have occur after the 1930's banking reforms. Exactly zero. How much money has been lost by depositors in federally insured banks during that period. Exactly Zero. Only a fool would choose 19th century banking over the heavily regulated banks of today.

HUH?


WTF?

Are you fucking sober?

The Great Depression of 1935 was a direct consequence of the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD - like the Bank of England in 1825 - the fuckers issued MORE PAPER MONEY THAN THERE WERE GOLD RESERVES CAUSING THE GREAT DEPRESSION, FORCED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND FORCED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ABANDON GOLD AND SILVER AS CURRENCY AND USE PAPER FUCKING MONEY, INSTEAD



.

Shhhhh.....<inside voice>
font size and CAPS do not help you make your case

 

[The Rabbi]

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

And how many US banking crisis have occur after the 1930's banking reforms. Exactly zero. How much money has been lost by depositors in federally insured banks during that period. Exactly Zero. Only a fool would choose 19th century banking over the heavily regulated banks of today.

So the Petrodollar crisis in the 1970s, the S&L crisis in the 1980s and the banking crisis of 2008 never happened? Kewl!

Those were not banking crisis in the US. A banking crisis is a series of unexpected cash withdrawals caused by a sudden decline in depositor confidence or fear that the bank will close.

Banking crisis

So now you get to go back and redefine terms to fit your agenda.
What you describe is a bank run. And there have been those as well.

A bank run, bank panic, and banking crisis are essentially the thing, lose of confidence resulting in unexpected withdrawals, or closures. Bank runs simply don't occur in federal insured banks because the fed pays depositor if the bank can't. There are many problems banks can have that are not banking crises. You have given several examples. BTW Saving & Loans were not banks in the 1980's and were not regulated as FDIC banks which was at the heart of their problem. Had S&L been regulated as were federal insurance banks, there would have been no S&L crisis.

S&Ls had their own federal regulators, the FSLIC. Regulating those entities like commercial banks would not have made one bit of difference.
The problem was rapidly rising interest rates made older mortgage loans, their staple business, unprofitable.
Once again your ignorance of this topic is getting you schooled with every post.

 

[Flopper]

Advertising??
There is no reason to think that banks and other financial institutions wouldn't do what they have done in the past without regulation, push their reserves lower and lower and take added risks in pursuit of profits until a break in the economy pushed them tumbling down destroying public and investor confidence. A pure capitalist economy would be a boom and bust economy, an economy in which long term growth would be impossible because long term growth requires long term business planning which is impossible without economy stability.

What those that argue for a pure capitalist economy ignore is that government will always do more than protect property. Capitalist would pressure government to intervene in business matters, possibly over unfair trade practices from abroad or strikes disrupting the economy. There would always be reasons for powerful businesses to corrupt government and pure capitalism would become pure fantasy.

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

And how many US banking crisis have occur after the 1930's banking reforms. Exactly zero. How much money has been lost by depositors in federally insured banks during that period. Exactly Zero. Only a fool would choose 19th century banking over the heavily regulated banks of today.

HUH?


WTF?

Are you fucking sober?

The Great Depression of 1935 was a direct consequence of the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD - like the Bank of England in 1825 - the fuckers issued MORE PAPER MONEY THAN THERE WERE GOLD RESERVES CAUSING THE GREAT DEPRESSION, FORCED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND FORCED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ABANDON GOLD AND SILVER AS CURRENCY AND USE PAPER FUCKING MONEY, INSTEAD



.

I hear you. You don't scream.
BTW, according economic historians the Great Dispersion began with Stock Market Crash on October 39, 1929 with duration of 3 years, 7 mos. The next recession did not start until May of 1937.

 

[healthmyths]

Capitalism is a self regulating system. Charge too much, someone will undercut you. Deliver bad goods/services? People will stop buying. Cheat someone? Expect a big lawsuit.
The problems that people cite with "capitalism" usually are the result of lack of capitalism, i.e. gov't intrusion.
Capitalism has raised standards of living and brought people out of poverty. Why would anyone want to fetter that?

It doesn't help when Obama tells us he wants 1,400 companies that pay ANNUALLY $100 billion Federal/state/local/property taxes employing 450,000 people to go out of business!

It doesn't help that Obama encourages foreign oil producers by telling them "we'll be your best customers" while at the same time
signs 60% fewer oil exploration leases on Federal lands.

It doesn't help the health industry when he taxed tanning salons 10% because tanning causes cancer...BUT he totally ignores
The $850 billion 90% of doctors say the cause because they fear being sued... but let's the lawyers earn $270 billion most of
which comes from health care litigation...causing $850 billion in wasted duplicate expenses...PAID by insurance companies that
simply raise the premiums!

It doesn't help when Obama tells people he'll bankrupt electric utilities that want to use coal.

EVEN though the 3 trillion trees can absorb 72 billion tons of CO2 of which 40 billion tons world wide is emitted.

 

[Contumacious]

But they did not do those things in the past. They started doing it when gov't insured deposits and relieved them of the burden of being responsible.
People in business are always rent-seeking and trying other ways to keep out competition and make their products immune. Fuck them.

Before government started insuring deposits, setting reserve requirements, and regulating banks, speculating with customers deposits was common. Often the banks were more risky than the businesses they were financing. In the 19th century there were huge numbers of bank failures in the bank crises of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. In fact, bank failures were so common that few people used them and those that did would certainly not put all their money in one of them. Middle class workers and labors would hide their money at home in cookie jars, and safes. Business would spread deposits of gold and paper money between banks and safes. In short, people did not trust banks and financial organizations. Most people that had money only invested it in real assets such as gold, real estate, or businesses they or their family owned. The type of economic expansion we saw in the 20th century would have been impossible without the banking acts that the states and federal government began passing in the late 19th century.

BULLSHIT.


The panic of 1819 grew largely out of the changes wrought by the War of 1812, and by the postwar boom that followed. The war also brought a rash of paper money, as the government borrowed heavily to finance the conflict. The government depended on note-issuing banks spread throughout the country. All of this put tremendous strains on the banks' reserves of specie held against such notes. This would inevitably lead to suspension of specie payments in some parts of the country in 1814.

Bank Crisis 1825

Caused by The UK CENTRAL BANK (ENGLAND'S FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD) The Policies followed by the UK Central Bank were followed by the FRB after 1913 causing the worst depression in the US which forced the federal government to declare bankruptcy.

Bank Crisis 1837

The standard interpretation of the Panic of 1837 and subsequent recession blamed statebank monetary inflation abetted by President Jackson's removal of the federal deposits from the Bank of the United States.


Bank Crisis 1857

The Panic of 1857 was the result of a five-year boom rooted in credit expansion. The most capital-intensive industries of that decade, railroad construction and mining companies, expanded the most during the boom. States had even backed railroad bonds, promising to make good on those bonds if the railroad companies did not.


President James Buchanan engaged in no vain effort to reflate the economy. He observed in his first annual message, "It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits.


Bank Crisis 1873

The crash of 1873 was primarily caused by the funneling of cheap credit into the economy as a result of the War of Southern Independence, both in the form of greenbacks and pyramiding from the National Banking System, into the state-fueled boom in western railroad expansion. Both components of cheap credit were established during the war to pay for the conflict, but as with all artificial credit, the money had to be purged from the economy in order to reestablish a capital structure which accurately reflected consumer demand

Panic of 1884

The financial panic in 1884, coming during a mild contraction after 1882, lowered the supply of bank money. Total bank notes and deposits dropped slightly, from $3.19 billion in 1883 to $3.15 billion. The panic was triggered by an overflow of gold abroad, as foreigners began to lose confidence in the willingness of the United States to remain on the gold standard.

Panic of 1890

Credit expansion spread throughout the world in the form of loans directed mainly to South America. Shipbuilding and heavy industry developed rapidly. The crisis of 1890–1892 arose in 1890, and the depression lasted until 1896. The usual bankruptcies of railroad companies, collapse of the stock market, crisis in the iron and steel industries, and unemployment made a violent appearance, as is typical in all depression years following a crisis.[1]

The fateful decade of the 1890s saw the return of the agitation for free silver, which had lain dormant for a decade. The Republican Party intensified its longtime flirtation with inflation by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, which roughly doubled the Treasury purchase requirement of silver. The Treasury was now mandated to buy 4.5 million ounces of silver per month. Furthermore, payment was to be made in a new issue of redeemable greenback currency, Treasury notes of 1890, which were to be a full legal tender, redeemable in either gold or silver at the discretion of the Treasury. Not only was this an increased commitment to silver, it was a significant step on the road to bimetallism which—at the depreciated market rates—would mean inflationary silver monometallism. In the same year, the Republicans passed the high McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which reaffirmed their commitment to high tariffs and soft money.



IN CONCLUSION, all the panics you described were caused by government mismanagement of banking and credit.


.

And how many US banking crisis have occur after the 1930's banking reforms. Exactly zero. How much money has been lost by depositors in federally insured banks during that period. Exactly Zero. Only a fool would choose 19th century banking over the heavily regulated banks of today.

HUH?


WTF?

Are you fucking sober?

The Great Depression of 1935 was a direct consequence of the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD - like the Bank of England in 1825 - the fuckers issued MORE PAPER MONEY THAN THERE WERE GOLD RESERVES CAUSING THE GREAT DEPRESSION, FORCED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND FORCED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ABANDON GOLD AND SILVER AS CURRENCY AND USE PAPER FUCKING MONEY, INSTEAD



.

I hear you. You don't scream.
BTW, according economic historians the Great Dispersion began with Stock Market Crash on October 39, 1929 with duration of 3 years, 7 mos. The next recession did not start until May of 1937.

THAT IS CORRECT.

This is a PARTIAL list of fedgov economic interventions after 1900.

• Bureau of Corporations (1903)
• Interstate Commerce Act major amendments (1903, 1906, 1910)
• Meat Inspection Act (1906)
• Pure Food and Drug Act (1906)
• Corporation Tax (1911)
• Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1913) (Income Tax)
• Federal Reserve System (1913)
• Clayton Antitrust Act (1914)
• Federal Trade Commission (1914)
• U.S. Immigration (cut to a trickle during 1915—1920)
• Adamson Act (1916) (railroad labor wage rates)
• Shipping Act (1916)
• National Defense Act (1916)
• Army Appropriations Act (1916) (later took over railroads)
• Selective Service Act (1917)
• Espionage Act (1917)
• Lever Act (1917) (food and fuel) (prohibited alcohol)
• Overman Act (1918) (executive powers)
• War Finance Corporation Act (1918)
• President’s Mediation Commission (1917) (labor relations)
• Federal Control Act (1918)
• Sedition Act (1918)

.