Bernanke led economy proving critics clueless

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your

you're

saying that a gold standard guarantees no business cycle. So, because there was the Great Depression proves that there was no gold standard.

Your hypothesis: A gold standard guarantees no business cycle.
Your facts: There was a business cycle.
Conclusion: There was no gold standard.

The problem is that you haven't proven that "A gold standard guarantees no business cycle." You are assuming that a gold standard guarantees no business cycle.

Here is what I am saying;

My hypothesis: There was a gold standard
Fact: The price of gold was pegged to the dollar
Conclusion: There was a gold standard.

Second hypothesis

My hypothesis: A gold standard guarantees no business cycles
Fact: There was a gold standard and there was a Great Depression
Conclusion: A gold standard doesn't guarantee no business cycles

See what I did? I proved that 1) there was a gold standard then 2) that it doesn't guarantee no business cycles.

See how that works or is that too complicated for you?

who's talking about a business cycle?? PLease stick to one subject at a time.

 

[DSGE]

saying that a gold standard guarantees no business cycle. So, because there was the Great Depression proves that there was no gold standard.

Your hypothesis: A gold standard guarantees no business cycle.
Your facts: There was a business cycle.
Conclusion: There was no gold standard.

The problem is that you haven't proven that "A gold standard guarantees no business cycle." You are assuming that a gold standard guarantees no business cycle.

Here is what I am saying;

My hypothesis: There was a gold standard
Fact: The price of gold was pegged to the dollar
Conclusion: There was a gold standard.

Second hypothesis

My hypothesis: A gold standard guarantees no business cycles
Fact: There was a gold standard and there was a Great Depression
Conclusion: A gold standard doesn't guarantee no business cycles

See what I did? I proved that 1) there was a gold standard then 2) that it doesn't guarantee no business cycles.

See how that works or is that too complicated for you?

who's talking about a business cycle?? PLease stick to one subject at a time.

recessions/depressions are also known as business cycles. So much for that famous Econ 101 class you're always on about.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

saying that a gold standard guarantees no business cycle. So, because there was the Great Depression proves that there was no gold standard.

Your hypothesis: A gold standard guarantees no business cycle.
Your facts: There was a business cycle.
Conclusion: There was no gold standard.

The problem is that you haven't proven that "A gold standard guarantees no business cycle." You are assuming that a gold standard guarantees no business cycle.

Here is what I am saying;

My hypothesis: There was a gold standard
Fact: The price of gold was pegged to the dollar
Conclusion: There was a gold standard.

Second hypothesis

My hypothesis: A gold standard guarantees no business cycles
Fact: There was a gold standard and there was a Great Depression
Conclusion: A gold standard doesn't guarantee no business cycles

See what I did? I proved that 1) there was a gold standard then 2) that it doesn't guarantee no business cycles.

See how that works or is that too complicated for you?

who's talking about a business cycle?? PLease stick to one subject at a time.

recessions/depressions are also known as business cycles. So much for that famous Econ 101 class you're always on about.

of course a mild recession would not describe the Great Depression very accurately would it. Also, a depression is not a business cycle. It is a point in a business cycle. Sorry.

 

[DSGE]

who's talking about a business cycle?? PLease stick to one subject at a time.

recessions/depressions are also known as business cycles. So much for that famous Econ 101 class you're always on about.

of course a mild recession would not describe the Great Depression very accurately would it. Also, a depression is not a business cycle. It is a point in a business cycle. Sorry.

A depression is a business cycle. Since you're always telling everybody to "go to college before talking about such things", maybe you should take a refresher and actually learn the damn terminology?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

recessions/depressions are also known as business cycles. So much for that famous Econ 101 class you're always on about.

of course a mild recession would not describe the Great Depression very accurately would it. Also, a depression is not a business cycle. It is a point in a business cycle. Sorry.

A depression is a business cycle. Since you're always telling everybody to "go to college before talking about such things", maybe you should take a refresher and actually learn the damn terminology?

so then why be so afraid to pull a quote out of an economics book saying that a depression is a business cycle???? What does your fear tell you?

 

[DSGE]

of course a mild recession would not describe the Great Depression very accurately would it. Also, a depression is not a business cycle. It is a point in a business cycle. Sorry.

A depression is a business cycle. Since you're always telling everybody to "go to college before talking about such things", maybe you should take a refresher and actually learn the damn terminology?

so then why be so afraid to pull a quote out of an economics book saying that a depression is a business cycle???? What does your fear tell you?

Why not just go straight to the source? The National Bureau of Economic Research are tasked with the official dating of business cycles. So let's check out NBER's business cycle dates: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

1929(III) to 1933(I) - the Great Depression - is there.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A depression is a business cycle. Since you're always telling everybody to "go to college before talking about such things", maybe you should take a refresher and actually learn the damn terminology?

so then why be so afraid to pull a quote out of an economics book saying that a depression is a business cycle???? What does your fear tell you?

Why not just go straight to the source? The National Bureau of Economic Research are tasked with the official dating of business cycles. So let's check out NBER's business cycle dates: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

1929(III) to 1933(I) - the Great Depression - is there.

stop the BS; just provide the quote that proves what you said or admit to being a liberal who cant

 

[DSGE]

so then why be so afraid to pull a quote out of an economics book saying that a depression is a business cycle???? What does your fear tell you?

Why not just go straight to the source? The National Bureau of Economic Research are tasked with the official dating of business cycles. So let's check out NBER's business cycle dates: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

1929(III) to 1933(I) - the Great Depression - is there.

stop the BS; just provide the quote that proves what you said or admit to being a liberal who cant

BS? Are you a ******* moron? NBER, the ultimate authority on what is and isn't a business cycle, lists the Great Depression as a business cycle. If that doesn't satisfy you, then you're just being obtuse for the sake of being a dick.

If you insist on a textbook quote despite the proof I've provided that the depression was a business cycle (and god knows what the **** you think a business cycle is. I'm starting to suspect you were lying about ever having done any economics in college...), then this is from Stanley Fisher's Macroeconomics 6th edition:

"The business cycle is the more or less regular patter of expansion (recovery) and contraction (recession) in economic activity around the path of trend growth"

As people who have not lied about their education in economics are aware, "macroeconomics" is essentially two fields. "Growth", which is the long run increase in economic output; and "business cycles", which are deviations from trend growth.

Since the Depression was a deviation from trend growth, it's obviously a business cycle.

 

[Toro]

so then why be so afraid to pull a quote out of an economics book saying that a depression is a business cycle???? What does your fear tell you?

Why not just go straight to the source? The National Bureau of Economic Research are tasked with the official dating of business cycles. So let's check out NBER's business cycle dates: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

1929(III) to 1933(I) - the Great Depression - is there.

stop the BS; just provide the quote that proves what you said or admit to being a liberal who cant

rofl

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Truthmatters has a sock

 

[Paulie]

recessions/depressions are also known as business cycles. So much for that famous Econ 101 class you're always on about.

of course a mild recession would not describe the Great Depression very accurately would it. Also, a depression is not a business cycle. It is a point in a business cycle. Sorry.

A depression is a business cycle. Since you're always telling everybody to "go to college before talking about such things", maybe you should take a refresher and actually learn the damn terminology?

The business cycle includes the boom and the bust. There can be a perfectly steady economy for years that falls off a cliff without any bubble, boom, etc. An example would be an event happening overseas that triggers economic panic, a natural disaster at home that triggers panic, a terrorist attack at home that triggers panic...All of which would lead to a deflationary environment...Is that still a business cycle?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Also, a depression is not a business cycle. It is a point in a business cycle. Sorry.

A depression is a business cycle.

The business cycle includes the boom and the bust.

yes, it seems the word "cycle" throws DSGE

 

[DSGE]

of course a mild recession would not describe the Great Depression very accurately would it. Also, a depression is not a business cycle. It is a point in a business cycle. Sorry.

A depression is a business cycle. Since you're always telling everybody to "go to college before talking about such things", maybe you should take a refresher and actually learn the damn terminology?

The business cycle includes the boom and the bust.

It's generally any deviation from trend growth. That can be a deviation up or down. Business Cycles are dated by NBER from peak to trough. The peak can be the peak of a boom, or it can be the point on the trend line if the economy is growing at trend before a recession.

There can be a perfectly steady economy for years that falls off a cliff without any bubble, boom, etc. An example would be an event happening overseas that triggers economic panic, a natural disaster at home that triggers panic, a terrorist attack at home that triggers panic...All of which would lead to a deflationary environment...Is that still a business cycle?

Of course. Not sure why you say "all of which would lead to a deflationary environment", since supply shocks lead to inflationary recessions. But yes. Perfect example would be the oil shocks of the 70s. The US entered recessions in 1973 and 1980, dated by NBER as business cycles, because of large shocks to the relative price of oil.

 

[DSGE]

Also, a depression is not a business cycle. It is a point in a business cycle. Sorry.

Haha. It's a point on a business cycle is it? So you're saying that rather than being the whole 1929-1933 time interval; "the Great Depression" was just one point in time? You've got the textbook definition of a business cycle; you've got NBER, the ultimate authority on US business cycles, dating the Depression as a business cycle; it seems the only thing you don't have is the ability to read. I've proven that the Depression was a business cycle. If you're going to continue to be a retard about this whole thing, then either you're too dumb to be in this conversation, or you're deliberately trolling. Either way, I don't want to talk to you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Haha. It's a point on a business cycle is it? .

Definition of 'Business Cycle'
The recurring and fluctuating levels of economic activity that an economy experiences over a long period of time. The five stages of the business cycle are growth (expansion), peak, recession (contraction), trough and recovery

Read more: Business Cycle Definition | Investopedia


please note that a recession is but one of 5 stages (points) in a business cycle. Sorry

 

[DSGE]

Haha. It's a point on a business cycle is it? .

Definition of 'Business Cycle'
The recurring and fluctuating levels of economic activity that an economy experiences over a long period of time. The five stages of the business cycle are growth (expansion), peak, recession (contraction), trough and recovery

Read more: Business Cycle Definition | Investopedia


please note that a recession is but one of 5 stages (points) in a business cycle. Sorry

You asked me for the textbook definition. I gave it to you. And now you're refusing the textbook definition, which you insisted I produce, for a definition from Investopedia? You're an imbecile.

On top of that, it doesn't even support your argument. You claimed that a gold standard would "prevent liberal recessions/depressions" or whatever. You jumped on Itfitzme when they said you claimed the gold standard would result in no business cycles. Here's the thing: you're claiming that a recession is a necessary stage in this thing called "the business cycle". If the gold standard results in no recessions/depressions, then it must necessarily result in no business cycles, since recessions are necessary stages of the business cycle.

 

[itfitzme]

...

My hypothesis: There was a gold standard
Fact: The price of gold was pegged to the dollar
Conclusion: There was a gold standard.

Second hypothesis

My hypothesis: A gold standard guarantees no business cycles
Fact: There was a gold standard and there was a Great Depression
Conclusion: A gold standard doesn't guarantee no business cycles

...

who's talking about a business cycle?? PLease stick to one subject at a time.

Being on a gold standard but not following the rules of the gold standard in place at the time caused the Great Depression.

- the only response that the Ron Paul Whackjobs can muster is that the "Fed should stop printing money".

actually Ron Pauls position is that we should be on Gold Standard so we have stable prices and an increasing standard of living; not on a liberal inflation employment fiat standard that produces boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living.

You referred to it as a business cycle in paraphrasing Ron Paul.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You referred to it as a business cycle in paraphrasing Ron Paul.

I referred to a business cycle but did not say a business cycle was a depression. Agreed?

 

[itfitzme]

who's talking about a business cycle?? PLease stick to one subject at a time.

Being on a gold standard but not following the rules of the gold standard in place at the time caused the Great Depression.

- the only response that the Ron Paul Whackjobs can muster is that

the "Fed should stop printing money".

actually Ron Pauls position is that we should be on Gold Standard so we have stable prices and an increasing standard of living; not on a liberal inflation employment fiat standard that produces boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of
living.

--------------------------------------
If I am to use the "grown up" definitions, then the provision of a "grown up" textbook definition for "a liberal inflation employment fiat standard that produces boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living" would help. I "googled", "EdwardBaiamonte's grown up encyclopedia of economic terminology" and "Introduction to grown up Macro Economics by EdwardBaiamonte". I didn't get any results. I also tried "Ron Paul's grown up encyclopedia of economic terminology", "Introduction to grown up Macro Economics by Ron Paul", and "Ron Paul's grown up Rules of Gold Standard" and was equally unsuccessful. Perhaps someone may have a link.

To be clear, I will use the term "a gold standard", with lower case letters, to refer to the "chidlishly simplistic" definition of a gold standard. I will use "Gold Standard", with capitalized bold letters, to refer to "Ron Paul's grown up Gold Standard that fully complies with the grown up rules of Ron Paul's grown up Gold Standard."

There is, of course, no historical data for "Ron Paul's grown up Gold Standard that fully complies with the grown up rules of The Gold Standard."

For my purposes, I didn't find the "liberal inflation employment fiat standard" as being pertinent. Without it, and using a childishly simplistic gold standard, I saw the idea as one that might have sufficient data available to determine if it was true. It turns out there is enough to determine if it is or is not true.

So, given the information that is available, I am substituting a childishly simplistic "gold standard" for Gold Standard and dropping the "a liberal inflation employment fiat standard" part for the reasons presented above.

As such, the presentation below doesn't fully represent what is going on in the adult mind of EdwardBaiamonte. We should all be thankful that EdwardBaiamonte's daddy beat him into figuring out the unstated adult rules so that he would recognize the adult thinking of Ron Paul so that they would save the 60+ million childishly simplistic liberals from what surely are economic disasters of their own making. Perhaps we might re-institute public beatings so that all the childishly ignorant liberals can be brought into line.
--------------------------------------

I might try going with the reasoning that a gold standard guarantees no "boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living" to get to "there was the Great Depression proves that there was no gold standard".

The hypothesis: A gold standard guarantees "no boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living" including the Great Depression.
The facts: There were "boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living".
Conclusion: There was no gold standard.

Just as well, the hypothesis allows for a second conclusion.

Conclusion: There was no Great Depression.

And a third conclusion is

Conclusion: There have been no boom or bust cycles.

The problem is that it hasn't proven that "a gold standard guarantees no 'boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living'." It assumes that a gold standard guarantees no "boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living".
--------------------------------------

If I stick with the full phrase, "a liberal inflation employment fiat standard that produces boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living", then no conclusion can be drawn because there isn't any such thing or there is a lack of a source with which to define it.

This is why I decided to drop it as part of the hypothesis because it has no "traction".

Ergo, I cannot speak to it.
------------------------------------

I might use Gold Standard as the starting point of a hypothesis. Unfortunately, either the Gold Standard has never been implemented or Gold Standard is not differentiated in the data.

Ergo, I cannot speak to it.
--------------------------------------
To be clear, I am including the Great Depression as a period of economic activity that fits the general circumstances of "a boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living".

Here is what I am saying;

My hypothesis: There was a gold standard
Fact: The price of gold was pegged to the dollar
Conclusion: There was a gold standard.

Second hypothesis

My hypothesis: A gold standard guarantees "no boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living", including the Great Depression.

Fact: During periods of time in which a gold standard was in place, there were "boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living." During periods of time where there was no childishly simplistic gold standard in place, there were "boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living". Before, during, and after the Great Depression, there was a gold standard in place.

Conclusion: A gold standard doesn't guarantee no "boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living".
-----------------------------------

Of course, none of this speaks to whether "a liberal inflation employment fiat standard that produces boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living" and the Great Depression would have been averted by following the grown up rules of the Gold Standard. It cannot because, obviously, it has never been done. So we should all vote for Ron Paul so that he can implement "Ron Paul's grown up Gold Standard that fully complies with the grown up rules of Ron Paul's grown up Gold Standard" and avert the continued "liberal inflation employment fiat standard that produces boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living". We should be thankful that we have Ron Paul, the only real grown up candidate that can fix everything by making all us childishly simplistic liberals follow the grown up rules. We should be especially thankful because in the 2000+ years of written human history, Ron Paul is the only real adult that has come along. If we don't take advantage of this once in two centuries opportunity, we will continue to live in an economy of "liberal inflation employment fiat standard that produces boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living".

I apologize for any confusion and discontent that I have caused by not following the "grown up" rules and for having not differentiated between Gold Standard and a gold standard as well as "a liberal inflation employment fiat standard that produces boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living" and a business cycle. It is clearly a failing on my part for not understanding what I already knew, that all economist and adults mean "a liberal inflation employment fiat standard that produces boom and bust cycles with a lower standard of living" and Ron Paul's Gold Standard that fully complies with the rules of The Gold Standard, not the childishly simplistic business cycle and gold standard.

 

[DSGE]

You referred to it as a business cycle in paraphrasing Ron Paul.

I referred to a business cycle but did not say a business cycle was a depression. Agreed?

So why don't we clear it up?

Do you think business cycles would still happen on the gold standard?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

and Ron Paul's standard that fully complies with the rules of standard, not the childishly simplistic business cycle and gold standard.

we were on a gold standard in 1929. We did not follow the rules of the gold standard in place in 1929 according to Friedman and Bernanke. If we had there would have been no Great Depression.