Milton Friedman Supported Quantitative Easing

If the Republicans win everything in 2012 - and I think they will - we could have a repeat of 1937.

We might have a repeat even if they don't.

Was "1937" a typo?

1937 was the year the Congress was trying to balance the budget by cutting the WPA,. Progressives today blame the recession that followed on those cuts, ignoring the fact that their own gurus advocated for them.
 
If the Republicans win everything in 2012 - and I think they will - we could have a repeat of 1937.

We might have a repeat even if they don't.

If Obama is defeated you will see an uptick in the economy immediately.
 
If the Republicans win everything in 2012 - and I think they will - we could have a repeat of 1937.

We might have a repeat even if they don't.

Was "1937" a typo?

1937 was the year the Congress was trying to balance the budget by cutting the WPA,. Progressives today blame the recession that followed on those cuts, ignoring the fact that their own gurus advocated for them.

Because FDR plans had worked so wonderfully well up to that point?
 
^^^^^^^^^^^
Hence why we are probably going to do so...

Odd that you didn't type "1920-21" the last time real small government Republicans ran thing but chose instead the year the second most Liberal Congress ever was inaugurated.

It's not odd if you understand economic history and how 1920 differs from 1937 and today.

It's odder how snorting Keynesian Kool-Aid from the can affect your "Thinking"
 
history under attack yet again from the right.

when will these people stop acting insane?
 
Does TM know who ran Congress in 1937? Can she name the years that come before and after 1937?
 
Does TM know who ran Congress in 1937? Can she name the years that come before and after 1937?

I can.

In the House the Democrats had 334 seats, the Republicans had 88 seats, the other 13 seats belonged to Progressives.

In the Senate the Democrats had 76 seats, the Republicans had 16, Progressives had 3, and there was 1 Independent.

That just proves how evil those Republicans were, they fought for less government spending and managed to win even though the Democrats had a veto proof majority in both houses, and had a guy in the Oval Office signing the laws.
 
So, do you all see how blaming Republicans for the 1937 "Depression within the FDR Depression" is lot like blaming the Tea Party for Obama Credit Downgrade?
 
Does TM know who ran Congress in 1937? Can she name the years that come before and after 1937?

I can.

In the House the Democrats had 334 seats, the Republicans had 88 seats, the other 13 seats belonged to Progressives.

In the Senate the Democrats had 76 seats, the Republicans had 16, Progressives had 3, and there was 1 Independent.

That just proves how evil those Republicans were, they fought for less government spending and managed to win even though the Democrats had a veto proof majority in both houses, and had a guy in the Oval Office signing the laws.

Yes, clearly we can see how Republican ideology carried the day in 1937
 
We are starting QE3, still no real results. Hunker down for the double dip. Remember it takes economists six months to figure out what we can already see at home.
 
what is it that every R candidate is pushing to fix the economy?

The same two points they've been pushing for the last 30+ years:
Deregulation: more pollution and preventable accidents
lower taxes: wealth-gap widens/funnel wealth upwards
More strawmen and stereotypes: More bullshit for Fabian socialists/progressives to shovel at the gullible.
 
It's not odd if you understand economic history and how 1920 differs from 1937 and today.

I believe you said you had a degree in economics.

Do you recommend a good book on the subject you reference above ?
 
From the 1960s through his death in 2006, the dominant intellectual figure in Republican economic policy was University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman. He thought that the gold standard was nuts and that the Fed’s greatest failure was that it didn’t provide enough money to the economy during the Great Depression. While we don’t know what Friedman would be saying today, there is reason to believe that his views would be the opposite of Paul, Perry and many other Republicans.

We know this because Friedman commented often on Japan’s stagnation in the 1990s, that was very similar to the U.S. situation now. In a December 17, 1997, article in the Wall Street Journal, he gave this prescription for Japan’s problem:

“The surest road to a healthy economic recovery is to increase the rate of monetary growth, to shift from tight money to easier money…. Defenders of the Bank of Japan will say, ‘How? The Bank has already cut its discount rate to 0.5 percent. What more can it do to increase the quantity of money?’ The answer is straightforward: The Bank of Japan can buy government bonds on the open market, paying for them with either currency or deposits at the Bank of Japan, what economists call high-powered money.”​

With the Federal Reserve’s discount rate at zero, monetary conditions in the U.S. are parallel to those in Japan. Unfortunately, the low level of interest rates has blinded many economists to the necessity of further Fed action. As Friedman explained in his article, it is “misleading” to judge monetary policy by interest rates. “Low interest rates are generally a sign that money has been tight…high interest rates, that money has been easy,” he wrote.

I believe that if Friedman were still alive, he would be among the sharpest critics of Republicans’ attacks on the Fed. Perhaps his great stature would have been enough to keep them from going off in the wrong direction.

Fed Bashers: Take A Lesson from Milton Friedman

Just what are Paul and Co. saying today about the Fed ?

There is about 80 years separating these two events (the Great Depression and the Great Recession) and we are not the same country we were then.

While I am very interested in the continuing discussion around this claim, I am not sure I buy into the fact that you can do an apples to apples comparison without providing some weight factors to different components of the argument.

I am not an expert on this subject, but it seems to me that if we were not carrying such a large debt and such large amounts of government spending, you might see people like Paul a little less concerned over short term, temporary spending. However, the reaseon Paul and the Tea Party are so visible is that it is percieved that the government has already spent all the rainy day cash that might have been available.

Hence, we are going to have to go through some very difficult contractions to get through this difficult economy. And spending isn't an option for a couple of reasons (like we don't have any money to spend).
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top