Comments on: Borrowing from the 1930s to solve the financial crisis Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:37:11 +0000 hourly 1 By: thomas Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:20:13 +0000 WHAT: was it that worked to see us out of the depression, W.W.II. It was not W.W.II per/say, but the industries that had an impedes because of W.W.II that broke depression hold over the world. So to solve this world malaise we need another war. This is the lesson that we find in past history, for example

Civil war brought the greater iron age to the world
W.W.I saw chemical and a industrial revolution that gave us the roaring 20’s (will not go into what caused the 20’s down fall)
Finally W.W.II gave the world the greatest technological age we have ever seen

So lets go start a war. Any ideal who we should go to war with. By the way a small conflict does not help as we see from Iraq an Afgan. So who can we go to war against

Maybe the question is not who maybe it should be what. WHAT enemy is effecting the globe and is threatening of destroying every creature on this planet

By: Anubis Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:55:01 +0000 David, Santayana stole it from Hugo who probably stole it from some else. Read the classics and you will get the same sense. Besides what matters more, the message or the messenger.

By: Anubis Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:47:04 +0000 Atra Man, Glass Steagal initially set up the FDIC. Subsequent Legislation was passed by the same Authors a year later. The second Glass/Steagall prohibited commercial banks from brokering stocks and selling investment insurance. It was seen at the time to be riddled with conflict of interest and to great a potential for fraud. This allowed for the legal creation of complex investment insurance that were neither regulated or transparent. Such investment vehicles were prohibited even for investment banks until the 1990s. Take a good look at Graham/Leach/Bliley and other deregulation bills signed into law by President Clinton in his second term. In all fairness the deregulation of the banking industry began under Reagan’s watch.

By: anubis Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:03:36 +0000 So true Peter. We must question what we read and find other sources of information including the political positions of the authors that we do read.

Jackson’s concerns were correct. However without any reasonable oversight of the finance industry the U.S. entered a precipitous economic and baking collapse subsequent to the end of the National Bank Charter. Ninety-five percent of the factories in the U.S. closed up. While America was still largely rural, manufacturing did not provide as much economic output or employment as later periods in U.S. history. The suffering was still wide spread.

Jefferson’s position was one of ambivalence his whole life long. Thousands of court briefs remain as where he argued for the the rights of runaway slaves earlier in his public life. His time in the Presidency however, relegates Native American treatment to worse than that of vermin. At the same time he is awkwardly quiet on the issue of slavery and the three/fifths resolution regarding representation in Congress. This enabled the South to dominate the legislative process by virtue of all the seats they held as “Slavery Representation”.

As for Jackson, he was arguably a Sociopath. First they master charm and then devastation. Study the “Trail of Tears”.

By: Peter H Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:40:13 +0000 I think Corvus has some very relevant points on this debate.
When I was at school I took (as opposed to studied!) history, and when revision time came our eminent Kiwi historian teacher, who went by the name of Knackers MacMillan, revealed to us that we were obliged to study the curriculum on our historical subject – which was the Boer War – in order to get the optimum results… although the information in the curriculum wasn’t what actually happened in the historical event! (We were studying the British version of history at a school in New Zealand.)
That is problem with history is it is very subjective and normally written by the victors, with as much an eye on making themselves look good rather than explaining the events, and it normally completely disregards the cause(s) and the focus is usually on the consequence(s).
History goes in circles because humans can’t help themselves repeating the same mistakes.
Greed is the lubricant which makes things so slippery.

By: Survivor? Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:40:10 +0000 Not my field, but the current global economic and political entities seem more diverse, with less bipolar ideologies, than the 1930s. This richer hybrid with less concentration in Western Europe and the USA may be more resilient and adaptive. The flexibility may also be significant change in relative fates and dependencies of various nations. So far, not too many militarist opportunists, racists, believers, but early days for a changing world order.

By: tom rossman Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:16:30 +0000 To the Jackson fan, you should learn your history. Jackson was a Jeffersonian Democrat and the reason that ilk disliked National power , was that they were at odds with manufacturers and banks in general, being slave-owning plantation southerns. They didn’t want to pay the higher prices that the Hamiltonian industrial adn financial modernization policies would have dictated, as well as fearing strong central govt that could one-day take their slaves away which represented their only form of liquid assets. At least they were precient in their immoral hypocracy.

By: Kernel Klink Sat, 20 Jun 2009 06:32:21 +0000 “…as the new deposits created by loans at each stage are added to those created at all earlier stages and those supplied by the initial reserve-creating action.”
-Modern Money Mechanics
(Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago)

Have a read of this document VERY carefully, recessions aren’t just a rare case, its programmed logic in out monetary system…the federal government put in place these formulas to maniuplate the sheep and herd them by the masses…

By: Corvus Sat, 20 Jun 2009 05:56:51 +0000 The article is a little spare on the details with all the “this one’s got it right, that one’s a bit off” stuff.

How about this: during the 1930’s depression the West was filled with young people and technologically so far ahead of the rest of the world that missteps and even the coming wars (which actually fed even more advantages in technology coming out the other side) couldn’t slow things down.

Now the west is old, marginally ahead of the competition in technology and, critically, shown to be not the world leader it espoused to be but as corrupt as every other region on the earth.

New ideas, new ways and new politics are emerging in the world, and perhaps they look a lot like iron fisted regimes of old but then novel uses for new technology are always as surprising as the fact electricity can be put through a lightbulb or an electric chair.

As for Santayana, he also said “History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there’ – Some people just have a way with words don’t they?

By: Tom Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:52:32 +0000 Good article but I think that the loose credit may have been a larger cause than is now known. A review of some of the causes of the great depression was the large groups of money that influenced the stock market. Today these large groups of money that has an effect on the market are the Hedge funds. When they can get credit they can have an out sized effect on the swings and trends of the market. They also tend to follow the old patteren of talking up their own book to the public. The current run up may be a window into their operation of starting a run up and then getting out and selling the market short. When the up move started there was it seemed an undue ammount of business press talk about how this was the start of something big and do not miss the boat, get on board now. Now there is a quite period and small talk about running out of steam. Would be noce to know if the hedge funds are in volication of anti-trust and collusion in the market.