I'm not seeing any "long depression" here.
Posted on 01/03/2014 10:22:34 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Arthur Laffer is a legend in Washington, having been the leading voice on President Ronald Reagan's hawkish Economic Policy Advisory Board.
His "Laffer Curve," which argued that there are diminishing returns after a certain point of taxation, was taken as gospel.
If his views are not quite as frequent a presence in public debate, it's largely because Laffer's pet issues, regulation and taxes, took a back seat during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.
But Laffer himself still occasionally makes appearances on the public scene.
And in June of 2009, he penned an op-ed warning excessive quantitative easing would inevitably lead to higher inflation and interest rates.
...we haven't ever seen anything like this in the U.S. To date what's happened is potentially far more inflationary than were the monetary policies of the 1970s, when the prime interest rate peaked at 21.5% and inflation peaked in the low double digits ...Gold prices went from $35 per ounce to $850 per ounce, and the dollar collapsed on the foreign exchanges. It wasn't a pretty picture.
Obviously, nothing like that happened.
In an interview with Business Insider from his office in Tennessee, Laffer admitted that he was wrong. The old maxim that dictates increasing the availability of cash through lower interest rates will lead to higher prices, he said, may need to be reexamined.
"Usually when you find the model this far off, you've probably got something wrong with the model, not that the world has changed," he said. "Inflation does not appear to be monetary base driven," he said.
He's not totally comfortable with what the Fed is doing, however. "Ask me whether inflation represents longer term problem, I think there's a potential there for excess reserves to create problems."
But it now seems impossible to predict.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Condition in which one human being is owned by another. Slavery has existed on nearly every continent, including Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas, and throughout most of recorded history. The ancient Greeks and Romans accepted the institution of slavery, as did the Mayas, Incas, Aztecs, and Chinese. Until European involvement in the trade, however, slavery was a private and domestic institution.
Beginning in the 16th century, a more public and “racially” based type of slavery was established when Europeans began importing slaves from Africa to the New World (see slave trade). An estimated 11 million people were taken from Africa during the transatlantic slave trade.
By the mid-19th century the slave population in the U.S. had risen to more than four million, although slave imports had been banned from 1809. Most of the Africans sent to the United States worked on cotton or rice plantations in the South, their status governed by slave codes.
Almost 40% of captives transported from Africa to the Americas were taken to Brazil, where harsh conditions required the constant replenishing of slaves.
Following the rise of abolitionism, Britain outlawed slavery in its colonies in 1833, and France did the same in 1848. During the American Civil War, slavery was abolished in the Confederacy by the Emancipation Proclamation (1863), which was decreed by Pres. Abraham Lincoln.
Sorry, the Federal Reserve still isn't slavery, despite your confusion.
It is slavery, prophesied to Esau:
Gen 27:40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.
That happened in 1913. It's time for some of us not to live under Esau's dominion. I know you enjoy licking Esau's boots but a lot of us don't.
Sorry your ignorance makes you feel dominated.
It's a little weird you enjoy the domination. lol
It’s a little weird, your imaginary domination.
You never answered about the downturn in GDP during the Great Depression. Biggest in our history after you’ve always claimed they were worse before the Fed. Glad you learned something after all this. lol
Downturns were more frequent and more severe before the Fed. That doesn't mean that every one before the Fed was more severe than every one after the Fed. It doesn't mean that the Great Depression wasn't huge.
Economic problems in Europe prompted the failure of Jay Cooke & Company, the largest bank in the United States, which burst the post-Civil War speculative bubble. The Coinage Act of 1873 also contributed by immediately depressing the price of silver, which hurt North American mining interests. The deflation and wage cuts of the era led to labor turmoil, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. In 1879, the United States returned to the gold standard with the Specie Payment Resumption Act. This is the longest period of economic contraction recognized by the NBER. The Long Depression is sometimes held to be the entire period from 1873–96
WOW! Longer even than the Great Depression? Imagine that.
Sorry about your feelings. They have a pill for that now.
I'd recommend a book, or ten, but whatever works for you......
Ha! Having to qualify your statements now. lol
WOW! Longer even than the Great Depression? Imagine that.
The Great Depression holds the record for severity, contrary to your supposed facts over the last few weeks. lol
I look at GDP charts for the entire period between 2BUS and 1913 and things looked pretty stable, contrary to what you constantly claim. Certainly nothing anywhere close to a 27% drop in GDP. LOL
Pretty stable? LOL!
Please share your GDP charts. I could use a laugh.
I don't know why they call that a contraction, GDP per person was basically unchanged during that period. It just didn't grow like before and after, that's all. Reconstruction I'm sure leveled things for a while.
A GDP chart does show a lot of stability though, so I don't know where they're getting a "contraction" from. Do you have any charts that show anything other than stability?
I'm not seeing any "long depression" here.
Is the NBER unbiased? They say they’ve won a lot of Nobel prizes and they were first given their mission by FDR. Nobel prizes mean “liberal” to me. Not sure if they’re a good source. Plus, I think they played games with the recession dates here recently it appeared to help Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Yet GDP per person went from 5000 to 6500 from 1873 to 1880 (a whole 1/3 of that period), a 30% increase. I think your source is suspect.
Actually GDP per person was way up during that period, not unchanged. I think your source is suspect.
Actually GDP per person was way up during that period, not unchanged. I think your source is suspect.
I don't know why they call that a contraction,
Maybe because from 10/1873-6/1897 (280 months), we were contracting for 161 months?
| BUSINESS CYCLE REFERENCE DATES |
DURATION IN MONTHS | ||||
| Peak | Trough | Contraction | Expansion | Cycle | |
| Quarterly dates are in parentheses |
Peak to Trough |
Previous trough to this peak |
Trough from Previous Trough |
Peak from Previous Peak |
|
|
June 1857(II) October 1860(III) April 1865(I) June 1869(II) October 1873(III) March 1882(I) March 1887(II) July 1890(III) January 1893(I) December 1895(IV) June 1899(III) September 1902(IV) May 1907(II) January 1910(I) January 1913(I) August 1918(III) January 1920(I) May 1923(II) October 1926(III) August 1929(III) May 1937(II) February 1945(I) November 1948(IV) July 1953(II) August 1957(III) April 1960(II) December 1969(IV) November 1973(IV) January 1980(I) July 1981(III) July 1990(III) March 2001(I) December 2007 (IV) |
December 1854 (IV) December 1858 (IV) June 1861 (III) December 1867 (I) December 1870 (IV) March 1879 (I) May 1885 (II) April 1888 (I) May 1891 (II) June 1894 (II) June 1897 (II) December 1900 (IV) August 1904 (III) June 1908 (II) January 1912 (IV) December 1914 (IV) March 1919 (I) July 1921 (III) July 1924 (III) November 1927 (IV) March 1933 (I) June 1938 (II) October 1945 (IV) October 1949 (IV) May 1954 (II) April 1958 (II) February 1961 (I) November 1970 (IV) March 1975 (I) July 1980 (III) November 1982 (IV) March 1991(I) November 2001 (IV) June 2009 (II) |
-- 18 8 32 18 65 38 13 10 17 18 18 23 13 24 23 7 18 14 13 43 13 8 11 10 8 10 11 16 6 16 8 8 18 |
-- 30 22 46 18 34 36 22 27 20 18 24 21 33 19 12 44 10 22 27 21 50 80 37 45 39 24 106 36 58 12 92 120 73 |
-- 48 30 78 36 99 74 35 37 37 36 42 44 46 43 35 51 28 36 40 64 63 88 48 55 47 34 117 52 64 28 100 128 91 |
-- -- 40 54 50 52 101 60 40 30 35 42 39 56 32 36 67 17 40 41 34 93 93 45 56 49 32 116 47 74 18 108 128 81 |
|
|
|||||
| Average, all cycles: 1854-2009 (33 cycles) 1854-1919 (16 cycles) 1919-1945 (6 cycles) 1945-2009 (11 cycles) |
17.5 21.6 18.2 11.1 |
38.7 26.6 35.0 58.4 |
56.2 48.2 53.2 69.5 |
56.4* 48.9** 53.0 68.5 |
|
| * 32 cycles ** 15 cycles |
|||||
Source: NBER
The determination that the last expansion began in June 2009 is the most recent decision of the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
I don't think so.
Plus, I think they played games with the recession dates here recently it appeared to help Obama in 2008 and 2012.
I agree. They also delayed the announcement of the 1991 recovery, to help Bush's opponent.
Don't see how that helps your case though.
I'll ask again: Do you have a chart that shows this contraction? GDP per person was way up during this time.
So they were absolutely correct when they said this most recent recession was over a couple of years ago? lol
I agree. They also delayed the announcement of the 1991 recovery, to help Bush's opponent. Don't see how that helps your case though.
Um...you use data from a source that shows its bias toward the Wilsons, FDRs, and Obamas of the world. Naturally they're going to want to fudge their numbers in favor of these guys, and their policies, the Federal Reserve being a big part of Wilson's and FDR's policies.
The people that brought in the Federal Reserve also bought in the League of Nations and the UN. Read up on what Warburg did after Jekyll Island, and you don't think there's a conflict of interest here?
Show me a chart that shows this "long depression" you speak of, all I see is gain from 1873 to 1896.
Look at what I posted. See the length of the contractions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.