[Blood of Tyrants]

From 1776 until 1913 the total inflation was 20%. From 1913 until 2013 the inflation rate was 2500%.

[JRandomFreeper]

This will cause some heads to explode on FR. Lots of folks think the government just has to do SOMETHING about their pet problem.

/johnny

[gura]

Liberals don’t believe in economic growth, all of their theories are based on the false assumption of a “single pie” of wealth that we all have to share.

Hence they suck at government policies.

[alloysteel]

Short answer: this is not a time of great economic growth.

If anything, the economy is in an extended period of contraction, and any honest appraisal would declare the current situation to be a full-blown DEPRESSION, comparable to the period 1936-1938 under the New Deal and the kindly tutelage of FDR, like a “daddy to us all”.

There was the same mindset of “soak the rich” and a sense that an entitlement should be made for whatever wants were held to be most popular at the moment.

Today’s “Obamacare” is sort of analogous to the Social Security of the 1936 variety, just sketched out at first, and applying only to the very few, with just a pittance taken. But we all now what the underfunded monster Social Security has become, and the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010” is on track to replicate, except its growth will be on steroids. Exponentially and at light speed.

[PGR88]

A fiat currency gives great power to a government over its people.

Ending the Fed would kick out the main pillar of progressive plans for government

[onedoug]

Ah, but to dream....

[Fido969]

You’re a moron. There WAS income tax between the civil war and 1913.

More cr@p from idiots with s#!t for brains.

[LS]

Not entirely accurate. No, there was no Fed, but we did have a national banking system whose job was "fed like." It had a monopoly on money, expanded and contracted the money supply (poorly, hence panic of 1893 indirectly caused by the clamor for "cheap money" and the passage of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act).

I prefer the 1850s, where banks were free to issue their own money, backed by really anything (it was supposed to be gold, but it was really trust). The difficulty in accounting for differences in GNP growth is that you had the distortion of slavery in the market before 1861.

[mjp]

What made possible the rise in real wages and the average standard of lining over the last two hundred years is precisely the fact that for the first time in history the redistrbutors were beaten back long enough and far enough to make large-scale capital accumulation and innovation possible. The birth of plenty in America and Britain was the result of respect shown for property rights,plus cultural rationality, plus accumulation of capital, and the major advances and innovations in technological progress. This caused an increase in the productivity of labor and real wages.To the extent that the redistibutors have subsequently been able to reimpose their philosophy the rise in real wages and the average standard of living has been less that it otherwise would have been.

[IbJensen]

Everyone needs to revisit this post!

Down with Obama! Down with the Fed! Down with the incestuous two party system!

Get busy Tea Party!

[ex-snook]

"The rapid economic development following the Civil War laid the groundwork for the modern U.S. industrial economy. By 1890, the USA leaped ahead of Britain for first place in manufacturing output."

Not taxes, not government. The real reason. We have exported our industrial economy. About everything you buy is made elsewhere. Economic development done in by one world capitalism where money means more than country.