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 ...
So they faked the data from the 1800s, to help Wilson and FDR? LOL!
You're funny.
LOL What contractions? Show me a chart that shows these.
They got their start in 1934. Why wouldn't they help FDR and the Democratic Party's long support of the Federal Reserve and its sisters the League of Nations and the UN? You admitted hey lied for Obama, they wouldn't lie for Democrats in the 1930s?
Show me a chart that shows this "long depression" you speak of, all I see is gain from 1873 to 1896.
You can't do it, can you? LOL Everything you've argued for, made a fool of yourself for, in front of everybody here, for years here, has been based on lies, hasn't it?
The people that pushed this stuff in the first decade of the 1900s and then during FDR were just as scummy and just as big of liars as the people that support Obama today. You've been duped.
How does lying about the 1800s help the Dems in the 1930s?
The same NBER you admitted are liars! LOL
Let's see a chart. Your contractions are either imaginary or statistical static.
The Federal Reserve began in 1913, the Great Depression, the worst economic disaster to ever hit the nation, came shortly after the Fed after it was promised the Fed would get rid of downturns, so we need to throw some "officials" out there to say, yeah, things are bad bow, but they were much worse before the Fed, trust us, we can't prove it with charts, just trust us. LOL
Typical FDR, socialist scumbag liar all the way, his wife too.
What does that have to do with the 1800s?
Your contractions are either imaginary or statistical static.
Right. The long depression, imaginary. It's so clear now. LOL!
I know, barely 16 years after they were created, the Fed screwed up by tightening the money supply, instead of loosening. Milton Friedman talked all about it in a YouTube video that I posted for you.
He says, very clearly, that the government, including the Fed, really boned things up.
Democrat Wilson used lies about the 1800s to push the Federal Reserve on us. It's like Obama saying how bad Reaganomics is, we have to move to socialism. When they want to push socialism, they lie about the non-socialist past. Obama is president in 2009 and lies about the 1980s, Wilson was president in 1909 and lied about the 1880s. Then FDR shoves the NBER down our throat to make those lies official to ward off the people blaming the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression.
Right. The long depression, imaginary. It's so clear now. LOL!
It's clear you have no chart that proves there was any "long depression" between 1873 and 1896.
That must be it. Because no one remembered the constant downturns.
Then FDR shoves the NBER down our throat to make those lies official to ward off the people blaming the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression.
But it was the Fed's fault. How do you feel the NBER shields the Fed in any way?
It's clear you have no chart that proves there was any "long depression" between 1873 and 1896.
They got away with it then the way they get away with it now, exaggeration and repetition.
But it was the Fed's fault. How do you feel the NBER shields the Fed in any way?
With their lies about "long depressions" and such, trying to make people believe it was worse before, like the media does today about supply-side economics. The GDP per person chart shows no long depression in the period the NBER claims, in fact the first eight years were a boom. What does Obama do today when there is bad economic news, blames Reagan and Bush, and then the media backs him and he and his party continue to win elections, and we continue to lose freedoms because of that. Reality doesn't matter to the low informed, what matters is what's repeated in their head every day, and Obama and the media know it and that's why they do it. They wouldn't do it if it didn't work. We know the economy was ten times better under Reagan and under Bush before the Dems took over Congress in '06, but all the low information voters either don't know it or have forgotten it, and there will always be more of them than there are of us. Staying informed is hard work, and too many people like the easy road of ignorant bliss.
Right here.
That's not a chart, that's a meaningless table. If you broke economic activity down to the individual transaction, about every other transaction would be a contraction. When you have that many numbers they're playing games with the stats and it's just statistical noise, meaningless. A long term chart is what shows the truth and the GDP chart in my earlier post shows a very steady climb for the 45 years right before the FED. Draw a straight line from the beginning point of the chart line to the end point of the chart line and the actual line does not deviate from the straight line much at all.
The NBER are liars, appointed by FDR originally, to dupe the people.
So you’ve never seen any references about the long depression that didn’t come from the NBER? Just because they disprove your claim doesn’t mean they’re lying.
| Industry | % decline in output |
|---|---|
| Durable goods | 30% |
| Iron and steel | 45% |
| Construction | 30% |
| Overall | 10% |
Correction from the boom of 1873 to 1880.
If everyone has been quoting the NBER, then what does it matter.
It didn't affect GDP. Industries evolve, resources get allocated differently.
Try again.
Estimated declines in United States manufacturing output in selected sectors (1872–1876)[26] Industry % decline in output Durable goods 30% Iron and steel 45% Construction 30% Overall 10% From the source of your graph.
Overall, 10% decline in output.
And this.
In the US, from 1873–1879, 18,000 businesses went bankrupt, including hundreds of banks, and ten states went bankrupt
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.