Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Toddsterpatriot

You’re back to your usual inane and irrelevant, nonsensical remarks. Whenever you can’t present a cogent argument you always resort to silly word games

“So they failed to pump the money supply back up, they didn’t cause it to fall. Glad you figured that out.”

That’s typical of why it usually becomes a waste of time to communicate with you. I had that figured out for years, and have been saying so since this discussion started. It’s you who fails, over and over, to get the point.

Until next time. And here’s more reading for those who might be interested:

“Friedman and Schwartz argued that all this was due to the Fed’s failure to carry out its assigned role as the lender of last resort. Rather than providing liquidity through loans, the Fed just watched as banks dropped like flies, seemingly oblivious to the effect this would have on the money supply. The Fed could have offset the decrease created by bank failures by engaging in bond purchases, but it did not. As Milton and Rose Friedman wrote in Free to Choose:”

Any effort to rid the world of the knee-jerk Smoot-Hawley references is worthwhile:

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8132

About halfway down the article.

But I’ll say again, Smoot-Hawley proved nothing about anything. It was just one more reflection of the economic depression caused by the failure of the financial system and the resulting liquidity crisis. The prostitution business also suffered. Maybe that was a major contributor to the Great Depression.

Later, again.


252 posted on 03/21/2008 3:47:16 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies ]


To: Will88

Addendum:

I heard a guy recently admit that he didn’t know much about economics, and that he had a lot to learn. How admirable, but he did know enough to talk about Smoot-Hawley and tell us how it proved that protectionism was always a bad thing, and we better approve any and all trade agreements currently proposed or proposed in the future.

I think he said his name was John McCain, another Smoot-Hawley guy.


254 posted on 03/21/2008 3:55:11 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies ]

To: Will88
I had that figured out for years,

Then why did you say they caused it?

But I’ll say again, Smoot-Hawley proved nothing about anything.

It may have helped? It may have hurt?

Later, again.

Let me know when you want to make any more claims about GDP.

255 posted on 03/21/2008 3:55:15 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (NAFTA opponents are an odd coalition of the no-deodorant Left and the toothless-and-tinfoil right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson