Friedman and Schwartz disagree with you on that. Before the Federal Reserve Act financial panics in the US were mitigated by the actions of private commercial bank clearinghouses. The Fed took over the role of the clearinghouse associations particularly the lender-of-last-resort role, did less to mitigate the panic of 1929 than the private associations had done in earlier panics like 1907 and 1893. Their point being that the economy would have been better off if the Fed had not been created. Without the Fed the Great Depression would have been just another panic and recession.
I know people like Paul Krugman disagree. I also know that there have been and will be books written taking one side or the other, so you and I are not going to resolve the question of who is right.
I do appreciate your thoughtful responses and thank you for sharing you knowledge on the subject. I’m going to have to study more on this
Now, at this level of specifics please do not read too much confidence into my words -- I read only parts of Friedman and Schwartz, long time ago and, most unfortunately, before I was able to appreciate that work fully --- but my understanding of their criticism differs from yours.
I believe that monetarists, starting with and based largely on the FS work, actually fault the (then young) Fed for doing little or nothing when the time was precious. I do not remember the data now but seem to recall that they actually decreased the money supply when should've increased it. [ The reasons were manifold but some had to do with the strength of the pound, outflow of gold, and... the fact that representatives of the member banks were unsure of what their role actually was ]
I always thought that the upshot of FS was that the monetary intervention would have clearly saved the day. If so, this is an argument for, not against, the Fed. The recession became a Depression because of (i) the Fed's inactivity and (ii) the New Deal, i.e., a Keynesian intervention. It is for that reason that there is still an argument, as you pointed out, about the reasons for Depression. As far as I know, not a single person has shown anything problematic with the FS analysis; they tend to pretend that this work is simply nonexistent -- a typical posture by those that cannot refute what you say and yet refuse to accept the conclusion of your argument.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Krugman "disagrees." It is the same Krugman that a couple of weeks ago published an article, "Reagan Did It," in which he attributed the current crisis to Reagan policies. I KNOW that he would not accept such nonsense from a student. The more provocative the thesis, the more thorough the argumentation should be. He offered vitriol instead. I am not surprised, therefore, that Krugman "disagrees" with FS without telling us why.
Like you, I continue to educate myself on the subject (not specializing in macro economics, I have only a limited time for doing so --- unfortunately, given how important this issue is nowadays). May I suggest a book "FDR's Folly: New Deal or Raw Deal?" if you have not read it already? The author talks, in particular, about how the work of RS is met by the present-day economists. It's NOT an economics book, but, personally, I could not detect any immediate errors in the author's use of it either.
I thank you too for sharing your knowledge and look forward to reading your future posts.