[Sanin]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche13

Yes, but times have changed and the international factor is in play. Still, the role of a nation's currency is the single biggest economic factor.

BTW, Zinn's book is one of my favorites.

The international factor isn't as big a factor as alot of people would like to hope I think. With global economies so interlinked we're not only at risk from poor economic policies at home, but in direct risk to poor policy abroad.

And yes, Peoples history is a masterpiece. Read it once and you will never look at United States history again.

[Throatpoker]

Originally Posted by Sanin

Oh I'm sorry I don't read. I only pulled that quote from whadya callit ... a book: Hoover didn't start the new deal. By definition the New Deal was a program proposed by FDR. Hoover was a opponent of wasteful policies. Thinking a problem better does not however fix it.

Once again, you should read a little more on this:

...Hoover's role as founder of a revolutionary program of government planning to combat depression has been unjustly neglected by historians. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in large part, merely elaborated the policies laid down by his predecessor. To scoff at Hoover's tragic failure to cure the depression as a typical example of laissez-faire is drastically to misread the historical record. The Hoover rout must be set down as a failure of government planning and not of the free market. To portray the interventionist efforts of the Hoover administration to cure the depression, we may quote Hoover's own summary of his program, during his presidential campaign in the fall of 1932:

Continued here

...and this other little jewel:

President Hoover came to the legislative session of 1932 in an atmosphere of crisis, ready for drastic measures. In his annual message to Congress, on December 8, 1931, Hoover first reviewed his own accomplishments of the past two years:

Many undertakings have been organized and forwarded during the past year to meet the new and changing emergencies which have constantly confronted us . . . to cushion the violence of liquidation in industry and commerce, thus giving time for orderly readjustment of costs, inventories, and credits without panic and widespread bankruptcies.

Measures such as Federal and state and local public works, work-sharing, maintaining wage rates ("a large majority have maintained wages at high levels" as before), curtailment of immigration, and the National Credit Corporation, Hoover declared, have served these purposes and fostered recovery. Now, Hoover urged more drastic action, and he presented the following program:

1. Establish a Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which would use Treasury funds to lend to banks, industries, agricultural credit agencies, and local governments;

2. Broaden the eligibility requirement for discounting at the Fed;

3. Create a Home Loan Bank discount system to revive construction and employment measures which had been warmly endorsed by a National Housing Conference recently convened by Hoover for that purpose;

4. Expand government aid to Federal Land Banks;

5.Set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand Federal public works;

6. Legalize Hoover's order restricting immigration;

7. Do something to weaken "destructive competition" (i.e., competition) in natural resource use;

8. Grant direct loans of $300 million to States for relief;

9. Reform the bankruptcy laws (i.e., weaken protection for the creditor).

Hoover also displayed anxiety to "protect railroads from unregulated competition," and to bolster the bankrupt railroad lines. In addition, he called for sharing-the-work programs to save several millions from unemployment.

Continued here

In order to be truly versed in this whole mess (and god knows I still have a long way to go), you should do a little more studying.

[Throatpoker]

Originally Posted by Sanin

The problem is that in our current economy there is little difference between the two. Going a step further the line between corporatism and government is getting blurred everyday.

Exactly, that's why we should reduce as much as we can, the influence of the state over the market. Laissez faire is THE way to go, not more government intervention.

[Ezra Pound]

Originally Posted by GermanBJJ

The Great Depression was no different than the depressions of old (which happened without central banks or evil conspiring financiers or big government conspiracies.)

Irrational exuberance followed by massive deflation.

While what you say is true (that there were other similar events) it does not address the fact that our fiat currency is controlled by a foreign parties with no loyalty to the United States or it's citizenry. This is how the Great Depression is different as it was an intentional action, it was not a cycle of the market as in earlier situations. The fed has admitted as such and even offered some half hearted apology. Such control just isn't right and such power should be back in the hands of at least the department of the treasury.

[Ezra Pound]

Originally Posted by Throatpoker

Once again, you should read a little more on this:



Continued here

...and this other little jewel:



Continued here

In order to be truly versed in this whole mess (and god knows I still have a long way to go), you should do a little more studying.

You are quoting from Von Mises? You can't be serious.

[Ezra Pound]

In order to be truly versed in this whole mess (and god knows I still have a long way to go), you should do a little more studying.

Im not trying to be rude, but that's what I am thinking about you. I prefer your earlier avatar and sig.

[GermanBJJ]

Originally Posted by Ezra Pound

While what you say is true (that there were other similar events) it does not address the fact that our fiat currency is controlled by a foreign parties with no loyalty to the United States or it's citizenry. This is how the Great Depression is different as it was an intentional action, it was not a cycle of the market as in earlier situations. The fed has admitted as such and even offered some half hearted apology. Such control just isn't right and such power should be back in the hands of at least the department of the treasury.

No, the Fed hasn't admitted as such. The Fed didn't engineer the Great Depression but it didn't do much to alleviate it which caused it to get worse. If there was never a Federal Reserve, the Great Depression would have still occurred. You can't have such massive over-valuation of an asset class with the inevitable re-valuation without having a recession/depression.

Galbraith has a great book called "A History of Financial Euphoria" that documents other historical recessions/depressions that resulted from over-valued asset classes.

[Sanin]

Originally Posted by Throatpoker

Exactly, that's why we should reduce as much as we can, the influence of the state over the market. Laissez faire is THE way to go, not more government intervention.

Laissez faire can't fix this! Corporations have a strangle hold on our country and won't let go until they've choked out every last cent. If we let this run it's course the end result is financial ruin.

[Sanin]

Originally Posted by Throatpoker

Once again, you should read a little more on this:



Continued here

...and this other little jewel:



Continued here

In order to be truly versed in this whole mess (and god knows I still have a long way to go), you should do a little more studying.

Hoover got to that point little more than a year before he was to be voted out of office and democrats like FDR were going to enact those policies anyway.

[vogues157]

Originally Posted by Sanin

The international factor isn't as big a factor as alot of people would like to hope I think. With global economies so interlinked we're not only at risk from poor economic policies at home, but in direct risk to poor policy abroad.

And yes, Peoples history is a masterpiece. Read it once and you will never look at United States history again.

I'll have to check out that book, but I feel that the international factor is more important than people currently think. Companies are surviving directly because of their international exposure. Domestic revenues are horrible, but the international revenues make up for it. Look at Mcdonalds, Pepsi, Coke, etc, etc. Their primary growth has come from overseas. The situation in the U.S. looks like it is turning around, but if the dollar remains weak, companies with international exposure will continue to outperform.