Unemployment. Do the Math.

[ghettopalmetto]

Jefferson ended Hamilton's first national bank. Jackson [[D) ended the second national bank. There was no national bank between the 1830's and 1913. The US grew at a phenomenal rate anyway so your premise that "there must be SOME financial institution that exists to establish monetary policy" is flawed.

The US grew at a "phenomenal" rate from the 1836 to 1913? What constitutes "phenomenal"? Where is the cutoff between "phenomenonal" and "ordinary"? How does this "phenomenal" growth compare to our modern era? Did this phenomenal growth reach the entire country, or did maybe the South remain a backwater despite all this "phenomenal" growth?

Perhaps you have the gold standard confused with The Industrial Revolution?

And let's not even get into the monetary shocks, panics, and bank runs that were so prevalent during the period you cite.

[oladub]

The US grew at a "phenomenal" rate from the 1836 to 1913? What constitutes "phenomenal"? Where is the cutoff between "phenomenonal" and "ordinary"? How does this "phenomenal" growth compare to our modern era? Did this phenomenal growth reach the entire country, or did maybe the South remain a backwater despite all this "phenomenal" growth?

Perhaps you have the gold standard confused with The Industrial Revolution?

And let's not even get into the monetary shocks, panics, and bank runs that were so prevalent during the period you cite.

Again, the great depression happened after the institution of the Federal Reserve. I have lived through the 1958 recession, the Carter stagflation/recession era, and the great Bush/Obama recession. The Great Depression is hardly an advertisement for the efficacy of the Federal Reserve. 7.7% unemployment after printing and distributing $16T is another example of the Fed's failure to do the things it was supposed to.

If you want to talk about post Fed economic backwaters, try Detroit.

The US was an ascendent nation prior to the institution of the Federal Reserve sort of like China is today. We just slipped out of the list of the the top ten nations with the highest per capita incomes, NASA has taken a tumble, our infrastructure is crumbling. I don't blame all of this on the Fed but we are in relative decline to Asia. Prior to 1913, we were an ascendent nation having smashed Spain in 1898 and about to play a large role in WWI. So "phenomenal" is relative and better applied to China's growth than our own today.

[oladub]

"Mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from which the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges ... which are employed altogether for their benefit." -Andrew Jackson [[D)

“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” -Mayer Amschel Rothschild

What I can't understand is why some of the most liberal posters on this board are promoting a bunch of private bankers, the 1%, fiat currency which has a 100% certainty of collapsing, the lack of transparency, $500B being distributed to foreign banks without Congress' knowledge, and an act of Congress unconstitutionally handing over its responsibility and power over to an organization owned by mega-banks. After all the evidence that the fed has fallen short of its stated goals, eg Great Depression, recessions, stagflation, collapsing dollar, and how the 1% have benefited from this arrangement, it remains a puzzle why so many liberals continue to champion the Fed and align themselves with Goldman-Sachs.

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” -The Rothschild brothers of London

[ghettopalmetto]

The US was an ascendent nation prior to the institution of the Federal Reserve sort of like China is today. We just slipped out of the list of the the top ten nations with the highest per capita incomes, NASA has taken a tumble, our infrastructure is crumbling. I don't blame all of this on the Fed but we are in relative decline to Asia. Prior to 1913, we were an ascendent nation having smashed Spain in 1898 and about to play a large role in WWI. So "phenomenal" is relative and better applied to China's growth than our own today.

You've never actually *been* to Asia, have you? The few Asian nations that are wealthy--Japan, South Korea, Singapore--are nations that invest heavily in infrastructure, regulation, and education. They invest in technology and transportation, whereas we invest in a Dickensian utopia. The Japanese and Koreans aren't ranting ad nauseum with juvenile libertarian hoo-ha.

You've correlated a lot of historical incidents, but without much in the way of evidence. Maybe you'd like to blame World War I on creation of the Federal Reserve as well.

The fact that you're conflating panics [[see 1860, 1873, 1907) with recessions [[which are expected every once in a while) once again demonstrates that you don't really understand the most fundamental concepts of economics. If you're just regurgitating blogs and talking heads, it'd be cool if you said as much.

[rb336]

You've never actually *been* to Asia, have you? The few Asian nations that are wealthy--Japan, South Korea, Singapore--are nations that invest heavily in infrastructure, regulation, and education. They invest in technology and transportation, whereas we invest in a Dickensian utopia. The Japanese and Koreans aren't ranting ad nauseum with juvenile libertarian hoo-ha.

As i've always said, and as history has born out, he with the best infrastructure wins. Our boom in the 1800s was largely due to infrastructure development, including canals and ships, not to mention railroads, all of which allowed more efficient exploitation of the vast resources of the NW Territories. The 1910s-20s? the expansion of paved roads and further RR development. The 50s & 60s? the interstate and civilian jets. The 90s? the internet

The fact that you're conflating panics [[see 1860, 1873, 1907) with recessions [[which are expected every once in a while) once again demonstrates that you don't really understand the most fundamental concepts of economics. If you're just regurgitating blogs and talking heads, it'd be cool if you said as much.

He is. that's all he is. get used to it. I rarely look at his posts, usually just when quoted by someone else

[ghettopalmetto]

As i've always said, and as history has born out, he with the best infrastructure wins. Our boom in the 1800s was largely due to infrastructure development, including canals and ships, not to mention railroads, all of which allowed more efficient exploitation of the vast resources of the NW Territories. The 1910s-20s? the expansion of paved roads and further RR development. The 50s & 60s? the interstate and civilian jets. The 90s? the internet

Problem is:

-Our canals are in shambles. Been to the Soo lately?

-We have the best freight railway system in the world. Third world nations would be embarrassed of our passenger rail system.

-Our pavement is crumbling faster as we cover ever-greater expanses with it. We can't afford to maintain what we built in the past.

-Despite the number of flights, enormous size of our airports, and the sheer number of them, it's damn difficult to get anywhere. If you don't live in a major hub city, you have at least one connection to get most anywhere. To go abroad, you'll have two layovers before you even leave the country. Never mind that once you arrive, you have to rent a car just about anywhere you go. See above.

-We can't even keep up with the internet that we invented. Countries more wired than us: Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, South Korea, Denmark, Finland. Even Estonia--which was a Soviet Socialist Republic 25 years ago--is considered one of the most-wired and technologically advanced countries in the world.

Oh, but hey. We have more guns than anyone else. Yee ha.

I'm personally just tired of this shit. We've been resting on our laurels for way too long, taking solace in flag-waving and faux patriotism. In the meantime, our nation is crumbling, and hungry people elsewhere are doing the things we can only talk about. Instead we spend our money on tax cuts and handouts to corporations. Big deal.

I've been lucky enough to travel to other countries. Frankly, it's embarrassing to tell people you're American, because they look at you as if we were to look at a caveman. We're NOT the smartest. We're NOT the most advanced. We're NOT the wealthiest. And we're certainly NOT the happiest. But God dammit, we're somehow PROUD, whereas other peoples have PRIDE. Yet our standard of living pales compared to that of our peers. What the fuck are we proud of?

This culture of blaming other people for our problems has to end. Take some damned responsibility, quit complaining, and OWN this country that you say you love.

End rant.

[oladub]

ghettopalmetto: You've never actually *been* to Asia, have you? The few Asian nations that are wealthy--Japan, South Korea, Singapore--are nations that invest heavily in infrastructure, regulation, and education. They invest in technology and transportation, whereas we invest in a Dickensian utopia. The Japanese and Koreans aren't ranting ad nauseum with juvenile libertarian hoo-ha.

gp, Even your condescending guesses are wrong. I was in Taiwan in 2009. You fail to mention that our balance of trade is so heavily in favor of Asian countries that they are spending it on infrastructure as Bush/Obama purchase debt to keep the game going a little longer her. Paul Krugman says debt doesn't matter while China has accumulated enough foreign currency to buy the entire supply of the world's gold twice at today's prices. China instead chooses to buy a variety of natural resources around the world to give the advantage to its children while Obama burdens our youth with debt.

The cash only vendor markets, less restrictive fire codes, seemingly less zoned west coast, and less police state like airport security are among the things I noticed that were more libertarian than in the US. On the other hand, getting on a fishing boat and a national draft are less libertarian there.

You've correlated a lot of historical incidents, but without much in the way of evidence. Maybe you'd like to blame World War I on creation of the Federal Reserve as well.

I answered the question you asked regarding 'phenomenal' as relative to other nations at the time. The US used to have phenomenal growth. It no longer does no matter how much money the Fed prints to paper over our problems. The fed, a new tax system transferring tax burdens form corporate importers to middle class Americans, the draft, and support for the US entrance into WWI all came from Woodrow Wilson [[D). I never blamed WWI on the fed. Get a grip on your fantasies.

The fact that you're conflating panics [[see 1860, 1873, 1907) with recessions [[which are expected every once in a while) once again demonstrates that you don't really understand the most fundamental concepts of economics. If you're just regurgitating blogs and talking heads, it'd be cool if you said as much.

Your level of condescension surpasses your reading comprehension. Repeat: "THE GREAT DEPRESSION". I mentioned the Great Depression, recessions, and stagflation not just recessions with whatever happened prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve.

You guys keep being the handmaiden cheerleaders for the 1% and you call yourselves liberals. Amazing!

edited to add - begin at 5min15sec: Ben Swann Reality Check Special: Talking Federal Reserve, Jekyll Island, Audit The FED, QE3

[rb336]

End rant.

I enjoyed that almost as much as Jeff Daniels' rant on Newsroom

[old guy]

I didn't mean to imply that the fed should be abolished. I don't see the gold standard being brought back, I don't see it being feasible [[sorry Oladub.) I was merely implying that there is a mechanism in place, somewhere, probably controlled by a small tight knit financial cartel that's controlling our economy and they have much more power than our government or the people.

I do agree with oladub though, that I'm totally confused as to why all the liberal thinking individuals on this forum seem to be in denial that this is taking place and that the obvious, or seemingly obvious people that are running this scam are people connected with the fed. I honestly feel that these people are beyond reproach, or close to it because of the massive wealth they've extracted from our economy.

Even the GAO admits they don't have the power to utilize the oversight needed to control the fed.

One notable difference between the Fed and most other government agencies is that there is no congressional budgetary oversight of the Fed—the Fed is self-financing and its budget is not subject to the appropriations or authorization process. Thus, there is no regular avenue for Congress to ensure that the Fed is devoting resources to congressional priorities, or to use congressional control over resources as leverage to achieve its goals.

The Fed has argued that allowing the public to know which firms are accessing its facilities could undermine investor confidence in the institutions receiving aid because of a perception that recipients are weak or unsound. A loss of investor confidence could potentially lead to destabilizing runs on the institution’s deposits, debt, or equity.

I'd just like to know how the disparity between the ultra rich and the poor in this country is accelerating at such an alarming pace. If you have an answer, I'd love to hear it. I'm not claiming that I have the correct answer, I simply think it needs to be addressed, sooner than later.

[rb336]

Asked and answered. Reaganomics, trade policies favoring wage-slave and child labor states, demonization of unions

[old guy]

Nuff said.

[ghettopalmetto]

I didn't mean to imply that the fed should be abolished. I don't see the gold standard being brought back, I don't see it being feasible [[sorry Oladub.) I was merely implying that there is a mechanism in place, somewhere, probably controlled by a small tight knit financial cartel that's controlling our economy and they have much more power than our government or the people.

...

I'd just like to know how the disparity between the ultra rich and the poor in this country is accelerating at such an alarming pace. If you have an answer, I'd love to hear it. I'm not claiming that I have the correct answer, I simply think it needs to be addressed, sooner than later.

That small, tight-knit financial cartel is called Wall Street, and they have power because our Congress provided it to them on a platter.