Re: Progressive Liberals
See above, you on you not wanting to read much of anything suggested.
I addressed that already. Yer simply repeating nonsense.
>>Since it appears you actually might not know what it is...Money supply= total amount of money in circulation /existence in a country.
It may appear that way to you, but you can't seem to get anything right, so …
>>A doubling, 3% to 6%, fairly significant to those purchasing , borrowing.
More of yer very weak debate tactics. You don't know the facts, and you repeatedly misrepresent the ones provided by others.
The three percent rate existed, as I noted, for "a brief period 1924-25."
It was the result of the 1923-24 recession. When the economy started getting back on its feet in the summer of 1924, the rate quickly returned to 4%. So it's entirely misleading to use the three percent figure as you have.
And it's important to note that the economy was once
again in recession Oct 1926 – Nov 1927. By the summer of 1928, GDP was again expanding, … and the rate was at five percent. There was no "doubling" that affected investment and borrowing.
>>Ever hear you don't wait to shut the barn doors until after the cows are all out already?
A steep drop, from 4.5% to 1.5% in eighteen months. What rate policy would you have advocated?
>>By that time bank failures were rampant
There were more bank failures in 1933 than in 1931 and 1932 combined.
The cows were never
in the barn during the 1920s. SSE ruled the day, and we had three recessions followed by a worldwide depression that led to the rise of Nazism in Germany. The barn was burnt to the ground with more than fifty million human beings inside it.
>>you explain what you meant there if not trying to limit the Great Depression to the crash of 29.
OK, let's continue to beat this nonsense into the ground.
Yer statement in #84 was:
with FDR and administration borrowing money to carry out its social programs, now money being in short supply as nobody was putting money in banks anymore, and so the government was crowding out borrowing by the private firms.
So, repeating myself to try to overcome yer problems with reading and thinking, yer claim is that it was spending in 1934 (it actually
fell in 1933) that caused the worldwide depression occurring in 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933. Good luck defending that argument.
>>Third point, totally destroys your point about me not putting such in my own words. These initial statements were all mine. Now supported by Friedman/ex Fed chairman Bernanke.
You've had little to say in yer own words. Just as well, in that you don't have the first clue. You cite LONG excerpts from others, and rely almost entirely on a statement made by Bernanke that the Fed made mistakes regarding liquidity that he was determined not to repeat. So let me ask, do you support the very accommodative Fed policy that has helped us get out of the GOP SSE Great Recession?
>> Completely disingenuous pointed out above. You wait until after I have identified that you won't read, then two posts, after the fact, saying that you did read them.
Blathering idiocy.
>> Easy money policy led to over-speculation/overproduction resulting in a crash/bust.
What "easy money policy"?
>>Then lender of last resort, FED, failing to honor that obligation leading to bank runs/ collapses. Then loosening you indicated in '30-'31.
The crash occurred in Oct 1929. Yer claiming that there was a collapse of the banking system
after Oct 1929 but
before Jan 1930 — Jun 1931. The facts make it clear that yer assertion is
FALSE. You taught this stuff? OK, not Trump U, maybe the Rocco Columbo School for Women?
>>Had a nice visual that you might be able to muddle through having expressed you weren't gonna read anything.
Which is that? The one showing that since 1950 Republican presidents have driven the debt/GDP ratio up? I know the figures, so I don't need a chart. And yer the professor, eh? You don't know what yer talking about. That could not be more obvious.
