You use lots of Foxes talking points,

like the evil socialist Obama is. Make no mistake, I am no fan of his. But since we won the cold war over 2 decades ago, (though we wonder why the bomb still exists.) fear of communism, since both Russia and China or now pretty much Capitalists, is nonsense. Fear of fascism, while, is fear of the reality capitalism has turned into.

Since I really could not find where you backed anything up, let me see if I got this right:

Had we let the wealthy non benevolent self interested bankers handle the panic of 1929 instead of the meddling socialists in the Socialist created Federal Reserve there would have been no depression, sure a cyclically recession that cleans the Free Market system would have happened, but no Great Depression! Therefore, the Great Depression was not the result of greed and a failure of Free Market Capitalism.

Does this correctly state your knowledge of the facts?

Had the Federal Reserve System never been established, and had a similar series of runs started, there is little doubt that the same measures would have been taken as in 1907—a restriction of payments. That would have been more drastic than what actually occurred in the final months of 1930. However, by preventing the draining of reserves from good banks, restriction would almost certainly have prevented the subsequent series of bank failures in 1931, 1932, and 1933, just as restriction in 1907 quickly ended bank failures then. . . . The panic over, confidence restored, economic recovery would very likely have begun in early 1931, just as it had in early 1908.

Woe now, calling the greedy Federal Reserve Capitalist, ''socialist'', surely shows how any labels are next to meaningless these days.

Should I present it to you again?



Now are you going to rewrite history and say that this didn't happen BEFORE the Fed (1907 - 1908)? Or perhaps you have some other reasoning why shortly after the Fed was created, we landed in the biggest depression in our history?

Simple yes or no question? Can't you handle a simple yes or no answer?

Since I really could not find where you backed anything up, let me see if I got this right:

Had we let the wealthy non benevolent self interested bankers handle the panic of 1929 instead of the meddling socialists in the Socialist created Federal Reserve there would have been no depression, sure a cyclically recession that cleans the Free Market system would have happened, but no Great Depression! Therefore, the Great Depression was not the result of greed and a failure of Free Market Capitalism.

Does this correctly state your knowledge of the facts?

Look, Yes or No, Is that what you are saying. If not, then in clear precise statements, please modify it so we all know EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? You have a tendency to say "you didn't answer me" or "my thoughts and logic are so incredible you have no argument". That is why we have to go through this painful procedure to pin down what you are saying!

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves – for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution – the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public – the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.

It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s infamous ‘liquidationist’ thesis, that weeding out “weak” banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks – which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed – felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. …

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.

You have argued that the Great Depression is the result of the Federal Reserve not manipulating the free market by devaluing the dollar (what the Federal Reserve was supposed to do in this situation according to their charter written by progressives). The progressives were followed by a scandalous fellow named Harding and a boring chap named Coolidge who were TRICKLE DOWN THEORISTS. They also had a fellow named Benjamin Strong at the Federal Reserve (a Morgan Man (JP that is)) and an industrialist named Mellon heading the Treasury. You would have loved them! They almost ended the progressive income tax and they were acting to return the world to the gold standard (that nasty WWI and all its debt had really made a mess of the Gold Standard). Well, as Milton said, their descendants (because they were gone when Hoover came around) kept the fire burning. They did not act (as Milton would have) because they said the Market needed a good cleaning (and don't forget, they could not loosen the amount of available cash because the law required that they could not devalue the dollar below 40% of the gold standard (as a Ron Paul Supporter another thing you would be proud of)).

Does not really make sense given your argument that manipulating the free market created the Great Depression?

(Grain of Salt...Grain of Salt...Just Chant....Grain of Salt)

Oh, did I point out that Milton Friedman is a Nobel Prize winning Economist!

Oh no fan of The Fed, but calling it Socialist isn't reality.

Oh so you our Capitalist Corporations investing in China, are now Communist?

Oh I got banned from Bill O's Facebook Page, for I enjoyed (not much) throwing my 6 cents worth into mind's eyes. So I know you talk a lot of their talking points. Fear of Communism, over 2 decades after the cold war was won, is nonsense.

The trouble I have with your kind, is you will take food off of tables, caused by things being needed, thanks to the Fed.

Ya your kind of Tea Party people would love to take away Social Security, which thanks to the Capitalist Fed, turned to fascism, makes SS a need form of State Socialism.