(11-18-2019, 08:06 AM)mikesez Wrote: (11-18-2019, 03:22 AM)jj82284 Wrote: .... I tried. I can't help it.
The fed reserve was established to mitigate "panics" recessions and bank failures. Under federal reserve policy the frequency of recessions went up, not down including two of the largest downturns in the history of the country.
Deposit insurance limits a fairly tale.
The collapse of the government sponsored lending institutions caused the economy to blue screen.
The increase in standard of living for the average person is driven by economic growth, not growth of government programs or central economic planning. The way that progressives disguise pseudo Marxism as opposition to communism is laughable.
Your last paragraph is spot on.
Government can't plan or program economic growth, and economic growth is the only thing that makes increases to the standard of living possible.
Recessions are inevitable, but some recessions are shorter and smoother than others. Government programs can smooth over recessions
The 2008 recession caused much less suffering than the 1929 recession. The main reason was government unemployment insurance. Wasn't there in 1929, was there in 2008. Made a big difference for a lot of families.
As for banking, a lot of people would point to the panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, and say that such things happen much less frequently now.
In total recessions actually occur at a greater frequency under Federal Reserve policy than before.
1929 is the perfect test case to disprove your major thesis. After the stock Market crash, unemployment spiked at double digits, and then, predictably it started to normalize. It bottomed out around 6.3% BEFORE the endless string of government interventions, tax increases, regulations etc. that would see it shoot back over double digits and stay that way for a DECADE!
2008 is an even worse case. The Government sponsored entities were actually participating in the mortgage market and selling derivatives that caused the greatest systemic collapse of the monetary system that we have ever devised. IT's only because our economy has grown to the point that we Congress can print 800 billion dollars and not have the dollar completely collapse that we didn't see a complete and utter failure of the economic system as a whole. That kind of systemic risk is ONLY POSSIBLE when all the decisions for a part of the economy are happening in a central location where one or two miscalculations causes a domino affect.
Getting back to the original tangent to the op, white supremacists, Nazis, national socialists etc. in the main are not lazier faire free market capitalists. Richard Spencer has admitted freely that he's a socialist. There contention is that with the understanding that the state sponsored goodies are finite that they want to keep them for themselves and those like them. They also want to do the best to ensure that those disenfranchised to fund their utopian state are those least like them. The demonization of Jews specifically as practitioners of capitalism, ownership of the means of production, money lending, and monopolists of passive income comes straight from Marx himself.
