That's OK. I've already read the comic book version of US history where the interventionist/regulators save the day. I would go watch Avengers if I were into that sort of thing. The Great Depression was interventionist all the way (starting with Hoover). The 1920-1921 depression started out really bad, but the young Fed didn't get involved. Interest rates remained around 7%, and the gov't drastically slashed its spending. According to Bennie and the Feds, this should've been a disaster, but it turned out infinitely better than what happend 10 years later. The idea that we had a totally unfettered economy and a pure gold standard is a myth, however. There's always been some gov't interference, especially since Hamilton. There were bubbles and rocky recoveries thanks to things like the National Bank, Greenbacks, state issuance of bank notes not backed by PMs, etc. So I'm not saying everything was OK before the Fed. Of course, things will never be perfect, but pure market forces handle bubbles and imbalances more efficiently than central planners any day.
Question... has America EVER had inflation/currency debasement EXCEPT when the government/fed/somebody was printing money?
I am very happy to have a discussion like this, folks (MK & achilles)... I am in the middle of something at the moment, but I will happily respond later on today.
To see another side, you should also read Murray Rothbard's History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II. You don't get grants or tenure for doing the work that Rothbard did. So you rarely, if ever, see it in mainstream academic books or journals. But Even the HuffPo knows the relationship between the Fed and academic world. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html Of course it's possible to spin a version of history that "fits" with the pro-interventionist paradigm (evil monopolies! robber barons! unfettered capitalism!). And it will go on as long as profs get grants and the likes of Krugman get Nobel Prizes. Why do you think politicians sided with Keynes in the 1930? Of course they favor the guy who lets them try to spend their way to prosperity. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's how the world has always worked. The rest, unfortunately, is history.
I'd like to, but I also have a ton of work/personal stuff to do and really can't take much time. I'll defer for now to Rothbard's work on US history as well as these for a taste of broader issues: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/my-fed-speech-details.html http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/04/ron-paul-smashes-paul-krugman-proof.html
You're kidding, right? Monopolies in the making only offer lower prices until the competition is eliminated and the barriers to entry are effectively raised. And then it becomes a matter of what a captive market will bear. Did I really need to tell you that?
From someone who lacks the ken to even get through the first couple of paragraphs of something like this: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf Pot calling kettle... Another reason not to engage too much around here: the drive-by posters who have never traded anything but food stamps.