He held this view till he found out that central banks could in fact resist political pressure and target low levels of positive inflation
Whether there were more or less bank runs and failure, or number and severity of recessions or other things bad in the gold standards period prior to 1913 is just historical interpretations and not what's inscribed on the stone slab which Moses brought down from Mount Sinai which just got new messages deciphered. You debate till you die from self-asphyxia and you don't know the answer. That there was this hope and battle with hopelessness within the breast of every slave ever in human history for thousands of years. There must have also been occurrences of real revolts against slavery. That the slaves failed for thousands of years to gain freedom was not a vindication that their yearnings for freedom must have been misplaced - that God decreed slaves and masters over them. That slaves should have just obeyed God's decree for ever and evermore! Similarly, it cannot be argued that the bankers finally winning and consolidating their power in 1913 in the power struggles, accompanied by economic and financial carnage, vindicates the failure of the Gold Standards and that the Fed is "economic truth". It only just recorded a period of power struggle and its outcome, just as most here in ET don't claim the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 to mean communism is right. Neither was it a proof that God approves of them (as claimed in the US100 dollar note) nor that God has sealed a new sacred covenant with the bankers placing authority in their hands that none should violate.
Thank God for the FED! They have protected the dollar since 1913. In constant dollars the current Dollar probably buys what cost a penny in 1913.
Their were two central banks in the US before 1913 as well. The First and the Second Nat'l banks of the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States
You know I've been trying to understand that argument, what exactly do you guys view a 'recession' as? Because to be quite honest I don't think banks failing because of bad debt on their own can be considered that, when you have a gigantic collapse like the one the U.S is facing however.
Only because no regime can be trusted to print just enough money to reflect the amount in gold reserves. A fiat currency system can work, but someone needs to tell congress that they can't have anymore money.
So?The vast majority of that time was spent without a central bank, furthermore even withit the US was still fixing the price of gold or silver