http://mirrors.korpios.org/resurgent/Fed.htm

"If the Fed is to be criticized for aggravating the Great Depression, then it's not because it intervened, but because it did not intervene enough. It is yet one more example of how Hoover's laissez-faire policies failed to head off the Depression."

"Roosevelt would go on to create the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission to protect the American economy from bank runs in the future. And although the 1987 crash on Wall Street was the largest in American history, these safeguards worked admirably to prevent a bank panic from depressing the economy."

"A favorite conservative argument is that the Federal Reserve Board caused the Great Depression by contracting the money supply.

This is a complete myth. According to the Federal Reserve's own records, at no time did the Fed pull money out of the system. Although it's true that the money supply contracted 31 percent between 1929 and 1933, this was not because of the Fed. Rather, the contraction was caused by three dramatic runs on banks, which would close 10,000 banks by 1933. So many failures were significant, because bank deposits formed 92 percent of all the money in circulation."

http://www.hnvn.com/thuy/class/essay5.htm

"Furthermore, the national wealth that concentrated in a few people weakened consumer power and limited consumer industries."

This is why distribution of wealth is important.

"As a result, many people were unemployed and their life became very difficult. Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, the two presidents during the Great Depression period, tried to save the economy. Hoover's conservative program focused more on helping businesses. Hoover hesitated to provide more support for ordinary people. In contrast, Roosevelt's liberal New Deal, especially the second New Deal, gave more government financial assistance to people."

"Furthermore, the Revenue Act of 1932 increased taxes to eliminate deficit in RFC expenditures."

Raising taxes to ensure a surplus is a positive thing.

"In Hoover's program, unemployed and homeless people did not get much support from the government. As a Conservative, Hoover believed that helping ordinary people would not boost the economy and bring the country out of the depression."

History has proven that welfare helps not only the poor, but it kick-starts the ecnomy for all, even the rich.

"This showed the liberal and conservative differences. Conservative wanted to limit the government intervention in private businesses while liberals wanted the government to regulate corporations and support ordinary people more."

You see which works best in the longrun.

"The Second New Deal, starting in 1935, benefited ordinary people. The main goal of the Second New Deal was to promote the consumer society and reduce corporation's concentration of power. More jobs, higher salary, and more welfare support from the government would boost consumption and lead to national economic recovery."

"Clearly, Roosevelt, with his liberal ideas, wanted to reduce the economic power concentrated in corporations and distribute wealth more equally among majority ordinary people."

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1998/4/98.04.04.x.html

"He also felt that the control by government of business would affect the daily lives of each individual and would impair the very basis of liberty and freedom. Furthermore, even if the government conduct of business could give more efficiency instead of less, the fundamental objection to it would remain unchanged. It would increase abuse and corruption."

Isn't this evident today. If you look at it, government regulation of business leads to fair play and more prosperity for the people. When corporations control government we are left with Fascism, which is where we are heading today.

Look what Hoover, Bush 1, and Bush 2 have incommon; they took robust economies and threw them in the dumper.

"These shacks were built of cardboard, scrap metal, packing boxes and tar paper. People bitterly called these settlements Hoovervilles, after President Herbert Hoover."

Hoovervilles.....Bahahahahaha.... makes sense

"President Hoover did not want to interfere with the economy because he called the depression a “temporary halt in the prosperity of a great people”. The president depended on business companies and industries to take part in national stabilization efforts."

"The Social Security Act of 1935 was one of the New Deal’s most important reforms. It provided pensions to retired Americans. The law also set up a system of unemployment insurance. This protected Americans who lost their jobs. The government would give them money for a certain period of time. The social security also provided payments to disabled or needy people. These payments are known as welfare. The system was not perfect. It did not give all retired Americans pensions, nor did it give all Americans unemployment insurance. However, it was a giant step toward improvement in the lives of millions of Americans."

"Its reforms reduced the differences between the rich and the poor."

Sure , why not, let's just tax everybody at 100% then we will have HUGE surpluses right?

Welfare "kickstarts the economy"?

Yeah, just ask the Soviets. Worked for them, right?

With our current fed system (money based on essentially rich people) we have all the money in the world. IF like I said in another thread the Euro is based on gold we are screwed!! Because money based on something of value is MUCH more stable than money based on promissory notes that have nothing but the word of mouth.

SO
Though we may have beaten "communist economics" through over inflation of our dollar does not mean our current financial system is sound.

What will happen IF the euro is base on gold is very alarming BECAUSE it means european wages are base on something of value regardless of how much the item is in American dollars.

In other words a quality item could be manufactured at a very low price in an gold based economy, then turnd over and sold at a inflated price based on the American dollar... In effect we are promising to pay with money that has no value, in effect we are buying things that are "worth" what we say it is worth based on a promise backed by.... What???

Property, houses, office buildings and stuff like that? However who wants to by a building in the US when you cant pay the people to work for you? Again IF I were a smart European business man I would take as much promissory notes possible, devalue it by getting as much property as I could as cheap as I could. THEN open a business in the US and offer the lowest wages I could.. Knowing that the people of the US HAVE NO CHOICE but to work for peanuts in order to maintain an ever decreasing lifestyle, while I get a high quality item to sell on the world market.. I could care less if I didn't turn much of a proffit at first because in the end the I will own America

America will rott from the inside out and people will be force onto the streets in record numbers as the cost of living increases because of a money system based on nothing. However the rich people who have LOTS of money (like me a smart european business man) can adapt and move investments arround to "hide" my money OR I can create a business in another country where the money system is infinatly more stable, continue to sell my wares to the US and not have to worry about the depreciation or ROI because the ROI is increadible!! There will virtually never be a loss when dealing with the US, you could literally OWN the United States of America and pay for it with their own money!!

You won't get an arguement from me on the Gold Standard...with one exception: there is not enough gold in the world to back the money in circulation. Which is why we went off the standard in the first place. The value of money today is linked to a complicated formula of values based on various commodities. There is no doubt that the system is flawed. But you are wrong is assuming rich people have anything to do with the value of money. It's all consumer driven.

Never happen. Not enough gold to back the Euros in circulation.

As for the latest of the book:

“Hillary had hurt her back while making a Christmas visit to Employees in the old executive office building, but it was getting better, after her doctor told her to stop wearing high heels on the hard marble floors”

First let me say that the book ends on a positive note. He comments on the beauty of the American system of government that allows for a peaceful transfer of power. He remarks on the mistakes he made with Pardons and reflects somewhat worriedly on his "legacy".

Unfortunatley the last chapter also read like a commercial for the Democratic party. He still doesn't understand that those values are the CAUSE of the landslide Republican victories at the polls over the last 10 years. Hubris of the worst order.

I am used to reading great books and my standards of literary content are high so I really really really tried to remember that this was NOT literature and focus instead on the content and not so much the delivery. Hence I won't remark on the long winded nature of the book. The message was all too clear however, Clinton still believes he was a good PResident with a good message and refuses to accept that his downfall was his fault, not even a little. That is a tragedy. Most men who err come to the conclusion that they played a role in their own demise, except for the criminal element in our society. Which was a constant vision in my head while reading this book. I could just imagine Clinton in a car with an officer shining a flashlight in his eyes and Bill saying, "It wasn't me officer, I didn't go anywhere near that liquor store, this is police brutality"!

That wasn't a partisan shot, it was just an observation about how this book unfolded; the poor childhood, the missing father, the excuses. There was lots of reference to what he WANTED to do but very little mention of what he did. He preserved 5% of the national forrests...OK, cool...I guess...what about making the world a safer place? What about the economy which he takes plenty of credit for but can't point to a single piece of HIS legislation that aided it? And perhaps more importantly, what about the promises that never came to fruition? He barely mentions Hillary Care or the Gays in the Military mess.

I guess the overall problem with the book is that it does't say anything we haven't heard before. I coulda just whipped-out a few copies of the NY Times and read the same stuff. I want to understand the DECISION process of why he bombed the hospital in the Sudan and why that seemed like a smart move. I want to know why he did essentially NOTHING after the first World Trade Center Bombing. I would liek to know why he lied to the American people instead of just standing up and announcing with pride what his value system was and if we didn't like an adulterer as President that was our problem. Nixon taught us that the cover-up is ALWAYS worse than the crime, why didn't this President learn that?

He villifies the Republicans in Congress despite the fact that the voters put them there as a means of countering Clinton's policies. He acknowledges that Webb Hubbell committed a crime but says he would apologize to him for not pardoning him. WHY? No explanation of the Rich pardon, lots of finger pointing, and more typical Clintonesque duck-and-weave around the issue and never give a straight answer. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more, but I had hoped.

Like his administration the book is long winded and never really says anything. No heros, no resolutions, just an 8 year frat party in the White House right down to the pizza and blow jobs. Democrats will be embarrassed by this book and Republicans will find gobs of "I told you so's" in here. Ironically, Clinton choose to release it at this point in the election to help Kerry's chances, looks like he did just the opposite. This can only hurt him.

edit: typos

"liek"

...I didn't even bother to read it. 90% of the time it's either wrong, half-true, or irrelevant. The 10% of the time that it's actually RIGHT is not worth sifting through all the rest of it.

Ed