Please view the very eye-opening chart from the OECD showing rankings of government gross financial liabilities as a % of GDP. The U.S. ranks far down. Japan is number one by a longshot.
Where are the "debt terrorists" on Japan? Why aren't they screaming about a yen crash. Where is Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers, Pete Peterson, David Walker???
15 comments:
People talk as if 19th century is littered with panics and depressions, because we didn't have central planners controlling the money supply.
Here are some facts -
between 1866 and 1898 ( 32 years ), year over year decline in GDP happened during 4 of those years - in 3 recessions.
A mild recession in 1875 when real GDP declined from 140.8 billion to 140.6 billion.
Another mild recession 10 years later in 1884 when GDP declined 2% from 233.5 billion to 229.7 billion
Then a major recession in 1890s that lasted 2 years - 1893-1894 when GDP declined a combined 10% over those 2 years.
During those 32 years GDP grew 284%
Let's compare another post war period under central management of money supply - 1946 to 1978
There were 6 years of y-o-y declines in GDP.
1947, 1949, 1954, 1958, 1974, 1975
Cumulative Total GDP growth was 216%
It is totally ignoring the fact that monetary central planners managed to cause a great depression since they started planning.
Here are some additional interesting facts -
The value of the dollar almost doubled between 1866 and 1898. In other words, What used to take $100 to buy in 1866, cost only $52 in 1898 ( based on CPI )
The US Dollar lost 70% of it's value between 1946 and 1978. In other words, What used to cost $100 in 1946, cost more than $330 in 1978.
You're right! From 1866 to 1898 GDP in real terms grew 284%, but I'm curious as to why you stopped arbitarily at 1898?
The U.S. was on a gold standard until 1933, so the degree to which the Fed (created in 1913), or the government, could stimulate, was constrained.
A better analysis would have been 1866 to 1933. During that time GDP expanded by 717%.
However, from 1933 until 2008, GDP expanded by 1757% in real terms.
That blows away the period under which we were constrained by a gold standard.
"You're right! From 1866 to 1898 GDP in real terms grew 284%, but I'm curious as to why you stopped arbitarily at 1898?"
I just picked two major post war periods. I wanted to end the first period with the end of Grover Cleveland's term, or in other words, beginning of the progressive era. THe second period, I picked the same number of years. SO I wasn't cherry picking the dates, like you were.
And as far as monetary system is concerned, 1913 was end of an era, just as 1933 and 1971 were. You can't call an artificially manipulated system, the gold standard. Great depression, definitely belongs in the category of monetary mismanagement by central authorities. So you were just cherry picking the dates.
How about if we compare two centuries - 19th versus 20th.
In the 19th century, real GDP expanded 5348% ( 1801-1900)
In the 20th century ( 87 of those years under the Fed), real GDP expanded 2420%.
Don't blow a gasket.
Dollar gained 1/3 in buying power during the 19th century, whereas, it lost 95% of it's value in the 20th.
Since we have not reached 2013 yet, we can only compare 1809 to 1908 and 1909 to 2008. No cherry picking - here is the comparison.
1808-1907: 5808%
1908-2007: 2591%
Here is another comparison
1814-1907: 4426%
1914-2007: 2293%
If you don't include 1913 - 1933 ( because I don't think it was proper gold standard, and may be you don't think it was proper central banking ), here is another comparison
1834-1907:1956%
1934-2007:1568%
In other words, monetary central planners don't even come close to being as effective at allocating capital as the Mr. Market.
"Cherry picking???" Haaaaa!!!! The most important distinction in the entire period: gold standard/non-gold-standard...and you call that cherry picking???? Unreal!!!!!
1834-1933 GDP increased by 2552%.
1933-2008, GDP increasd by 1758%.
In the first period, that was 99 years, while in the second period, it was only 75 years.
A better way to look at it is annualized growth.
In the first period (1834-1933), real GDP grew at an annualized pace of 3.37%,
whereas...
In the second period (1933-2008), real GDP grew at an annulized pace of 3.97%.
Give up, already!! You're losing on every point, but your belief system won't let you see it.
Give up, already!!
WHy? are you feeling threatened? Is that how you usually engage people with a different point of view? Oh! I should have learned my lessons from some of your videos floating on the internet where you just laugh like a fool @ people with a different point of view. Do you think you have a monopoly right to absolute truth?
You're losing on every point, but your belief system won't let you see it.
You are cherry picking here is why: You always want to include the period from 1913 to 1933 as a period of true gold standard, when it clearly was not. Dollar lost 44% of it's value from 1913 to 1929. Can you find an equivalent period of time in the prior to 1913, when the U.S was largely at peace, the dollar lost 44% in 16 years? I bet you can't. Because under a gold standard, value of money usually increases at a really slow pace.
I challenge you to find a period that doesn't include 1913 to 1933 - I will give you a large advantage, you don't have to consider it as a period proving the incompetency of central planners( which it clearly was from the inflation I just pointed out). You are afraid, which is why you ask people with fact to stop or give up.
Get a grip Mike Norman, facts, mike, facts and other stubborn things only.
You're excluding 1913-1933 and I'M the one who's cherry picking??? Orwellian, that's all I can say.
1800 to 1933 . . with gold standard . . . six depressions.
1933 to 2009 . . . without gold standard . . . zero depressions.
I should have said . . . "with gold standard or otherwise guaranteeing convertibility" if we're going to only allow "true" gold standards.
Also, since 1933, no crises in the payments system. Fairly regular occurance prior to then.
You're excluding 1913-1933 and I'M the one who's cherry picking??? Orwellian, that's all I can say.
That's all you could come up with? ROTFLMAO. Facts are stubborn, ain't it Mike?
Mike,
It's time for another shot of kool-aid. Facts are too stubborn for you.
I would advise, that you take two shots of kool-aid at a time. I just watched a couple of your recent videos on mikeydoggy channel. You spoke like a man possessed. Don't do anything stupid. Don't obsessess. You sounded like a serial killer.
I am leaving with the satisfaction of having shut you up. Not to come back again. I wouldn't want to enrage a possessed man with facts. LOL. Good bye:-)
Mike, you hang in there. Don't let these bozo's get you down!
"Dollar lost 44% of it's value from 1913 to 1929. Can you find an equivalent period of time in the prior to 1913, when the U.S was largely at peace, the dollar lost 44% in 16 years?"
(slaps forehead)
Of course! You're right! I mean, apart from that "World War" thingy, we were at peace through that whole period!
Post a Comment