Bruddah IZ
DA
It's called monetary history E-nanke.
Essential Economics for Politicians
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- finance too
Bruddah IZ
DA
Who's being selective? You still haven't answered what the fundamental differences between Roman and modern American monetary policies are. Like E-nanke said I've gone from 4th Century to 1890 and beyond from Europe to the U.S. to South America. Please let me know what relevant history I've left out.
Cite a country with a central bank whose directors are appointed by the government hardly supports your argument.
The 44 recessions before the Fed was created.
Canada has had a centralized banking under a government system that the WSJ has called "liberal democracy". Are you sure you want to pursue this? It's a big deviation from your usual position of free market conservatism.
"Liberal" here doesn't mean progressive as opposed to conservative. It means protection of minority and individual rights.
I understand that, but the word is poison to Izzy and his ilk on the forum.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Why?
Bruddah IZ
DA
What was the fundamental cause of the 44 recessions and what measures were taken in the wake of those recessions if any?
Bruddah IZ
DA
I would love to pursue it! How about you? Why did WSJ call it a "liberal democracy"? Post the link if you like. That way someone can read and explain it to you. I doubt that a deviation will arise.
Bruddah IZ
DA
I like classic liberals.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Ah yes, Calomiris and Haber wrote the book I have referenced here before, "Fragile by Design". So, where is the deviation. I don't see any. You should read the linked paper in the article that you link or the book "Fragile by Design" . It is chocked full of banking and economic history. Thanks for bringing this up.
Where is the free market capitalism you are so fond of?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Calomiris and Haber Podcast interview on Fragile by Design:
So the basic idea of the book is that banking systems are fragile by design because it is impossible to take politics out of bank regulation. And it's impossible to do so because there are inherent conflicts of interest between government and banking systems such that banks need governments and governments need banks. Those conflicts of interest basically boil down to three features. First, governments simultaneously regulate banks and borrow from banks. Second, governments simultaneously use their police power in order to enforce debt contracts on behalf of banks; but people who are being, let's say, forced out of their houses because they've defaulted on a mortgage are voters, and so when banking crises occur governments often have reasons to not enforce those debt contracts. Third, governments are in charge of liquidating failed banks. But the biggest group of creditors to a bank when a bank is liquidated are its depositors--who are voters. And so governments have incentives to change the rules of government deposit insurance for political ends--so often extend deposit insurance beyond its statutory limits. Because of those three basic inherent conflicts of interest, it's extremely difficult to remove politics from banking. Governments have, or parties inside the government have inherent reasons for wanting to use the banking system for their own ends, and at the same time, bankers need the government in order to do things like enforce debt contracts. There's no getting politics out.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/02/calomiris_and_h.html
Bruddah IZ
DA
Good question. Read above.
What does that have to do with Canada?
Canadian government has a long history of interfering with Canadian industry, ostensibly to help the Canadian workers and investors - agriculture, railroads, aircraft, automobiles, lumber, mining, fishing...
Bruddah IZ
DA
Ostensibly? Please continue.
Why bother? You have already demonstrated your ignorance on this topic, as on so many others.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Strong exit strategy.