Oh Zito... I admire your loyalty to dumb ideas.
Much like your boy Bernie
So let's see... we have Bernie:
![]()
And we have Dr. Paul
![]()
Yeah... one might have a better clue on what causes economic bubbles than the other... just maybe
Like other periods of heightened speculation, Dutch interest rates "declined sharply" in the seventeenth century according to Homer and Sylla (1996, p. 141) and tulip bulb futures could be traded with no margin required (Garber 2000, p. 44). The tulip trading clubs were "soundly organized" and "proved very effective in smoothing transactions" (Gelderblom and Jonker n.d.). Dash (1999, p. 110) writes that the masses speculated in the tulip trade as an outgrowth of "an increasingly feverish boom in the Dutch economy as a whole, which began in 1631 and 1632 and gathered pace toward the end of the decade and meant that in many cases there was more money around than ever before." As more novice florists became interested in tulip speculation, professional growers introduced "an unusually large number of new varieties in 1634, which had the effect of depressing prices," but provided an avenue for commoners to participate in the mania (Dash 1999, p. 111).
But what made this episode unique was that the government policy did not expand the supply of money through fractional reserve banking which is the modern tool. Actually, it was quite the opposite. As kings throughout Europe debased their currencies, through clipping, sweating or by decree, the Dutch provided a sound money policy, which called for money to be backed one hundred per cent by specie. This policy, combined with the occasional seizure of bullion and coin from Spanish ships on the high seas, served to attract coin and bullion from throughout the world.
The end result was a large increase in the supply of coin and bullion in 1630s Amsterdam. Free coinage laws then served to create more money from this increased supply of coin and bullion, than what the market demanded. This acute increase in the supply of money served to foster an atmosphere that was ripe for speculation and malinvestment, which manifested itself in the intense trading of tulips.
Gave it a quick read... looks like the pricing bubbles can be explained by debased currency by government expansion of monetary supply. if you're curious in an opposing view - the mises institute has an article on it. It is long... but worthwhile. Here's a snippet towards the end:
https://mises.org/library/truth-about-tulipmania
Meanwhile... I've asked 100 times, but are we all ready to mock Sanders for wanting us to be like Venezuela?
It could also be explained by out of control greed, corruption, not giving a damn about the law (ie I can follow the ones that benefit me and ignore the rest), make as much money as possible and let other people "pay the piper" if the lazy beestard gets paid at all, and basically just worry about feathering my own nest.
I have defended both Bernie and Dr. Paul in the past for being basically good honest men in a world where that just doesn't happen. Is either of them perfect??? No, but this "gotcha" stuff you guys are having so much fun with is one of the main reasons why we're looking right down the barrel of Hilldog vs B-Dog. What about trying to find some common ground based on positives? Does that even exist for any of us anymore?
Hey sturg...what killed Lehman Brothers, and AIG, and about a million commercial banks?
Except there's no gotcha stuff on the Paul side... just an explanation of economic policies...
Nobody seems to have a defense of Bernie's insanity
It all starts with the interest rates and credit supply... Interest rates were pulled artificially low from Greenspan after the dot com bubble burst which incentivized banks to lend money like crazy.
Well there's certainly no explaining the Venezuela comment, as for the rest of his policies, yes they're crazy but IMO no more crazy than what we've been doing for the past 35 years or so, it's just that Bernie is saying let's give regular people a gravy train for a while not those in the top 10%, the finance industry and so on and while both really are crazy the only way I could see saying one side is crazier than the other is if a particular person is currently suckling at the teat of said corrupt insane teat.
As for Dr Paul, you know I've never said an ill word about him here, or anything else that I can think of, but there's nobody who hasn't said something dumb, it just used to be slightly less common than what we're seeing lately.
Well it should start with laws
The law should be supply/demand economics. Not bull **** artificial regulations that manipulate free markets.
Agreed but the bailout of 2007-2009 (m/l) wasn't supply/demand economics it was let the greedy lunatics loot the asylum and they're already bitching about "too many regulations" in the finance industry. We actually need some adults, those without a vested financial interest, to run things for a change.
that's the thing OHawk... the policies that Bernie wants to implement will put our current policies in hyperdrive.
he doesn't understand simple economics.
And what we've gotten over the last 35 years has been a disaster... Bernie wants us to step on the gas
Correct.. and I wouldn't have bailed them out
The law should be supply/demand economics. Not bull **** artificial regulations that manipulate free markets.
But it takes two to tango, right? Did the credit crash and subsequent recession happen solely because the government was promoting home ownership, or because the private sector was—on a MUCH larger scale—enabling it through the creation of CDOs based on subprime mortgages? The smaller guys fell to ruin ****ing around in the subprime mortgage market—most of the big institutions that failed did so because they were trading in what amounted to a completely unregulated insurance market. It seems like the height of chutzpah to blame it on government intervention when the banks were hawking CDOs based on ****ty mortgages, using their leverage to strongarm the ratings agencies into calling them AAA, and the whole thing was backstopped by the trading of credit default swaps, which was a trillion-dollar industry completely unregulated by the government. So was it too much government, or not enough? Without the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and with reasonable regulation of the credit default swap market, it wouldn't have happened.
Yes it takes two to tango... but that's the entire point of the interest rate policy... they lower the rates to encourage lending to boost the economy... this is artificial and creates bubbles.
It's the same reason tuition costs have gone up. The government subsidizes the loans - creating easy credit access - and costs will ALWAYS go up as a result. The all the students take the loans and then are stuck with the debt, and they can't pay them back.
It's the same thing that happened with housing. The fed creates the policy to encourage lending. The banks give out the money because that is how the banks will make money. The people invest in homes and home prices go up. Eventually - the debt can't be paid back and the bubble bursts. And that's before we even get into the concept of fractional reserve banking - which can only happen in a fiat currency economy.
A true free market economy doesn't artificially prop these things up and bubbles don't get created.
We're in the middle of yet another artificial credit cycle... because the fed is trying to prolong this "recovery" as long as it can... but like all bubbles, it will eventually pop