The Truss/Kwarteng Era

nsacpi

Expects Yuge Games
For my libertarian friends:Does the Truss/Kwarteng era represent a valid data point about how libertarians are likely to conduct macroeconomic policy upon rising to positions of responsibility.
 
Once we the nationalist populists fix the world of all the ills the globalists caused we can move more towards a libertarian point of view. At this time In history libertarianism is useless.
 
Once we the nationalist populists fix the world of all the ills the globalists caused we can move more towards a libertarian point of view. At this time In history libertarianism is useless.


So if we just have a MAGA dictator for a while we can someday have liberty. That is, uh, special.



Is Truss a Libertarian? Never heard of her before. Shes been PM for like 2 weeks?
 
I dont profess to be an expert on what constitutes a libertarian. Which is why I posed the question.
 
Theres a wide range of Libertarians from a moderate like Gary Johnson who is basically just Republican lite to straight up anarchists.
 
I do find it interesting that it is fairly rare for someone who self-identifies as a libertarian to rise to an actual position of responsibility. It seems that as a group they are temperamentally better suited to issuing critiques as outsiders than actually dealing with the messy world of governing and compromise.
 
I do find it interesting that it is fairly rare for someone who self-identifies as a libertarian to rise to an actual position of responsibility. It seems that as a group they are temperamentally better suited to issuing critiques as outsiders than actually dealing with the messy world of governing and compromise.

Right, because Republicans and Democrats do such a great job at running anything. The fact of the matter is the barrier to entry for any other party is intentionally absurd to overcome. The only thing Republicans and Democrats agree with is **** the third party. Libertarians can and have won running as Republicans. Gary Johnson was a very succesful Governor of New Mexico. Bill Weld was also governor of Massachusetts. I dont know much about his term to say how good it was. For the most part a Libertarian is a mixture of ideologies of left and right. So its really absurd to me to say they cant run anything. Me personally, I am very big on civil rights, a fair justice system, real accountability for police, actually asking police to enforce laws that represent the will of the people, and strong fiscal conservative policy. I think you just buy into the stereotype of Libertarians being anarchists.
 
Right, because Republicans and Democrats do such a great job at running anything. The fact of the matter is the barrier to entry for any other party is intentionally absurd to overcome. The only thing Republicans and Democrats agree with is **** the third party. Libertarians can and have won running as Republicans. Gary Johnson was a very succesful Governor of New Mexico. Bill Weld was also governor of Massachusetts. I dont know much about his term to say how good it was. For the most part a Libertarian is a mixture of ideologies of left and right. So its really absurd to me to say they cant run anything. Me personally, I am very big on civil rights, a fair justice system, real accountability for police, actually asking police to enforce laws that represent the will of the people, and strong fiscal conservative policy. I think you just buy into the stereotype of Libertarians being anarchists.

Weld was a great governor. I was living in MA at the time. A very talented and interesting politician.

At the same time, I can't help but note that Ron Paul's macroeconomic views (gold standard, etc) are distinctly of the crackpotish variety.

I guess Libertarians are a big tent when it come to macroeconomic policy.

Truss/Kwarteng were a disaster at many levels. Shocking incompetence really. I've been having fun with them as an exhibit of what not to do in the past two months with my macroeconomics students. Been like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
 
Last edited:
If we stuck to the gold standard there wouldnt be any inflation. I understand the reasons they did it but our money is backed by barely more than bitcoin is. Its far to late to go back to the gold standard. Heres a hint though, guess who owns a lot of investments in gold.
 
If we stuck to the gold standard there wouldnt be any inflation. I understand the reasons they did it but our money is backed by barely more than bitcoin is. Its far to late to go back to the gold standard. Heres a hint though, guess who owns a lot of investments in gold.

We had periods of both inflation and deflation while on the gold standard and prolonged recessions and various banking crises. The good old days werent.
 
we were on the gold standard during this period...which by the way set the way for many of the financial excesses that culminated in the Great Depression

reed-figure1.png
 
we were on the gold standard during this period...which by the way set the way for many of the financial excesses that culminated in the Great Depression

reed-figure1.png

You're either dumber than I imagined or you are assuming the readers are dumb.

But interesting that chart starts at 1914. A history lesson for the lecturer

So, the value of gold was set at $20.67 an ounce; therefore, one dollar was equal to one-twentieth of an ounce of gold. The pure and classical gold standard was effective from 1870 to 1914. Individuals used gold as commodity money because it guaranteed that the government would redeem any amount of paper money for its value in gold. Furthermore, the gold standard was mainly trusted as backed-commodity money because it kept inflation relatively low and sustainable. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was created by Congress to be used as a lender of last resort due to bank panics. It established that the Federal Reserve’s main objective was to maintain the value of gold during the period of bank panics.

In 1914, the United States was engaged in World War I and could not subsidize its military expenditures by solely relying on the gold standard. President Woodrow Wilson took the United States economy off the gold standard and used the Federal Reserve to print more money so the United States government could supply its military arsenal during the war. The early 1920s saw the rise of the Federal Reserve as the central authority as it became the regulator of the value of gold during the Pre-World War II era.
 
Here's an easy illustration for the slow bus.

The dollar has lost over 99% of it's value compared to gold since the the creation of the federal reserve.

I honestly didn't know you were this dumb but that's on me for overestimating you

[tw]1582473763286700034[/tw]
 
Last edited:
The gold standard was the basis for the international monetary system from the 1870s to the early 1920s, and from the late 1920s to 1932 as well as from 1944 until 1971 when the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold, effectively ending the Bretton Woods system.

We had high inflation and asset price bubbles during multiple periods of the gold standard, including the late 1960s.
 
Interesting that one of Truss' rivals foresaw what happened.

Rishi Sunak
Sunak has proved to be something of a prophet of the government’s demise, as many of the predictions he made during this summer’s leadership about Truss’s economic plan came to pass.

The former Chancellor of the Exchequer (finance minister) warned that Truss’s unfunded tax cuts would lead to a run on sterling, a panic in the bond market and concern from the International Monetary Fund. Perhaps even he would have been surprised by the pace with which he was proved right.

Sunak has experience of economic crisis-fighting, having guided the UK through the Covid-19 pandemic.

He also secured the most votes from MPs in the last leadership election – comfortably clearing the new threshold with 137 endorsements. Although Truss eventually won the decisive members’ vote, Sunak only lost narrowly – with 43% of the vote.

The trust he has among MPs – and the vindication his predictions have gained – may make him the most likely next set of hands to steer the ship.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/20/uk/liz-truss-possible-successors-intl-gbr/index.html
 
The gold standard was the basis for the international monetary system from the 1870s to the early 1920s, and from the late 1920s to 1932 as well as from 1944 until 1971 when the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the US dollar to gold, effectively ending the Bretton Woods system.

We had high inflation and asset price bubbles during multiple periods of the gold standard, including the late 1960s.

Is it your contention that Woodrow Wilson did NOT create the federal reserve and detach us from the gold standard in 1914?
 
The primary motivating force behind the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was the Panic of 1907 when many banks went under and more would have if JP Morgan had not stepped in the provide liquidity to the system. The realization set in that there would not always be a JP Morgan to step up to the plate. Hence the need for a central bank.
 
It was the UK that suspended the gold standard in 1914. Not the US. I suppose some people find this confusing.
 
Back
Top