Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: smolejv@gmx.net who wrote (18553)	4/29/2002 5:10:04 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

I think maybe I did not post this chart: mason.gmu.edu That's what is puzzling me. Roosevelt became president in March, 1933. He ordered the shutdown of all the banks in the country and only solvent banks were allowed to reopen (the Bank Holiday). He also suspended conversion of currency to gold, and outlawed private ownership of gold, the same month. Banks quit failing, capital formation went up. mason.gmu.edu mason.gmu.edu I will post more charts but haven't finished them.

To: smolejv@gmx.net who wrote (18553)	4/29/2002 5:38:25 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

OK, here are a couple more charts - both sets are the same data but one is log and one is not. mason.gmu.edu mason.gmu.edu The argument I would make is that the money supply did not go down, and the gold stocks did not go down, but the gold was transferred from state and national banks into the Federal Reserve system, and that made the banks unstable (make sure you scroll down to see the second chart on the page). Since the money supply data is cumulative, shouldn't I use the log table? (I think the currency reserves for state and national banks stayed high, too, but I guess I need to make a chart to show that).

To: smolejv@gmx.net who wrote (18553)	4/29/2002 7:56:15 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi DJ, check this out ... Message 17392179 I think the linked note is worthwhile to keep in mind, even though I have doubt on its conclusion. Not absolute denial of possibility, but just doubt. Some economists think that just because China is in the "dollar zone" and so the WORLD will not let the USD implode, because if the USD does go kaboom, the world will be struck by deflation of a more serious nature, and so the USD will either stay strong or meander down gently. As CB noted, forex trade is huge, and I note exchange rate moves are generally sustained, not entirely controllable, and often explosive, sometimes impulsive, and rarely has anything to do with what the economists figures. Chugs, Jay