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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: orkrious who wrote (80303)	3/24/2007 9:08:27 AM
From: orkrious	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Clearly an un-American, terrorist supporting, lefty, pinko Democrat! youtube.com

To: orkrious who wrote (80303)	3/24/2007 12:58:43 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 110194

The thoughts I detailed to some degree in this post _ Message 23397283 _ are simply ordinary accepted economics in the pre-Monetarist era. Of course the "economics" that we today call Monetarist had already existed and economists called them "Currency Cranks" - people such as the famous John Law from Scotland who created the first paper currency regime in France. This disaster was in no small way responsible for the French Revolution. en.wikipedia.org Unfortunately an economist of the next generation, Adam Smith whose thoughts greatly influenced Anglo-Saxon economics, was greatly fascinated by John Law's experiment. Smith's major work "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" is thoroughly infested with John Law's bankrupt concepts. en.wikipedia.org The primarily idea taken from John Law that Smith elaborates on is the notion that money should be "only a medium of exchange" and "not a store of value", which is the essence of the currency-crank school of thought. For this reason Monetarists have essentially made a saint out of Adam Smith, likely because it would be too embarrassing to recognize John Law as their true founder. The change in consensus away from traditional economics was changed by two factors. The first was the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank Act in 1913 ironically signed into existence by Woodrow Wilson. Ironic because he greatly opposed the power of the banking trusts and their control over the destiny of others. Wilson was an idealistic and deeply flawed academic who thought the Federal Reserve would make this power more democratic. The second factor was the Great Depression. While this experience should have highlighted the flaws of the Federal Reserve Act and currency crankism in general, it instead led to an impatience with traditional economics which said bubbles are followed by busts which in the long run lead to a new more solid prosperity. John Maynard Keynes's line that "in the long run we're all dead" symbolized an age determined to find a quick solution to manage the economy back to prosperity in a new clever artificial manner. Sadly, the utter failure of Keynesian and Monetarist economics has not dissuaded this effort. It is generally agreed that additional tinkering with these schemes will finally yield success. I am not convinced. The difference between traditional economics and currency crankism can be explored in two books written by one of my Grandfather's cousins, Charles Rist, a French economist and Governor of the Bank of France. fr.wikipedia.org translate.google.com These books, which are periodically reprinted and in wide use, can usually be purchased at a vendor such as Amazon.com "History of Monetary and Credit Theory from John Law to the Present Day" Charles Rist - 1938 "A History of Economic Doctrines from the Time of the Physiocrats to the Present Day" by Charles Rist and Charles Gide - 1909 .