The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Recessions after the Great Depression till now (2009

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 7 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
5 Posts
Points 115
Cooldog posted on Wed, Feb 25 2009 5:33 PM

I was just wondering, since Austrians and free market economists point to the Great Depression as a failure of government in helping "end" recessions, what were the measures taken by government in recessions after? Most notably the 70s, early 80s, late 90s (early 50s recessions)? I know that monetary policy generally involved cheaper interest rates and more credit, but did they ever enact big policies or fiscal stimulus to combat the recession? How long were these recessions generally? Or was government generally passive in dealing with these crisis until now?

If they did do stuff, and since we have gotten over those recessions, couldn't that be used as a rebuttal to the Austrian claim that government hurts a recession economy?

  • | Post Points: 35

All Replies

Top 200 Contributor
Male
125 Posts
Points 2,710

I've wanted to know this too...does anyone know this?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
294 Posts
Points 5,005

Nothing has changed since the great depression. The currency still suffers from the compound interest paradox. The fed will print money at interest and never print the money to pay off the interest, and it won't take property as payment on debts. This leads to an expected default rate on debts, and it causes bubbles and crashes.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
1,504 Posts
Points 28,725
Moderator

The government has engaged in varying levels of intervention since the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve has bailed out big banks dozens of times. For the most part, fiscal activity has been somewhat limited. During the closest recession to the Great Depression we've had, Reagan lowered taxes, deregulated, and Volcker instituted a disinflationary monetary policy.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
1,504 Posts
Points 28,725
Moderator

There's no such thing as a "compound interest paradox." The Fed regularly monetizes the government's debt, which is a source for interest-free money.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
71 Posts
Points 955

Obviously there is. It is simply constantly avoided. And don't the banks loans + multiplier effect which leads to more loans mean that the interest-free money is sessentialy overwhelmed by the debt?

I'm not saying i know for sure, just asking.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
294 Posts
Points 5,005

Since you are asserting there is no such thing as the compound interest paradox, do you agree that if national debt was paid off with a 0% default rate that our economy would be fine? Its my assertion that we would not be fine and in fact a lot of people would die. All I meant by compound interest paradox is that the fed must always increase the speed at which it prints money/buys government debt.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
1,504 Posts
Points 28,725
Moderator

bigwig:
Obviously there is. It is simply constantly avoided. And don't the banks loans + multiplier effect which leads to more loans mean that the interest-free money is sessentialy overwhelmed by the debt?

I'm not saying i know for sure, just asking.

twistedbydsign99:
Since you are asserting there is no such thing as the compound interest paradox, do you agree that if national debt was paid off with a 0% default rate that our economy would be fine? Its my assertion that we would not be fine and in fact a lot of people would die. All I meant by compound interest paradox is that the fed must always increase the speed at which it prints money/buys government debt.

In order for the "compound interest paradox" to be true, the Federal Reserve would have to print significantly more interest bearing money than it prints non-interest bearing money. That means that the Fed would have to use the discount window extensively. Reality, however, is different. The primary tool that the Fed uses to control the money supply is open market operations. Open market operations are flooding the market with liquidity by buying privately held government debt. The Fed then monetizes (excuses) that debt. This is the creation of non-interest bearing money. The discount window is rarely ever used. On the rare occasion that it is used, it is usually used for bailing out banks with bad asset sheets, since the Fed's discount rate is often lower than the interest rate other financial institutions would charge the failing bank.

The "compound interest paradox" would be true if the Fed stopped purchasing treasury notes and used the discount rate for about 100 years or so and then called in all of its loans.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (8 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap