Community | July 18, 2009 | 29 comments

Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920

source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI

bullpcp
This is another example of common knowledge that is wrong. The common knowledge is that government, through Keynesian stimulus saved us from the great depression..This is simply untrue. They inadvertently exacerbated the situation and prolonged it, just taking into account price and wage fixing, by 7 years.

Mark Twain-
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
  1. groups:
    Community,   Greatest Depression,   Economy,   US Economy
  2. tags:
    Politics,  Economy,  Economics,  Economic Crisis,  1 more
  3.     
    |

29 comments // Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 // Video

  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  

    • plusaf
      Awesome site I bookmarked you. I narrowly avoided.

      Falk's Second Law:

      "Never trust generalizations." :)

      And a grand thank you to akamaial for the links any enlightenment I gain from these is thanks to you.

    • 2 years ago
  • nikelibertate
    • 0
      nikelibertate  

    • Hoover was a Progressive, he believed in government intervention and social engineering as well as "encouraging" volunteerism and regulation. He increased federal spending by 31% to try to curb the depression which made the situation worse. FDR did many of the same things, however WWII helped his image since by shipping unemployed American men overseas to be killed helped deflate the unemployment numbers.

      The Great Depression was caused by the margin call loans lent to the brokerage firms by the Federal Reserve, they called the loans in all at once which meant that all the liquidity in the market was withdrawn at once. JP Morgan and others were able to buy up their competition for pennies on the dollar. As usual the Fed cause the destruction and took none of the blame.

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
  • akamaial
  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  

    • Reply to MilchMann

      Did you seriously reference yourself? Wow.

      No. I neither wrote nor did I claim to have written the article and the guy on the video is definitely not me. I did post a link on current so people, like yourself could discuss it, seemed appropriate considering that is somewhat the point of current.

      Hoover did not spend a dime on the economy until he was practically forced to because the situation spun out of control so fast when he refused.... and then he tried to stipulate it to where no one take it... if you want to make that comparison, find so be it, it is true...

      That is patently untrue but I don't think there is anything that I could write, cite, or show you that would convince you of this.

      Google, the internet... especially Wikipedia are not sources of information they are hear say. Cited books, first hand accounts, these are the things you gather information from, not you tube videos with quacks with no credentials posing as intellectuals. Its called fact checking, try it, go find this in a book and come back and report your findings... and if you use that nut jobs uncited piece of junk or something else like it... well... shit stinks, its a proven fact.

      I hope I can explain to you the contradictory nature of your request. I have presented a video of an author who is citing other books and is himself an author.

      Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of nine books. A senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia

      I also have literally dozens of links to other authors who have said and continue to say the same thing.

      Including
      Robert P. Murphy has a PhD in economics from NYU and is author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal

      But this is irrelevant and we both know it. If you are determined to continue to believe what you currently do than there is no evidence that I will be able to present to you that will convince you to your satisfaction. The idea that direct citations from books are somehow better, or worse, than the authors, with credentials, citing their evidence is ridiculous. The idea that somehow me citing the authors book instead of me citing the authors themselves makes their arguments, evidence, logic less compelling or relevant makes absolutely no sense. If you are determined to ignore the relevance of this or any other source because you refuse to open yourself up to the possibility that what you know just isn't so there are no number of citations from authors with Ivy League degrees that I will be able to present to convince you.

      So again I ask you please look up this information on your own DON'T take my word for it but challenge yourself. Instead of accepting Hover did nothing look up what he did do. If you can't find any evidence of his activities that's fine you have proven you were right and that I'm wrong, but what if what you currently believe is incorrect. What if when you look you find out Hoover did in fact act repeatedly, intervening in the economy repeatedly, using Keynesian economic stimulus. Isn't it worth finding out?

    • 2 years ago
  • akamaial
    • 0
      akamaial [removed]  

    • Are you kidding? 1/3 the population in any state cannot even tell you who their own governor is, not even mentioning where the national capital is located..
      ...they think the great depression might possibly be located 1920 feet below sea level in the Mojave Desert?

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  
    • akamaial:

      Are you kidding? 1/3 the population in any state cannot even tell you who their own governor is, not even mentioning where the national capital is located..
      ...they think the great depression might possibly be located 1920 feet below sea level in the Mojave Desert?

      Ok, good point. Maybe I should have given a brief overview of the Great Depression first. I should try harder to provide context for the articles and videos I link. Good idea. Thank you.

    • 2 years ago
  • keithponder
    • 0
      keithponder  
    • Image

    • This article is inacurate at best. Woodrow Wilson's greatest regret is the Federal Reserve. He knew that a tempory fix would eventually destroy this greta nation.

      The Federal Reserve felt seemed like it was the right for our country at first. Like most deadly drugs do,it has robbed us of everything and left here to die.

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  

    • So let me get this right, profits are the enemy here? Profits are nothing more than market signals to investors. When government steps in and distorts these signals it sends the wrong signal to investors and investment resources are not allocated in an efficient manner. Profits are not the enemy here, excess profits made the wrong way are the problem, and most of the corporate sectors have had big government backing and protectionism for decades. The libertarian economic system is as tangible as any other. It is based around the basis of property rights and equilibrium pressures. The only difference between the Keynesians and the Austrians is the fact that Keynesians use force and violence, abuse the consumer, and distort market signals with that force. You still have not stated a valid argument for why a market system based upon rules that punish against force, fraud, and aggression and protect individual liberties and property rights is somehow an oxymoron.

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  

    • Not to be rude but words mean things and just because you don't like the word or it's definition it still means what it means.

      Policy

      1. A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel policy.
      2.
      1. A course of action, guiding principle, or procedure considered expedient, prudent, or advantageous: Honesty is the best policy.
      2. Prudence, shrewdness, or sagacity in practical matters.

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
  • shanklinmike
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • shanklinmike:

      Because there has to be a policy for there to be a policy... no policy is not a policy...

      Did you ever read catch 22? Milo Minderbinder? buys eggs for 4 cents and sells them at 3 cents for profit? Well regardless it is the perfect analogy for libertarian economics.

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  
    • shanklinmike:

      Not to be rude but words mean things and just because you don't like the word or it's definition it still means what it means.

      Policy

      1. A plan or course of action, as of a government, political party, or business, intended to influence and determine decisions, actions, and other matters: American foreign policy; the company's personnel policy.
      2.
      1. A course of action, guiding principle, or procedure considered expedient, prudent, or advantageous: Honesty is the best policy.
      2. Prudence, shrewdness, or sagacity in practical matters.

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  
    • shanklinmike:

      Did you ever read catch 22? Milo Minderbinder? buys eggs for 4 cents and sells them at 3 cents for profit? Well regardless it is the perfect analogy for libertarian economics.

      Sounds more like the governments Keynesian economic policies.

    • 2 years ago
  • ocanada
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • ocanada:

      Thank you man, I am going to steal that and quote it everywhere... I wish the media did not like conflict so much and would get rid of peter schiff...

      Notice they pit him against twenty people... and he is the only one that has this opinion so they have to keep reusing him, but they can find different personalities for the other view, this guys ego is out of control, he might be the biggest megalomaniac on the planet.

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • ocanada:

      How about how often he is wrong? His track record is pitted with bad decisions and wrong conclusions... besides, he was far from the only person to be screaming about the impending doom of the economy, hell my grandmother has been talking about it for at least a decade and she is senile... which I hope you see proves nothing at all, especially that this man knows what he is talking about.

    • 2 years ago
  • norfair18
    • 0
      norfair18  
    • ocanada:

      Ummm...like what....

      (And don't give me that lame old argument that his stocks had negative returns in 2008. 2008 was just one giant panic and nothing made any rational sense. Peter schiff's stocks were meant to deal with the collapse, which is just beginning, and anyway there are many of his picks which are above their 2008 lows now since 2009 is turning out to be a banner year for him.)

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  

    • Most people do not understand how the republicans and central planners who "preach" freer markets have done just the opposite and actually expanded government over the last 100 years. We now have 6 times the Federal government when compared to GDP as in 1903. It is not just the democrats who are to blame. Almost every republican president over the last 80 years has ran a deficit and expanded their own version of government.

    • 2 years ago
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  

    • First of all where did he get these statistics for this depression, they did not keep those statistics then (GDP and all the rest) the statistics you find in places are completely speculator. Next, the handling of 1921 depression is universally excepted to have setup the crash of 1929... after this guy said Herbert Hoover was an advocate of government spending and intervention I had to stop watching, he specifically was against government intervention and had an economic policy almost completely based on volunteerism which is a candid way of saying laissez-faire (or completely free open market system). People hated hoover... then when government intervention started (way to late) in 1931 in the last few months of Hoovers office it was only with the insistence of Roosevelt who Hoover referred to because he was so overwhelmed and incompetent... when this started (the government intervention) people had a way to eat again and the suicide rate fell off... yes, laissez-fair led to people literally starving to death and living in cardboard box cities called Hoovervilles. that is history you will find in any book not some interpretive quack bs you have to search for to tell you what you want to hear.

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  
    • MilchMann:

      Google Hover and almost any source that actually describes what Hover did will contradict the commonly held belief that he did nothing. His actions are NOT those of free market or Laissez-faire capitalist. He intervened repeatedly in the economy. He spent money to stimulate the the economy. The idea that somehow he didn't spend enough money on the correct things or he didn't have enough authority is such a ridiculous excuse it could only come from the government. If you are unwilling to have an open mind and have your commonly held beliefs challenged then you will never learn anything of any value. Again don't take my word for it just look it up yourself.

      http://current.com/items/90458233_the-myths-of-the-great-depression.htm

    • 2 years ago
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • MilchMann:

      Did you seriously reference yourself? Wow.

      Hoover did not spend a dime on the economy until he was practically forced to because the situation spun out of control so fast when he refused.... and then he tried to stipulate it to where no one take it... if you want to make that comparison, find so be it, it is true...

      Google, the internet... especially Wikipedia are not sources of information they are hear say. Cited books, first hand accounts, these are the things you gather information from, not you tube videos with quacks with no credentials posing as intellectuals. Its called fact checking, try it, go find this in a book and come back and report your findings... and if you use that nut jobs uncited piece of junk or something else like it... well... shit stinks, its a proven fact.

    • 2 years ago
  • norfair18
    • 0
      norfair18  
    • MilchMann:

      Milch, you need to read the first 50 pages of Amity Schlaes "The Forgotten Man". The first thing Hoover did upon the crash is gather up all the big business leaders around the country and commanded them to not lower wages, which they obliged to. And why do you think during the 1932 election FDR's campaign charged Hoover with "leading the country towards socialism" and they ridiculed his economic intervention?? You gotta read more than the 2 pages in history class that they teach you about the depression buddy.

    • 2 years ago
  • bullpcp
    • 0
      bullpcp  
    • MilchMann:

      Reply to MilchMann

      Did you seriously reference yourself? Wow.

      No. I neither wrote nor did I claim to have written the article and the guy on the video is definitely not me. I did post a link on current so people, like yourself could discuss it, seemed appropriate considering that is somewhat the point of current.

      Hoover did not spend a dime on the economy until he was practically forced to because the situation spun out of control so fast when he refused.... and then he tried to stipulate it to where no one take it... if you want to make that comparison, find so be it, it is true...

      That is patently untrue but I don't think there is anything that I could write, cite, or show you that would convince you of this.

      Google, the internet... especially Wikipedia are not sources of information they are hear say. Cited books, first hand accounts, these are the things you gather information from, not you tube videos with quacks with no credentials posing as intellectuals. Its called fact checking, try it, go find this in a book and come back and report your findings... and if you use that nut jobs uncited piece of junk or something else like it... well... shit stinks, its a proven fact.

      I hope I can explain to you the contradictory nature of your request. I have presented a video of an author who is citing other books and is himself an author.

      Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of nine books. A senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia

      I also have literally dozens of links to other authors who have said and continue to say the same thing.

      Including
      Robert P. Murphy has a PhD in economics from NYU and is author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal

      But this is irrelevant and we both know it. If you are determined to continue to believe what you currently do than there is no evidence that I will be able to present to you that will convince you to your satisfaction. The idea that direct citations from books are somehow better, or worse, than the authors, with credentials, citing their evidence is ridiculous. The idea that somehow me citing the authors book instead of me citing the authors themselves makes their arguments, evidence, logic less compelling or relevant makes absolutely no sense. If you are determined to ignore the relevance of this or any other source because you refuse to open yourself up to the possibility that what you know just isn't so there are no number of citations from authors with Ivy League degrees that I will be able to present to convince you.

      So again I ask you please look up this information on your own DON'T take my word for it but challenge yourself. Instead of accepting Hover did nothing look up what he did do. If you can't find any evidence of his activities that's fine you have proven you were right and that I'm wrong, but what if what you currently believe is incorrect. What if when you look you find out Hoover did in fact act repeatedly, intervening in the economy repeatedly, using Keynesian economic stimulus. Isn't it worth finding out?

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos