@metal-brain saidInflation doesn't account for weight reduction.
Inflation doesn't account for weight reduction.
"Learned about arithmetic in school."
Nope.
8-6=2
25% reduction
Yes, it does. You can't compare otherwise.
25% reduction
It's a 25% reduction in the amount of yogurt per serving, and an increase in the price of yogurt per unit volume of a third. You really shouldn't have dropped out of high school before they got to percentages.
@metal-brain saidIn 1836, the Second Bank of the United States was denied rechartering. At at point in history, US Real GDP per capita was $2,152.
"The need for a central bank was abundantly obvious by 1913 and, in fact, long before then. Economic growth and stability in the US has been much greater with it than there was before."
What is your source of information?
In 1913 when the Fed was created, US Real GDP per capita had increased to $6,996 or somewhat more than tripled.
After 104 years of the Fed, US Real GDP per capita is now $55,373 or almost 8 times what it was in 1913.
https://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/
So that's about double the increase per year.
EDIT: Plugging in the same time periods here: https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/growth/
Gets a lesser, though still significant, difference:
1836-1913: Annual Growth Rate of US Real GDP per capita: 1.54%
1913-2017: Annual Growth Rate of US Real GDP per capita: 2.01%
@kazetnagorra said"Yes, it does. You can't compare otherwise."
Inflation doesn't account for weight reduction.
Yes, it does. You can't compare otherwise.
25% reduction
It's a 25% reduction in the amount of yogurt per serving, and an increase in the price of yogurt per unit volume of a third. You really shouldn't have dropped out of high school before they got to percentages.
Yes, but it isn't counted that way. That is the point.
13 Nov 18
@no1marauder saidThat was because of technology increasing productivity. Those productivity increases were so great that they should have resulted in a much better economy. If anything the FRS held us back.
In 1836, the Second Bank of the United States was denied rechartering. At at point in history, US Real GDP per capita was $2,152.
In 1913 when the Fed was created, US Real GDP per capita had increased to $6,996 or somewhat more than tripled.
After 104 years of the Fed, US Real GDP per capita is now $55,373 or almost 8 times what it was in 1913.
https://www.measur ...[text shortened]... e of US Real GDP per capita: 1.54%
1913-2017: Annual Growth Rate of US Real GDP per capita: 2.01%
Why you would want to credit the FRS for such gains is perplexing. You should know other factors exist.
14 Nov 18
@Metal-Brain
“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements.” – Thomas Jefferson
@metal-brain saidWhat is your source for this information? Technology greatly increased in the century before the Fed as well. Technology increases have been even faster in the last few decades but productivity has slowed. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/new-insights-into-the-slowdown-in-us-productivity-growth
That was because of technology increasing productivity. Those productivity increases were so great that they should have resulted in a much better economy. If anything the FRS held us back.
Why you would want to credit the FRS for such gains is perplexing. You should know other factors exist.
The domestic banking system in the US was a mess before the Fed; it was difficult to get a check cashed from one city to another. Even the folks at Investopedia know this:
The United States was considerably more unstable financially before the creation of the Federal Reserve. Panics, seasonal cash crunches and a high rate of bank failures made the U.S. economy a riskier place for international and domestic investors to place their capital. The lack of dependable credit stunted growth in many sectors, including agriculture and industry.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/federal-reserve.asp
Of course, the Fed hasn't always made the best decisions, but the lack of any type of central bank would have worsened the situation as the figures I have already given you show.
14 Nov 18
@whodey saidCould you explain to me what the Federal Reserve has to do with government debt? By and large its Chairmans have warned against increased debt.
@Metal-Brain
“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements.” – Thomas Jefferson
@no1marauder saidIt depends on the technology. Labor saving technology. Most of that happened in the 20th century.
What is your source for this information? Technology greatly increased in the century before the Fed as well. Technology increases have been even faster in the last few decades but productivity has slowed. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/new-insights-into-the-slowdown-in-us-productivity-growth
The domestic banking system in the US was a ...[text shortened]... type of central bank would have worsened the situation as the figures I have already given you show.
We had the great depression after the creation of the FRS. Your claim that the FRS lessened recessions is baseless. There were plenty of recessions since then and other factors contributed to the recessions before that and have nothing to do with a lack of a central bank, but there were central banks temporarily back then too.
Don't forget that the British pound sterling was the world's reserve currency at the time much like the US Dollar is today. That hegemonic power meant that if the British empire raised interest rates the US had to follow suit to protect agricultural exports at that time. Things were different back then, but now the US can throw other economies into recession in much the same way the British used to. I could argue that it is US dollar hegemony and financial economic power that lessened recessions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837
Only 7 years after the FRS was created. Not impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321
@metal-brain saidIt is counted that way.
"Yes, it does. You can't compare otherwise."
Yes, but it isn't counted that way. That is the point.
@metal-brain saidWhile capitalist economies are always going to have business cycles, the evidence is clear that the era without a central bank had more frequent and lengthy recessions than the Era since.
It depends on the technology. Labor saving technology. Most of that happened in the 20th century.
We had the great depression after the creation of the FRS. Your claim that the FRS lessened recessions is baseless. There were plenty of recessions since then and other factors contributed to the recessions before that and have nothing to do with a lack of a central bank, ...[text shortened]... the FRS was created. Not impressive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321
This wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
lists 20 recessions from 1836 to 1913 when the Fed was created. Their average length was about 1 year, 10 months.
In the 105 years since the Fed was created, there are 18 recessions (so one every approx 6 years rather than 1 in 4 over the prior 77 year period) and these lasted 1 year, 1 month.
Of course, one can always argue things were different (they always are) but available evidence indicates the Fed has been a positive factor in economic growth and stability which accords with common sense.
@no1marauder saidIt is about the same. At best central banks make no difference, but we all know economies are more efficient when you add technology that reduces the need for labor. They didn't have earth movers, nail guns and washing machines in the 19th century, yet it takes 2 incomes instead of 1 to feed a family with the increase in efficiency.
While capitalist economies are always going to have business cycles, the evidence is clear that the era without a central bank had more frequent and lengthy recessions than the Era since.
This wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
lists 20 recessions from 1836 to 1913 when the Fed was created. Their average length was a ...[text shortened]... the Fed has been a positive factor in economic growth and stability which accords with common sense.
I'd say the FRS is making life harder for most people, not easier.
@metal-brain saidI was wondering why the sudden interest in/critique of the Fed. Then I recalled that Trump doesn't control it, so obviously the right wing blogosphere are going after it. One more step towards King Donald.
I'd say the FRS is making life harder for most people, not easier.
@lundos saidThe libertarian hard-on for the Fed dates back to when The Donald was making bad reality TV and running real estate empires into the ground (and probably long before that).
I was wondering why the sudden interest in/critique of the Fed. Then I recalled that Trump doesn't control it, so obviously the right wing blogosphere are going after it. One more step towards King Donald.
15 Nov 18
@lundos saidTrump has never said anything bad about the FRS except that he thinks interest rates should not be raised this much. Trump knows not to upset the FRS.
I was wondering why the sudden interest in/critique of the Fed. Then I recalled that Trump doesn't control it, so obviously the right wing blogosphere are going after it. One more step towards King Donald.