tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post1965003858783080677..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: The Austerity BogeyWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-60367798021310757222010-10-27T10:14:22.979-04:002010-10-27T10:14:22.979-04:00"the 19th century business cycle is totally i..."the 19th century business cycle is totally ignored."<br /><br />The federal government bank inflated, and the state governments allowed the state banks to inflate. The structure of the regulatory regime was different but the pols goals, the incentives that existed, the bankers' actions, and the disastrous results have been the same every single time.<br /><br />"What good is an economist if they have zero ability to predict economic outcomes?"<br /><br />Exactly. The Keynesians are no good at all.jgohttp://www.kermitrose.com/econ201010.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-53577587286993469502010-10-27T05:27:56.560-04:002010-10-27T05:27:56.560-04:00"Care to actually address the fraud and theft..."Care to actually address the fraud and theft?"<br /><br />No they wouldnt. People do not like to confronts truths that unravel their entire perception of reality. <br /><br />Also AP saying the government provides equity is not only complete horseshit but not the only question i raised. Why wouldnt investors simply have faith that the company produces a product consumers want at a price they are willing to pay at a cost that can turn a profit? Where would any consideration of the government even come into their thinking other than how much theyre going to confiscate?ekeyrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17413110869433997820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-57458328762919775892010-10-26T17:25:00.516-04:002010-10-26T17:25:00.516-04:00Good one. Must be frustrating knowing that without...Good one. Must be frustrating knowing that without a fiat monetary system MMT is irrelevant.<br /><br />Now replace gold in the example above with steel, coal, silicon, cars, computers, any good or service really, and you still have people forced by gov't guns to accept payment in a piece of paper as if it actually represented something. Care to actually address the fraud and theft?jason hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795436962579269461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-25834019346719069492010-10-26T16:32:05.020-04:002010-10-26T16:32:05.020-04:00could someone let jason know the gold standard is ...could someone let jason know the gold standard is not in existance anymore. thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-89453071504003724812010-10-26T16:10:00.285-04:002010-10-26T16:10:00.285-04:00"creating something scarce-money"
I ass...<i>"creating something scarce-money"</i><br /><br />I assume you are using the non-economic definition of scarce, considering fiat money is nearly infinite, limited only be the capacity of the harddrive that stores Bernanke's spreadsheet.<br /><br />The banker issues receipts for the gold he stores. After a while he realizes no one ever comes to claim the gold; his clients merely swap receipts. <br /><br />Noting that people prefer to accept receipts rather than transact in physical gold, he beings printing up receipts for his own use. He is committing fraud and robbing the purchasing power of his clients by biding on the same scarce resources in the market.<br /><br />The banker is soon promoted to Chairmen of the Federal Reserve, and the gov't steps in and forces everyone to use the receipts at the barrel of the gun.jason hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795436962579269461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-52503031381667048172010-10-26T15:45:13.097-04:002010-10-26T15:45:13.097-04:00By the government doing nothing, prices dropped su...<i>By the government doing nothing, prices dropped substantially to their natural rate.</i> Just what is the natural rate? 1 cent for an jet plane? <br /><br /><i>Explain how stealing purchasing power from oblivious victims through money dilution is not criminal and immoral.</i> Explain how making everyone better off by creating something scarce - money - is stealing purchasing power. OK, some people may be helped more than others. But if nobody is hurt in a real world, less stuff for stuff way?<br /><br /><i>This "stuff for stuff" forumulation is so obvious that only a Keynesian could deny it </i> Sorry, the denial goes back to Marx - and basically any capitalist, who exchanges money for stuff for money. But maybe Keynes used the time machine he invented to tell Marx, and then start every recession that has ever happened with his bad advice.Another Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-79511010454225392832010-10-25T09:04:26.234-04:002010-10-25T09:04:26.234-04:001. The contraction then became severe. By the yea...1. <em>The contraction then became severe. By the year's end, industrial production had fallen 25.6 percent below its January 1920 peak and bottomed out at 32.6 percent below its January 1920 level in July 1921, the general business trough.</em><br /><br />That's a nasty recession. <br /><br />THE FACT OF THE SEVERE DEFLATION supports the Austrian view. By the government doing nothing, prices dropped substantially to their natural rate. There was no alleged "need" for money dilution to artificially push them down. With that much collapse in industrial production with such a small change in GDP, it demonstrates that a quick reconfiguration can occur as the economy can natually rid itself of Keynesian-type and statist policies that distorted the economy in the first place. <br /><br />2. Where did Say use the specific phrase "aggregate demand"? <br /><br /><em>Say's formulation<br /><br />In Say's language, "products are paid for with products" (1803: p. 153) or "a glut can take place only when there are too many means of production applied to one kind of product and not enough to another" (1803: p. 178-9). Explaining his point at length, he wrote that:<br /><br />It is worthwhile to remark that a product is no sooner created than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value. When the producer has put the finishing hand to his product, he is most anxious to sell it immediately, lest its value should diminish in his hands. Nor is he less anxious to dispose of the money he may get for it; for the value of money is also perishable. But the only way of getting rid of money is in the purchase of some product or other. Thus the mere circumstance of creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products. (J. B. Say, 1803: pp.138–9)[3]<br /><br />He also wrote, that it is not the abundance of money but the abundance of other products in general that facilitates sales:<br /><br />Money performs but a momentary function in this double exchange; and when the transaction is finally closed, it will always be found, that one kind of commodity has been exchanged for another.</em><br /><br />This "stuff for stuff" forumulation is so obvious that only a Keynesian could deny it and it also demonstrates how money dilution must distort the price structure and ultimately the capital structure.<br /><br />3. Explain how stealing purchasing power from oblivious victims through money dilution is not criminal and immoral.<br /><br />4. Even the most sophisticated data set is ultimately anecdotal even if helpful. And there is still nothing about the 1920 situation that would suggest any truth to the Keynesian Hoax.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-5224559384982825872010-10-25T02:25:46.307-04:002010-10-25T02:25:46.307-04:00It was a nasty little depression caused, as usual,...<i>It was a nasty little depression caused, as usual, by the government.</i><br /><br />Nope, it wasn't a depression. It was mild recession, accompanied by severe deflation.<br /><br />In reality, GNP contraction was relatively small, and the growth path of output was hardly impeded by the recession.<br /><br /><i>How does all this "increase in aggregate supply" stuff justify money dilution and debt?</i><br /><br />You assume that money creation is immoral. It isn't. And in a recession resources are idle: deficit spending puts them to use, so the money supply growth-price level relation posited by the quantity theory is broken.<br /><br /><i>I still don't see how one establishes economic laws with anecdotal evidence</i><br /><br />What you cited is not "anecdotal evidence": it called empirical data. Vast difference.<br /><br /><i>Also, I deny that there is any such "thing" as "aggregate demand".</i><br /><br />Really??<br />How interesting!<br />Since both "aggregate demand" and "aggregate supply" are concepts whose meaningfulness is <i>presupposed</i> by Say's law, then if you reject the first, then presumably you also think Say's law is meaningless too??Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-22415301648481378312010-10-25T00:19:55.258-04:002010-10-25T00:19:55.258-04:00I read this free intro here:
http://www.questia.c...I read this free intro here:<br /><br />http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=96522339<br /><br />It was a nasty little depression caused, as usual, by the government. How does all this "increase in aggregate supply" stuff justify money dilution and debt? I still don't see how one establishes economic laws with anecdotal evidence. Also, I deny that there is any such "thing" as "aggregate demand". I don't see your point at all.<br /><br /><em>THE 1920-21 DEFLATION: THE ROLE OF AGGREGATE SUPPLY<br /> <br />J. R. VERNON <br /><br />World War I was followed by an extremely sharp deflation in 1920-1921. Most treatments have attributed this deflation to a decline in aggregate demand. This paper, noting that the deflation was not only large, but large relative to the accompanying decline in real product, argues that it was caused by a decline in aggregate demand combined with an increase in aggregate supply. <br /><br />******<br /><br />Annual data for wholesale prices tell a similar story. Wholesale prices declined by 36.8 percent for 1920-21, the largest one-year decline on record, going back at least to the American Revolutionary War period. <br />The contraction then became severe. By the year's end, industrial production had fallen 25.6 percent below its January 1920 peak and bottomed out at 32.6 percent below its January 1920 level in July 1921, the general business trough. Wholesale prices were 42.9 percent below their May 1920 peak by July 1921. Industrial production had fallen by 32.6 percent in eighteen months, wholesale prices by 42.9 percent in fourteen months. The deflation eliminated more than 70 percent of the rise in wholesale prices associated with World War I.<br /><br />Civilian unemployment rose substantially during the recession. According to Lebergott [1964 , 512], the unemployment rate was 1.4 percent for both 1918 and 1919, 5.2 percent for 1920, and 11.7 percent for 1921.</em>Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-79534421774711715412010-10-24T18:44:24.408-04:002010-10-24T18:44:24.408-04:00Both LK and Dr. Hut Tax employ nothing but anecdot...<i>Both LK and Dr. Hut Tax employ nothing but anecdotal “evidence” in a vain attempt to establish their “points”. </i><br /><br />Yeah, right.<br />So for you the empirical data (easily available in Romer, “World War I and the Postwar Depression: A Reinterpretation based on alternative estimates of GNP,” <i>Journal of Monetary Economics</i> 22.1 (1988): 91–115l or Vernon, “The 1920–21 Deflation: The Role of Aggregate Supply,” <i>Economic Inquiry</i> 29 (1991): 572–580) constitutes “nothing but anecdotal evidence”!<br />But, then, when you live in a fantasy libertarian world where empirical data doesn’t matter, you can just stick your head in the sand.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-89005034894523076752010-10-24T12:40:55.154-04:002010-10-24T12:40:55.154-04:00RE: Surpluses cause recessions
It has been noted ...RE: Surpluses cause recessions<br /><br />It has been noted by others in these comments that artificial booms are associated with rising property values and rising incomes which translate into rising tax revenue. Therefore, it's not surprising the tax receipt surpluses can be associated with such booms. When the boom ends due to malinvestments, the party is over.<br /><br />Further, there were no recent surpluses to explain our latest Keynesian induced calamity.<br /><br />And, except for fiscal year 1930, there were no surpluses in that decade to explain the decade-long misery.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-3960474909610618902010-10-24T10:24:19.876-04:002010-10-24T10:24:19.876-04:00The “missing” data for 1917 and 1918:
1917 spendi...The “missing” data for 1917 and 1918:<br /><br />1917 spending 2.3 deficit 1.1<br /><br />1918 spending 13.1 deficit 9<br /><br />The war ends. Spending is slashed. The economy must readjust. It does so without deficits and it proceeds into a boom phase. End of story. <br /><br />If you are curious about the origins of the “Dr. Hut Tax” moniker, go to page 26 of this book by Warren Mosler, APLerner’s hero, and learn of the marvels of the hut tax inflicted by the imperialist British upon subjugated locals. It’s quite an example of the grisly, immoral nature of the Chartalist mind:<br /><br /><em>The following is not merely a theoretical concept. It’s exactly what happened in Africa in the 1800’s, when the British established colonies there to grow crops. The British offered jobs to the local population, but none of them were interested in earning British coins. So the British placed a “hut tax” on all of their dwellings, payable only in British coins. Suddenly, the area was “monetized,” as everyone now needed British coins, and the local population started offering things for sale, as well as their labor, to get the needed coins. The British could then hire them and pay them in British coins to work the fields and grow their crops.</em><br /><br />http://moslerforsenate.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/7DIF.pdf<br /><br />Ghastly stuff.<br /><br />I probably should start calling him AP "Groundhog Day" Lerner. Deficits aren't real, they're just "flows". Right.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-62863974090192589792010-10-24T10:01:43.353-04:002010-10-24T10:01:43.353-04:001. To the extent that 1920 depression had a limit...1. To the extent that 1920 depression had a limited drop in GDP, while having extremely severe unemployment and deflation, slashed spending and long term surpluses, this further demonstrates that there is nothing the Keynesians or Chartalists can take from this episode in support of their non-theory “theories”. <br /><br />2. Both LK and Dr. Hut Tax employ nothing but anecdotal “evidence” in a vain attempt to establish their “points”. They never address the basic Austrian concepts of acting man, subjective value, economic calculation, the distortion of the price and capital structure, and the criminal nature of money dilution as an exercise in fraud through surreptitious theft of purchasing power. There are no human beings in their “analysis” and they completely ignore catallactics.<br /><br />As Mises said in “Human Action”:<br /><br /><em>Catallactics is the analysis of those actions which are conducted on the basis of monetary calculation. Market exchange and monetary calculation are inseparably linked together. A market in which there is direct exchange only is merely an imaginary construction. On the other hand, money and monetary calculation are conditioned by the existence of the market.</em><br /><br />In 1917, Mises smacked down the ideas of Georg Friedrich Knapp, father of the Chartalists, noting that Knapp completely ignored catallactics. <br /><br />http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msTApp.html<br /><br />Nothing ever changes. <br /><br />Austrian critics invariably fail to even bother to familiarize themselves with basic Austrian concepts, much less bother to understand them. That is because a fair exposition of those concept would demonstrate their obvious universal truth. We win again.<br /><br />Mises 97, Keynesians 0Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-26156283961752120522010-10-24T09:46:59.699-04:002010-10-24T09:46:59.699-04:00but that financial equity isn't real. you migh...but that financial equity isn't real. you might as well say that counterfeiting creates wealth, since that's essentially what the government does.<br /><br />How are we not paying the bills from past spending? That spending has to come from somewhere. Either they tax, borrow or print money. Either way, they are taking wealth from somewhere.<br /><br />If I buy a tv on credit, the bill that I pay in the future is for the liability that I accrued.<br /><br />Money isn't real wealth, especially fiat money. It just makes easier. Goods and services are traded for goods and services through money. If you take money out of the equation, your thinking could become clearer.Rob Watkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04291994997621028714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-29646363800549097912010-10-24T09:31:42.431-04:002010-10-24T09:31:42.431-04:00Thanks Bobby Boy! You provided the data to prove ...Thanks Bobby Boy! You provided the data to prove me right again. Of course, you leave out the surpluses of the late teens that caused the depression of the 20's, but you showed the defict that supported the 20's expansion, the shrinking deficit in the late 20's, and the surpluses of the 30's. You did my heavy lifting. Thanks!<br /><br />and @ Families agains debt - I'm curious how much of your output do you send back to pay for Reagons/Thatchers debt? The answer: zippo. The picture of the baby on your site is cute, but youre entire premise is nonsense and encourages fear mongering. Until you can answer how much of your output you send back in time to pay for Reagons spending, or Thatcher's spending, you really don't know what you're talking about.<br /><br />"If government deficits create wealth, why should anyone have a job?"<br /><br />Governments don't create wealth. They provide the financial equity to the private sector to create wealth. Pay attention. You're abut 10 blogs late with this comment.sb101https://www.blogger.com/profile/05719317618259246022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-14582523248941284222010-10-24T08:41:31.583-04:002010-10-24T08:41:31.583-04:00"And of course there was no reason why govern..."And of course there was no reason why government intervention couldn't have cut the recession short"<br /><br />Yeah there is. The resources needed to be put to their most profitable uses. The malinvestment needed to be liquidated. Prices needed to adjust.Rob Watkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04291994997621028714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-52498476078222097232010-10-24T05:09:56.566-04:002010-10-24T05:09:56.566-04:00If government deficits create wealth, why should a...If government deficits create wealth, why should anyone have a job? Why should anyone collect taxes? Why even have a budget? Just let the government pay for everything and works its magic. I mean when they spend a dollar its miraculous and causes us all to be richer, so why are we being greedy and getting jobs that take money away from the govenrment?ekeyrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17413110869433997820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-35895572275264508392010-10-24T04:14:25.082-04:002010-10-24T04:14:25.082-04:00I despair of how the British media hang on every w...I despair of how the British media hang on every word uttered by Prof. Krugman, even when he <a href="http://familiesagainstnationaldebt.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/krugman-learning-from-history/" rel="nofollow"> contradicts himself </a>, giving <a href="http://familiesagainstnationaldebt.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/time-stopped-when-paul-krugman-won-the-nobel-prize/" rel="nofollow"> cover </a>to the deficit deniers. Just found this blog for the first time. Thank you.Families Against National Debthttp://familiesagainstnationaldebt.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-73665359763521919032010-10-24T03:29:15.946-04:002010-10-24T03:29:15.946-04:001920-1921: less government interference/spending, ...<i>1920-1921: less government interference/spending, shorter recession.</i><br /><br />Depends on what type of recession it is. The new work on 1920-1921 shows it was actually much less severe than originally thought (real GNP fell by 1% between 1919 and 1920 and 2% between 1920 and 1921).<br /><br />The deflation was so severe because of the positive commodity supply shocks, which actually <i>helped</i> industries using agricultural goods.<br /><br />And there was no excessive private debt, no huge asset bubbles fuelled by leveraged speculation, no damaging debt deflationary spiral.<br /><br />In short, this was a recession very different from the depression 1929-1933 or 1893-1894 (when massive involuntary unemployment persisted throughout the 1890s).<br /><br />And of course there was no reason why government intervention couldn't have cut the recession short, instead of letting it drag on for 18 months.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-26412260189129266722010-10-24T02:18:42.723-04:002010-10-24T02:18:42.723-04:00@LordKeynes: Lol. This should be interesting. The ...@LordKeynes: Lol. This should be interesting. The sodomy you get in the comments of this blog entry should prove to be even more entertaining than the one you got in the last few articles. <br /><br />Once again, you latch onto details and attempt to handwave the original point away. Allow me to explain this to you in a way you may understand- using smaller words and shorter sentences.<br /><br />1920-1921: less government interference/spending, shorter recession.<br /><br />Great Depression: More government interference/spending, longer recession.<br /><br />You get point now? Good. Now go draw in coloring book (General Theory). Adults talking.<br /><br />There. I hope that was simple enough for you to understand. If you really want to impress someone, go to Kansas City. I'm sure you'll find plenty of other Keynesian groupies who'll swallow your swill by the gallon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-53719880018182563862010-10-24T00:12:23.245-04:002010-10-24T00:12:23.245-04:00Bob Roddis,
Your nonsense about the recession of ...Bob Roddis,<br /><br />Your nonsense about the recession of 1920-1921 is demolished here:<br /><br /><a href="http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/10/us-recession-of-19201921-some.html" rel="nofollow">http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/10/us-recession-of-19201921-some.html</a>Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-45209773399929265812010-10-23T22:01:37.612-04:002010-10-23T22:01:37.612-04:00"You seem to believe that austerity measures ...<i>"You seem to believe that austerity measures would be helpful for the UK and the US, and government ‘spending and printing’ should be cut (even though you are employed by said spending and printing). However, I’ll happily take the other side of that trade. Here’s my prediction: if the UK implements these austerity measures like planned, you will see a drop in UK GDP and a spike in UK unemployment greater than 2008. In fact, you’ll see a contraction in the UK economy 2nd only to the Great Depression contraction. "</i><br /><br />i would just like to point out at this time, that this serve to further prove that AP Lerner knows nothing about ABCT. That he would think that this would be an appealing wager is absurd.burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-69917251868018154452010-10-23T21:00:11.340-04:002010-10-23T21:00:11.340-04:00Harry Browne had a good track record as an Austria...<a href="http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/10/harry-browne-comes-out-on-top.html" rel="nofollow">Harry Browne</a> had a good track record as an Austrian.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rogers" rel="nofollow">Jim Rogers</a> has been successful as an Austrian.<br /><br />Hollywood producers are quite successful in what is basically a dog-eat-dog laissez faire industry and they are all commies.<br /><br />Gosh, who predicted the bubble first? Getting rich proves the correctness of one's economic theories!?<br /><br />So freaking what?<br /><br />The debating skills of Austrian School critics is like little girls throwing with their wrong hand.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-84467458005728049152010-10-23T20:43:33.025-04:002010-10-23T20:43:33.025-04:00Warren Mosler is not the only, or even the richest...Warren Mosler is not the only, or even the richest, one to whom AP Lerner's "If you are so smart, why aren't you rich?" standard above applies. Interesting post over at <a href="http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=12003" rel="nofollow">Why budget deficits drive private profit</a> mentioning Jerome Levy. He was the patriarch of the billionaire Levy family, that endowed the eponymous center of Post-Keynesianism, the Jerome Levy center at Bard College. Just as Michael Kalecki anticipated Keynes, Levy anticipated Kalecki in understanding the relation between private profits and budget deficits, even before concepts like GNP were invented, in 1914. Anyways, turns out he founded the family fortune during WWI and the postwar recession that Austrians are always on about, by using this understanding which was far in advance of everyone else in academia or business, and only published in 1943. Are there "Austrians" who can make a similar claim of dynastic wealth from good economic science?Another Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-47638421583632737522010-10-23T19:19:18.496-04:002010-10-23T19:19:18.496-04:00year..GDP..spent..deficit
1920 88.4 11.33 -0.6...year..GDP..spent..deficit<br /><br />1920 88.4 11.33 -0.60 <br />1921 73.6 10.53 -0.67 <br />1922 73.4 9.30 -0.50 <br />1923 85.4 9.63 -0.57 <br />1924 86.9 9.98 -0.63 <br />1925 90.6 10.37 -0.43 <br />1926 96.9 10.78 -0.65 <br />1927 95.5 11.22 -0.94 <br />1928 97.4 11.44 -0.66 <br />1929 103.6 11.68 -0.48 <br />1930 91.2 11.92 -0.87 <br />1931 76.5 12.18 0.13 <br />1932 58.7 12.44 1.63 <br />1933 56.4 12.62 1.84 <br />1934 66 12.81 2.06 <br />1935 73.3 14.78 3.02 <br />1936 83.8 16.76 3.99 <br />1937 91.9 17.22 2.61 <br />1938 86.1 17.68 1.22 <br />1939 92.2 19.05 2.14 <br />1940 101.4 20.42 3.06<br /><br />Wow. How did that Roaring Twenties boom occur without donut-eater debt spending projects to get "savings" to the "private sector"? There were plenty of donut-eater debt spending projects prolonging the Great Depression. <br /><br />Mises 84, Chartalists 0Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.com