Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 21st, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,272
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default The Great Depression

Bernanke: Federal Reserve
caused Great Depression
Fed chief says, 'We did it.
very sorry, won't do it again'
Posted: March 19, 2008
9:02 pm Eastern

By David Kupelian
2008 WorldNetDaily

Despite the varied theories espoused by many establishment economists, it was none other than the Federal Reserve that caused the Great Depression and the horrific suffering, deprivation and dislocation America and the world experienced in its wake. At least, that's the clearly stated view of current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The worldwide economic downturn called the Great Depression, which persisted from 1929 until about 1939, was the longest and worst depression ever experienced by the industrialized Western world. While originating in the U.S., it ended up causing drastic declines in output, severe unemployment, and acute deflation in virtually every country on earth. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "the Great Depression ranks second only to the Civil War as the gravest crisis in American history."

What exactly caused this economic tsunami that devastated the U.S. and much of the world?

In "A Monetary History of the United States," Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman along with coauthor Anna J. Schwartz lay the mega-catastrophe of the Great Depression squarely at the feet of the Federal Reserve.

Here's how Friedman summed up his views on the Fed and the Depression in an Oct. 1, 2000, interview with PBS:

PBS: You've written that what really caused the Depression was mistakes by the government. Looking back now, what in your view was the actual cause?

Friedman: Well, we have to distinguish between the recession of 1929, the early stages, and the conversion of that recession into a major catastrophe.

The recession was an ordinary business cycle. We had repeated recessions over hundreds of years, but what converted [this one] into a major depression was bad monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve System had been established to prevent what actually happened. It was set up to avoid a situation in which you would have to close down banks, in which you would have a banking crisis. And yet, under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States. There's no other example I can think of, of a government measure which produced so clearly the opposite of the results that were intended.

And what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.

At all times, the Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were all the time urging them to do that. So it was, in my opinion, clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression.

Although economists have pontificated over the decades about this or that cause of the Great Depression, even the current Fed chairman Ben S. Bernanke, agrees with Friedman's assessment that the Fed caused the Great Depression.

At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor Friedman's 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedman's old home base, the University of Chicago. Here's a bit of what Bernanke, the man who now runs the Fed and thus, one of the most powerful people in the world had to say that day:

I can think of no greater honor than being invited to speak on the occasion of Milton Friedman's ninetieth birthday. Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer.

Today I'd like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with his distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history, the onset of the Great Depression or, as Friedman and Schwartz dubbed it, the Great Contraction of 1929-33.

As everyone here knows, in their "Monetary History" Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation's monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that "the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces."

After citing how Friedman and Schwartz documented the Fed's continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations in order to stop the devastating monetary contraction Bernanke adds:

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.

It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's infamous 'liquidationist' thesis, that weeding out "weak" banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn.

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

Best wishes for your next ninety years.

Today, the entire Western financial world holds its breath every time the Fed chairman speaks, so influential are the central bank's decisions on markets, interest rates and the economy in general. Yet the Fed, supposedly created to smooth out business cycles and prevent disruptive economic downswings like the Great Depression, has actually done the opposite.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...w&pageId=59405
 
Old May 22nd, 2008 #2
Herman van Houten
Ausrotter
 
Herman van Houten's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Walhalla
Posts: 4,018
Herman van Houten
Default

Jews killed more than 7 million Americans during recession, Wikipedia jews censor story

Famine killed 7 million people in USA

19.05.2008 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/105255-famine-0

Another online scandal has been gathering pace recently. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, deleted an article by a Russian researcher, who wrote about the USA’s losses in the Great Depression of 1932-1933. Indignant bloggers began to actively distribute the article on the Russian part of a popular blog service known as Livejournal. The above-mentioned article triggered a heated debate.

The researcher touched upon quite a hot topic in the article – the estimation of the number of victims of the Great Depression in the USA. The material presented in the article apparently made Wikipedia’s moderators delete the piece from the database of the online encyclopedia.

The researcher, Boris Borisov, in his article titled “The American Famine” estimated the victims of the financial crisis in the US at over seven million people. The researcher also directly compared the US events of 1932-1933 with Holodomor, or Famine, in the USSR during 1932-1933.

In the article, Borisov used the official data of the US Census Bureau. Having revised the number of the US population, birth and date rates, immigration and emigration, the researcher came to conclusion that the United States lost over seven million people during the famine of 1932-1933.

“According to the US statistics, the US lost not less than 8 million 553 thousand people from 1931 to 1940. Afterwards, population growth indices change twice instantly exactly between 1930-1931: the indices drop and stay on the same level for ten years. There can no explanation to this phenomenon found in the extensive text of the report by the US Department of Commerce “Statistical Abstract of the United States,” the author wrote.

The researcher points out the movement of population at this point: “A lot more people left the country than arrived during the 1930s – the difference is estimated at 93,309 people, whereas 2.960,782 people arrived in the country a decade earlier. Well, let’s correct the number of total demographic losses in the USA during the 1930s by 3,054 people.”

Analyzing the period of the Great Depression in the USA, the author notes a remarkable similarity with events taking place in the USSR during the 1930s. He even introduced a new term for the USA – defarming – an analogue to dispossession of wealthy farmers in the Soviet Union. “Few people know about five million American farmers (about a million families) whom banks ousted from them lands because of debts. The US government did not provide them with land, work, social aid, pension – nothing,” the article says.

“Every sixth American farmer was affected by famine. People were forced to leave their homes and go to nowhere without any money and any property. They found themselves in the middle of nowhere enveloped in massive unemployment, famine and gangsterism.”

The then state of affairs in the US society can be seen in Peter Jackson’s movie King Kong. The movie starts with scenes of the Great Depression and tells the story of an actress who did not eat for three days and tried to steal an apple from a street vendor. There is food in the city, but many people had no money to buy it in unemployment-paralyzed New York. People starve in the streets against the background of stores selling a variety of foodstuffs.

At the same time, the US government tried to get rid of redundant foodstuffs, which vendors could not sell. Market rules were observed strictly: unsold goods should always be categorized as redundant and they could not be given away to the poor because it could cause damage to businesses. A variety of methods was used to destroy redundant food. They burnt crops, drowned them in the ocean or plowed 10 million hectares of harvesting fields. “About 6.5 million pigs were killed at that time,” the researcher wrote.

The consequences of those policies were predictable, the author of the article wrote. “Here is what a child recollected about those years: “We changed our usual food for something for available. We used to eat bush leaves instead of cabbage. We ate frogs too. My mother and my older sister died during a year.” (Jack Griffin).”

So-called public works introduced by President Roosevelt became a salvation for a huge number of jobless and landless Americans. However, the salvation was only a phantom, Boris Borisov wrote. The works conducted under the aegis of the Public Works Administration and the Civil Works Administration were about building channels, roads or bridges in remote, wild and dangerous territories. Up to 3.3 million people were involved in those works at a time, whereas the total number of people amounted to 8.5 million, not to count prisoners.

“Conditions and death rate at those works are to be studied separately. A member of public works would make $30, and pay $25 of taxes from this amount. So a person could make only $5 for a month of hard work in malarial swamps.”

The conditions, under which people were working for food, could be compared to Stalin’s GULAG camp.

“The Public Works Administration (PWA) bore a striking resemblance to GULAG. The PWA was chaired by “American Beria,” the Secretary of Interior Affairs, Harold Ickes, who threw about two million people into camps for the unemployed youth,” Borisov wrote. “Harold LeClair Ickes (1874–1952) later interned USA’s ethnic Japanese in concentration camps. The first stage of the operation took only 72 hours (1941-1942).

“In 1940, the US population was supposed to make up at least 141.856 million people upon the preservation of previous demographic trends. As a matter of fact, the USA had the 131.409-strong population in 1940, of which only 3.054 million can be explained with changes in migration dynamics. Thus, 7.394,000 people simply do not exist as of 1940. There are no official arguments to explain the phenomenon,” Boris Borisov wrote.

It is worthy of note that modern-day Russian patriotic historians reject methods of research based on the general estimation of demographic losses. They believe that demographic processes are not linear and depend on a number of factors. Such historians think that victims of communism estimations made on the base of demographic research works by Stephan Kurt and Richard Pipes, which George Bush and Helen Bonner announced at the opening of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in Washington, are false.

On the other hand, these methods are widely used in contemporary science of history. Ukrainian historian Stanislav Kulchitsky used the method to calculate the number of victims of the Ukrainian Holodomor (famine), which was subsequently officially recognized. Parliaments of eleven countries that recognized Holodomor use those numbers in their research works. To crown it all, the US Congress and the European Union also use Kulchitsky’s numbers considering the problem.
__________________
"People, look at the evidence the truth is there you just have to look for it!!!!!" - Joe Vialls
Fight jewish censorship, use Aryan Wiki
Watch online television without jews!
 
Old September 18th, 2009 #3
richyrichard
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southeast Texas
Posts: 933
Default

Meaning: We caused the agricultural depression in the early 1920s, the "crash" in 1929, and manipulated the "great" depression of the 1930s into being and we will do it again right in front of your face as soon as we have sufficiently tweaked the mind of the masses into seeing a bird as a fish.

Whatever we perceive, we receive.
 
Old September 18th, 2009 #4
Kievsky
Senior Member
 
Kievsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,229
Kievsky
Default

As an economy watcher, and an observer of small town life in America, I'm seeing a trend I discussed many years ago with Antiochus Epiphanes -- the relocalization of economic life.

It's going to be all about owning small businesses, and the White nationalists in my social circle are all at the cutting edge of this trend, and succeeding. One gets books that are being discarded, and sells them on Amazon. It's a full time business for him - he's actually supporting himself at this and running it as a business with a business id and paying taxes and all that. I'm not going to go into detail about the others, but suffice to say I don't know anybody punching a clock any more, including myself. All totally legal and legit and paying our taxes, I might add. And of course I ramp up the farm a little more every year for food and income insurance.

What it boils down to is that the people who can do a small business are the ones who will keep their head above water, financially speaking. Those are the ones who will have the most influence locally, and the bankrupt central government and downsizing corporations will have less and less influence.

A local middle class cares about it's town, because it lives in it. Just as people don't want to shit in their own swimming pool, the local business owners don't want nig-packs roaming their towns, if they aren't being paid off handsomely to look the other way.

If you read Communist literature, you'll note that they regard the "petit-bourgeouis" as the enemy of Commie-nism. Petit-bourgeouis just means the middle class, the small business owners, the burghers. Trotsky said that fascism comes out of the middle class, because the middle class wants to protect itself from the rabble. This is precisely why the WN movement should focus on becoming middle class and entrepreneurs. This will put us among the right kind of people we want to influence, and just radicalize them more.

For example, today I was on a job and talking to a middle aged conservative lady, and I explained it this way:

"High taxes ruin civilization because they destroy the middle class and replace the middle class with social services. The middle class are the ones who get the potholes fixed, and take care of the homeless, and get the police to shoo the drug dealers away from the schoolyards. Social services is a costly and vastly inadequate replacement for the middle class. You get less service, and pay more for it when you put the small business folks out of business and replace them with social workers, more cops, and more prisons. That's what happeend to Detroit -- they overtaxed the middle class, so the middle class split town, and now Detroit has hundreds of unsolved murders every year and vast swaths of abandoned houses. The wildlife is reclaiming Detroit. So really, the continuing function of civilization rests on the backs of the middle class people -- the business owners and the professionals."

It's implicit that middle class EQUALS White people, but they aren't ready to hear that yet. I'm still just hardening their conservative prejudices, and making them realize that THEY are the ones who keep civilization standing. They need to understand this because it's a bulwark against White guilt and against the idea that they OWE something, that they need to GIVE BACK TO THE COMMU-NITAY. Fuck that, just by being them they are giving back. They don't owe dog-shit to the nig-packs or the welfare scum.

Being a middle class small business owner makes it difficult, or even impossible, for the likes of Heidi Beirich to "call your boss" doing her "economic sanctions journalism." It puts you in touch with the decision makers of the community, and let me tell you something about those people. they have very little courage, so with the courage of a fanatical White nationalist who doesn't really care about middle class respectability, you'll dominate the stinking cowards, and put some steel in the spine of those who secretly agree with us.
__________________
Godzilla mit uns!
http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 AM.
Page generated in 0.09095 seconds.