4 ms·

This isn’t the 1800s anymore. The documentary, from what I’ve seen of it, discusses quantitative easing - which arose because of insufficient oversight over wal

This isn’t the 1800s anymore. The documentary, from what I’ve seen of it, discusses quantitative easing - which arose because of insufficient oversight over wallstreet. A lack of oversight that arose from repeated lobbying, weakening of the regulator, and faith that “the system will never allow it to happen” and “these are the smartest guys in the room”. The old social contracts worked in an older world, which didn’t have mechanization and labor was the source of industry. Today, network effects mean gmail is free but the user is the product, and other configurations which would seem extremely odd in the 1800s. The FED isn’t even the problem for what you are trying to resolve. I cannot understand why people tend to focus on it.

bgroat 5y ago
>> The FED isn’t even the problem for what you are trying to resolve. I cannot understand why people tend to focus on it. Because they don't know what they're talking about. I'm a capitalist with many socialist friends. I disagree with them often, but I never think that they don't know that they're talking about. People who are hung up on The Fed aren't even wrong. They just don't know what they're talking about.
hammock 5y ago
>quantitative easing - which arose because of insufficient oversight over wallstreet. Many would take issue with this conclusion. It's the fact that the Fed exists as a lender of last resort that created the moral hazard in the first place, thus enabling "Too big to fail" and all of that.
- intended 5y ago
  I am sorry to be this blunt, but for all practical discussions, those people are wrong. Unless your goals are a reduction in US GDP, and dramatic decrease in financial ability in the USA, you need a central bank. In analogy terms, they’re the next evolutionary node in the banking tree. The higher complexity let’s you exert stability against things like currency manipulation, macroeconomic instability and the like. The crash is because oversight disappeared and people bought into myths. Crucially one of the myths that Wall Street believed was that someone else was always checking the work to find advantage. Most of Wall Street aimed for safe advantage and were following along as a herd.

bgroat 5y ago

>> The FED isn’t even the problem for what you are trying to resolve. I cannot understand why people tend to focus on it. Because they don't know what they're talking about. I'm a capitalist with many socialist friends. I disagree with them often, but I never think that they don't know that they're talking about. People who are hung up on The Fed aren't even wrong. They just don't know what they're talking about.

hammock 5y ago

>quantitative easing - which arose because of insufficient oversight over wallstreet. Many would take issue with this conclusion. It's the fact that the Fed exists as a lender of last resort that created the moral hazard in the first place, thus enabling "Too big to fail" and all of that.

intended 5y ago
I am sorry to be this blunt, but for all practical discussions, those people are wrong. Unless your goals are a reduction in US GDP, and dramatic decrease in financial ability in the USA, you need a central bank. In analogy terms, they’re the next evolutionary node in the banking tree. The higher complexity let’s you exert stability against things like currency manipulation, macroeconomic instability and the like. The crash is because oversight disappeared and people bought into myths. Crucially one of the myths that Wall Street believed was that someone else was always checking the work to find advantage. Most of Wall Street aimed for safe advantage and were following along as a herd.