10 ms·

Everything you need to know: http://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ http://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

mplewis 1y ago
This site is completely crank.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Thorough debunking: https://www.google.com/search?q=wtfhappenedin1971+site%3Anews.ycombinator.com https://www.google.com/search?q=wtfhappenedin1971+site%3Anew...
- greenavocado 1y ago
  First of all, a Google search query isn't a "debunking." https://singlelunch.com/2023/09/13/the-bad-economics-of-wtfhappenedin1971/ https://singlelunch.com/2023/09/13/the-bad-economics-of-wtfh... is not a rebuttal but a dismissal by someone unwilling to engage with the evidence. The dude tries to clown on the idea that ending the gold standard wrecked the economy, but his whole argument is just cherry-picked stats, strawman takes, and straight-up ignoring how money actually works. First off, he mocks the divorce rate thing like "lol goldbugs think couples fight about monetary policy." Nah, fam. It's about how fiat money led to inflation, stagnant wages, and financial stress that actually strains marriages. No-fault divorce laws came after the economic chaos started, but he acts like they are the only factor. Weak. Then he claims the wage-productivity gap didn’t start till the 1980s. Even the EPI data he cites shows the split beginning in the early '70s. And yeah, healthcare costs eat into wages, but that doesn’t explain why real compensation (including benefits) still lags behind productivity. Fiat money let corporations and Wall Street siphon off wealth while workers got screwed but he just shrugs like "idk, must be computers or something." On inflation, he’s like "lol inflation just exists, stay mad." Nah, pre-1971, inflation was stable and low. Post-1971? Wild swings, 14% peaks, and a permanent erosion of purchasing power. He acts like floating currencies = stability, but the "Great Moderation" was just Volcker slamming the brakes with insane rates not some magic of fiat money. Housing prices? He blames zoning (fair) but completely ignores how cheap credit from fiat money blew up the bubble. He admits low rates jack up home prices but then pretends it's got nothing to do with the Fed's endless money printer. Cognitive dissonance much? Worst part? He compares the site to anti-vaxxers because "things went up since 1971." Bruh. The end of Bretton Woods was a structural break. Debt exploded, inequality skyrocketed, and financialization took over. That ain't random. But instead of offering an actual counter-theory, he just sneers and says "buy Bitcoin lol" like that's a dunk. All snark, no substance. Fiat money broke the economy, and this guy is just coping. Stay mad
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    I'm referring to the thousands of HN reader comments that tear apart both the "bad economics" article and the wtfhappened site.
    - greenavocado 1y ago
      Replying to things I saw at the top of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188457 It is ridiculous to dismiss the gold standard thing like it’s some fringe conspiracy, saying "mainstream economists" prefer blaming oil shocks or regulations. The 1971 move to fiat money wasn't just about ditching gold. It let the Fed print like crazy, inflating assets (stocks, real estate) while wages flatlined. Even guys like Krugman admit loose money screws workers. The charts don’t lie. Divergence started right in '71, not '73 when OPEC flexed. And if oil was the problem, why did Germany and Japan handle it without wrecking their middle class? Then there's the "women flooded the workforce" excuse. Sure, more workers can lower wages, but productivity kept climbing but wages did NOT. That’s not supply and demand, that's corporations grabbing more power (thanks, dead unions). And "household income" rose? Only because families were grinding two jobs just to stay afloat. Not exactly winning. China? Lol. In '71, China was still a backwater. Their real economic boom didn’t hit till the 1990s. And offshoring only worked because the fiat dollar let the U.S. run endless trade deficits without consequences. Try that on a gold standard. It would collapse in a WEEK. Oh, and the EPA? Pollution regs saved lives, and the '80s proved deregulation didn’t fix wages it just let Wall Street go wild. The real issue? Money got fake, capital divorced from labor, and the 1% hoarded the gains. Bottom line: The so called "rebuttals" from HN commenters are a mess of half-baked excuses. If oil, women, or China were the culprits, why did everything flip exactly post 1971? The gold standard's end is the smoking gun. And the "mainstream economists" pushing these weak takes? Same geniuses who missed 2008. Maybe time to stop trusting their playbook.
      - fuzzfactor 1y ago
        It's not good to exaggerate financial ups & downs but some things can get more foolish than that when people try to minimize it or paint over it. As time goes by, more people seem to need more excuses to maintain a position that there was not irreversible devastating damage to the US economy, and in tandem the dollar itself. They want to believe that things like that can never be the direct result of Presidential malfeasance which can get out of hand. If you were there at the time and had very much professional exposure to Wall Street at all, as a witness you would have observed 2008 as a non-event compared to 1973. Without much advanced math very many people saw it coming right away in 1971 before the next logical events even began to unfold. There were still plenty of people born in the 19th century who could tell you exactly how it was going to be. They were just not the majority. The stock market did end up crashing like nothing had since 1929. It was good to have advice from those with serious lived experiences to help navigate such turbulent times.

This site is completely crank.

Thorough debunking: https://www.google.com/search?q=wtfhappenedin1971+site%3Anews.ycombinator.com https://www.google.com/search?q=wtfhappenedin1971+site%3Anew...

greenavocado 1y ago
First of all, a Google search query isn't a "debunking." https://singlelunch.com/2023/09/13/the-bad-economics-of-wtfhappenedin1971/ https://singlelunch.com/2023/09/13/the-bad-economics-of-wtfh... is not a rebuttal but a dismissal by someone unwilling to engage with the evidence. The dude tries to clown on the idea that ending the gold standard wrecked the economy, but his whole argument is just cherry-picked stats, strawman takes, and straight-up ignoring how money actually works. First off, he mocks the divorce rate thing like "lol goldbugs think couples fight about monetary policy." Nah, fam. It's about how fiat money led to inflation, stagnant wages, and financial stress that actually strains marriages. No-fault divorce laws came after the economic chaos started, but he acts like they are the only factor. Weak. Then he claims the wage-productivity gap didn’t start till the 1980s. Even the EPI data he cites shows the split beginning in the early '70s. And yeah, healthcare costs eat into wages, but that doesn’t explain why real compensation (including benefits) still lags behind productivity. Fiat money let corporations and Wall Street siphon off wealth while workers got screwed but he just shrugs like "idk, must be computers or something." On inflation, he’s like "lol inflation just exists, stay mad." Nah, pre-1971, inflation was stable and low. Post-1971? Wild swings, 14% peaks, and a permanent erosion of purchasing power. He acts like floating currencies = stability, but the "Great Moderation" was just Volcker slamming the brakes with insane rates not some magic of fiat money. Housing prices? He blames zoning (fair) but completely ignores how cheap credit from fiat money blew up the bubble. He admits low rates jack up home prices but then pretends it's got nothing to do with the Fed's endless money printer. Cognitive dissonance much? Worst part? He compares the site to anti-vaxxers because "things went up since 1971." Bruh. The end of Bretton Woods was a structural break. Debt exploded, inequality skyrocketed, and financialization took over. That ain't random. But instead of offering an actual counter-theory, he just sneers and says "buy Bitcoin lol" like that's a dunk. All snark, no substance. Fiat money broke the economy, and this guy is just coping. Stay mad
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  I'm referring to the thousands of HN reader comments that tear apart both the "bad economics" article and the wtfhappened site.
  - greenavocado 1y ago
    Replying to things I saw at the top of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188457 It is ridiculous to dismiss the gold standard thing like it’s some fringe conspiracy, saying "mainstream economists" prefer blaming oil shocks or regulations. The 1971 move to fiat money wasn't just about ditching gold. It let the Fed print like crazy, inflating assets (stocks, real estate) while wages flatlined. Even guys like Krugman admit loose money screws workers. The charts don’t lie. Divergence started right in '71, not '73 when OPEC flexed. And if oil was the problem, why did Germany and Japan handle it without wrecking their middle class? Then there's the "women flooded the workforce" excuse. Sure, more workers can lower wages, but productivity kept climbing but wages did NOT. That’s not supply and demand, that's corporations grabbing more power (thanks, dead unions). And "household income" rose? Only because families were grinding two jobs just to stay afloat. Not exactly winning. China? Lol. In '71, China was still a backwater. Their real economic boom didn’t hit till the 1990s. And offshoring only worked because the fiat dollar let the U.S. run endless trade deficits without consequences. Try that on a gold standard. It would collapse in a WEEK. Oh, and the EPA? Pollution regs saved lives, and the '80s proved deregulation didn’t fix wages it just let Wall Street go wild. The real issue? Money got fake, capital divorced from labor, and the 1% hoarded the gains. Bottom line: The so called "rebuttals" from HN commenters are a mess of half-baked excuses. If oil, women, or China were the culprits, why did everything flip exactly post 1971? The gold standard's end is the smoking gun. And the "mainstream economists" pushing these weak takes? Same geniuses who missed 2008. Maybe time to stop trusting their playbook.
    - fuzzfactor 1y ago
      It's not good to exaggerate financial ups & downs but some things can get more foolish than that when people try to minimize it or paint over it. As time goes by, more people seem to need more excuses to maintain a position that there was not irreversible devastating damage to the US economy, and in tandem the dollar itself. They want to believe that things like that can never be the direct result of Presidential malfeasance which can get out of hand. If you were there at the time and had very much professional exposure to Wall Street at all, as a witness you would have observed 2008 as a non-event compared to 1973. Without much advanced math very many people saw it coming right away in 1971 before the next logical events even began to unfold. There were still plenty of people born in the 19th century who could tell you exactly how it was going to be. They were just not the majority. The stock market did end up crashing like nothing had since 1929. It was good to have advice from those with serious lived experiences to help navigate such turbulent times.