vue - The Depression of 1920-1921 (A Critique of the Libtertarian Narrative)

1. first off let me debunk some of claims   1) lowering interest rates doesn't (always) mean more economic growth. for example in 1950s interest rates averaged at only 2% and taxes were higher as well what happened the economy only gained 3 million jobs and real GDP averaged at a slow 2% from 1953 to 1960 and then president Kennedy cut taxes for business in 1962 and his individual and corporate tax cuts would been enacted in 1964 and government spending as share of GDP fell (from 1962 to late 1966) and he shortened the asset lives used to calculate capital consumption allowances, the annual write-off of the cost of plant and equipment. as well interest would average at a higher rate than the 1950s what happened the economy added 13.2 million jobs and real GDP averaged at 5%. also that's the federal reserve job to lower interest rates during the start of a recovery  they been doing that for last 100 years. for example think of the economy has a Bering a test the (federal reserve) is the teacher and you're the student (fiscal policy) the teacher hands you test so that you can pass but just because she just hands the test doesn't mean you pass. you pass by having good fiscal policy another example interest rates under Obama have been around  0.3% interest rates by the way one of the lowest in rates in history  Obama result 1% real GDP  under the Reagan recovery 6-8% interest rates but from  1983 to 1990 real GDP averaged at  4.2% why Obama tax hikes/stimulus and then Reagan tax cuts/government spending cuts. number 2) In fact government spending as share of GDP declined from 7.5%% to 4% by 1922 so the size of federal government was cut by huge margins instead of huge Keynesian budget deficits we and huge budget surplus from 1920 to 1929  does that sound like anything  you Krugman would advocate for right no I don't think so. after the deep spending cuts did we go through a even bigger depression NO the economy would boom thanks spending cuts and tax cuts 3) also there no major public works programs under the Harding presidency's like you claimed you got that from the wiki page which made it up out of thin air also I been researching for hours and  no links on the web showing that Harding singed programs instead he singed supply-side type polices not Keynesian 4) they lowered the interest rates only by 0.5 percent   from the start of 1921 till July of 1921 the depression was already over be then also the interest rate was still higher than at the start of the downturn  Monterey policy didn't achieve anything
2. You misspelled "severe" as "serve" in an earlier slide.
3. One thing I would add. The Fed raised rates starting in Novermber 1920,
   not 1918. They raised them to 7% right in the middle of the recession.
   Certainly this had an ugly effect, making the post-war adjustments much more painful. I would argue the main reason the recession lasted as long as it did was because of how these rate increases hurt the Stock market and Main Street, both. I would argue that there was finally a recovery when folks realized the FED was done with the rate hikes.
   
   And by then Harding's income tax cuts on the rich (I would add that to what you say) and
   Hardings's corruption (which helped enrich Wall Street) plus all the wonderful inventions
   caused the turn around. It had little or nothng to do with Harding's malign neglect of the needs of workers.
4. Depression of 1920 started well before that ww1 and national debt destroyed the economy that led.up to 1920 it didn't just happen over night. 
5. This must be true since the discretionary policy response called the New Deal cut the Depression to only 10 years.
6. Libertarians don't always view deflation as a good thing. Deflation due to competition is good. Deflation due to a lack of currency when we are on a fiat system is a bad thing.
7. I would also point out that your video shows why libertarians are wrong to use 1921 as a counter to dealing with an Economic Depression. Why? Because 1921 was not even a 'depression' it was only a prolonged recession. LIbertarians like Thomas Woods who call 1921 a "Depression" are comparing apples to oranges which makes everything they say irrelevant.
8. WHAT YOU SAY IS CORRECT. PLEASE POST MORE VIDEOS!
9. You really should elaborate more, your arguments seem to omit some important things you know and we don't and they are so short that they give me the feeling that you may be cherry picking here.
10. Great video debunking Austrian/Libertarian myths about the 1921 recession and showing how it does not support their viewpoint.
11. ARGUMENT FLAW! You pulled those GNP percentages out of your ass! If not, then wherever you did get them from stinks just as bad, because every economist knows that the definition of "depression" is NOT based on any percentages, but is only characterized by its length; a depression is a sustained, long-term downturn in economic activity in one or more economy. "Recession" (decline) may be identified after over 2 quarters. Rest of your argument is just as flawed due to your false premises.
12. Wait... How can you use government cuts in spending as a reason we weren't in a ressesion/depression when it is held as the reason we recovered quickly? It's like saying I'm not sick with a cold because I've recovered from the cold already. 
13. Your duration is a bit misleading. I think it would serve better to compare the duration of the 1920's to the 1929 depression. 
14. In 2005 dollars: 1920 687,704,000 1921 671,938,000 That is a drop of 2.3%, like you claim... But, in dollars (which, not being paper, were actual silver, and should NOT have a "deflator" any different than 1964) 1920 88,393,000 1921 73,603,000 a 16.73% drop - combined with a growth in population of ever 2 million.
15. 100% agree. Except for the title. It's not a libertarian narrative, it's an Austrian narrative.
16. Right on. Don't you love how people twist the premise in order to fit their argument. The problem is that no one is capable of critical thinking anymore so videos and information like this are very effective.
17. Some good points. Some weak ones - like the make work govt programs. Overall, government spending was cut and taxes were cut....ultimately, less govt interference, thus making that point moot
18. No one's really claiming 1920 was worse than the FIFTEEN YEAR LONG depression. That's such a manipulative premise you're invoking. Gosh, afterall it was just one year. The point is merely that it's an example that goes to show it CAN solve situations, unlike what the mainstream media and the Banker run college economics departments tell you. Your completely misportraying the narrative by lenthening the goal posts.
19. @fringeelements Sources: The fall during the depression: eh(DOT)net/encyclopedia/article/bierman(DOT)crash Woods on 1920-1921: lewrockwell(DOT)com/woods/woods125(DOT)html The market falls of 1920-1921: en(DOT)wikipedia(DOT)org/wiki/File:Dow_1918-1922(DOT)jpg
20. @fringeelements Why would an Austrian not expect GNP to all at depression levels? And why would it have fallen so little if the structure of production was so abused? As for the deflation, I explain what caused the deflation in the video.