I really like Gene but those were not his best arguments. Why is it democratic to have politicians borrow money but not democratic to increase the supply of money? Both are less direct than straightforward taxation. Seems like if one is undemocratic, then both are. Since both are well publicized if you care to look, they both seem democratic to me, putting aside their prudence.
Also not a great debate strategy. He must know that the common wisdom is that the Fed should and does keep inflation modest but positive and employment high. As critic he can't just dismiss that with a brush off. Arguing against those should be a real focus of any sustained criticism.
I thought I was against the Fed, but now maybe I'm for it after listening to both of these guys!
I've really appreciated these twin episodes. I think it would have been helpful to use the word "emergently" instead of the word "naturally" when discussing interest rates. I think that cleaves the difference between free market fundamentals vs. statist fundamentals.
When looking at deflation in 19th century America, there a plenty of examples that show most people didn’t understand what was going on. Wage cuts led to labor unrest - the Pullman Strike of 1894 is just the first example that comes to mind. On the other hand, when people did understand deflation, it was a rallying factor for movements like the populists. Which like other populists before and since, partially understood a significant issue that others did not, but responded with very questionable policies.
Thanks for weighing in with examples! I've been growing increasingly skeptical of the Fed over the past few years as the national debt and crazy interest rates have entered the mainstream-ish conversation. But the argument for keeping low but positive inflation as a mechanism to signal constant growth to non-economist lay-people really gave me pause.
I saw highly technical (and well paid) coworkers screaming bloody murder to their employer about salaries after the Covid interest rate spike, so I can now better imagine what it might look like if an employer was faced with making pay cuts to match a hypothetical deflationary cycle.
I will keep recommending Understanding Money Mechanics by Bob Murphy for the most digestible primer on the evolution of money from commodity money to the current day central bank currencies. Bob is the best around at breaking down complex topics in economics and the history of economic thought.
I dunno I thought I was against the fed but neither of these podcasts had me convinced which was better! I do like Ron Paul though and he’s against it however I don’t think it’s okay for employers to make wage cuts during deflationary cycles or to give bankers more power which is almost what it sounded like Gene was saying instead of the government. Less recessions and less severe recessions, more stability sound good but the podcasts directly conflicted on whether the fed did this or not so it may be an opinion thing….
Hopefully Heaton is right on that 20 years for the debt crisis to really hit. Gives the clan as much time as possible to get ready to weather it. And the next generation will be fighting age. Hopefully that part won’t matter but you never can tell what collapse of empire will look like. Especially several hundred miles from the heart of the empire. If it happens next year we got a 35-40 year old generation, a toddler generation and a 70 year old generation. 20 years’d give us a 55-60 year old generation and a 25 year old generation.
There are people of all ages and in the US they aren't particularly clustered. So the timing of any sort of crisis won't have a huge impact on the age demographics of the country that is hit by it. Except that the country is generally becoming older and the Boomers will die at some point.
I said the clan. As in my family. I don’t have the time or resources to worry about what the rest of the country’s doing to get ready. I’m focused on making sure mine has the best shot possible when things turn.
I really like Gene but those were not his best arguments. Why is it democratic to have politicians borrow money but not democratic to increase the supply of money? Both are less direct than straightforward taxation. Seems like if one is undemocratic, then both are. Since both are well publicized if you care to look, they both seem democratic to me, putting aside their prudence.
Also not a great debate strategy. He must know that the common wisdom is that the Fed should and does keep inflation modest but positive and employment high. As critic he can't just dismiss that with a brush off. Arguing against those should be a real focus of any sustained criticism.
I thought I was against the Fed, but now maybe I'm for it after listening to both of these guys!
I've really appreciated these twin episodes. I think it would have been helpful to use the word "emergently" instead of the word "naturally" when discussing interest rates. I think that cleaves the difference between free market fundamentals vs. statist fundamentals.
Agreed, “emergent” was definitely a better word than what I was searching for. Glad you enjoyed the two-parter!
I don't think I've been this unconvinced by an argument on The Orph since Austin Petersen said Trump would get rid of income taxes.
Is this relevant to the current episode?
Yes? Sometimes a guest just brings a bunch of nonsense, this End the Fed episode is one of those times.
I think it's still better to address his arguments on the substance
Regarding Nude Banking Alliance: Every customer is nude at the sperm bank if they're making a deposit. The OG nude bankers.
When looking at deflation in 19th century America, there a plenty of examples that show most people didn’t understand what was going on. Wage cuts led to labor unrest - the Pullman Strike of 1894 is just the first example that comes to mind. On the other hand, when people did understand deflation, it was a rallying factor for movements like the populists. Which like other populists before and since, partially understood a significant issue that others did not, but responded with very questionable policies.
Thanks for weighing in with examples! I've been growing increasingly skeptical of the Fed over the past few years as the national debt and crazy interest rates have entered the mainstream-ish conversation. But the argument for keeping low but positive inflation as a mechanism to signal constant growth to non-economist lay-people really gave me pause.
I saw highly technical (and well paid) coworkers screaming bloody murder to their employer about salaries after the Covid interest rate spike, so I can now better imagine what it might look like if an employer was faced with making pay cuts to match a hypothetical deflationary cycle.
I will keep recommending Understanding Money Mechanics by Bob Murphy for the most digestible primer on the evolution of money from commodity money to the current day central bank currencies. Bob is the best around at breaking down complex topics in economics and the history of economic thought.
https://mises.org/library/book/understanding-money-mechanics
I dunno I thought I was against the fed but neither of these podcasts had me convinced which was better! I do like Ron Paul though and he’s against it however I don’t think it’s okay for employers to make wage cuts during deflationary cycles or to give bankers more power which is almost what it sounded like Gene was saying instead of the government. Less recessions and less severe recessions, more stability sound good but the podcasts directly conflicted on whether the fed did this or not so it may be an opinion thing….
Thank God for Gene Epstein.
Hopefully Heaton is right on that 20 years for the debt crisis to really hit. Gives the clan as much time as possible to get ready to weather it. And the next generation will be fighting age. Hopefully that part won’t matter but you never can tell what collapse of empire will look like. Especially several hundred miles from the heart of the empire. If it happens next year we got a 35-40 year old generation, a toddler generation and a 70 year old generation. 20 years’d give us a 55-60 year old generation and a 25 year old generation.
There are people of all ages and in the US they aren't particularly clustered. So the timing of any sort of crisis won't have a huge impact on the age demographics of the country that is hit by it. Except that the country is generally becoming older and the Boomers will die at some point.
I said the clan. As in my family. I don’t have the time or resources to worry about what the rest of the country’s doing to get ready. I’m focused on making sure mine has the best shot possible when things turn.