We're even excluding the Great depression, so if anything the FED is getting lee-way.

That’s a stretch to apply that paper to my point, given that it only goes back to 1887. There were some pretty severe and long lasting 19th century depressions between 1836 and 1887

There's little data on the NBER before 1887.

But even so, it's reasonable to assume it would be more or less the same since the system was effectively similar.

We have great data on how long they lasted though, so at the very least, the “less persistent” and “shorter recovery times” part can be challenged by that

Pre 1887 had similar recessions in those metrics if we look at the flawed NBER data, it's not a far fetched assumption.

One would expect due to technological change recessions would get better post fed, but it's surprising that did not happen.

@abby_ella In my ideal, I wouldn't use the system of the 1800s exactly since it had a few flaws.

SHUT THE FUCK UP

Guys I’m 8

Lmao

@Valindra they’re having a discussion about economics in the economics channel, just mute the channel if you don’t want to see it

So I did some averaging, the average recession under free banking lasted 2 years and 2 months. The average under the federal reserve lasted 1 year and 2 months. That’s a significant difference

I know you wouldn’t do it exactly the same, but you would remove the central bank, right? That’s really the difference that matters

You're using the NBER numbers, they're flawed. The paper goes back to 1880, which is not that far but it's pretty far considering the system pre that was effectively the same, and finds the results: shorter recovery times; less persistant; less severe pre fed (not even including the depression for the federal reserve).

> but you would remove the central bank, right?
Yes, but it's much more nuanced than that.

The 1800s is not my ideal because it wasn't exactly 'free banking', not regarding note issuing but regulations making the banking sector fragile, causing credit pyramiding.

And you think that this wouldn’t happen if you remove regulations or control from the situation?

The regulations I'm talking about in the 1800s? Yes, those issues would cease to exist.

That's my prime system.

And no central banking authority?

Would each bank have its own currency or would each have authority to issue US dollars?

No central banking authority, but I wouldn’t be so sure of independent currency issuance.

Is SINT still maintaining there won't be a recession?

We should tax income made working overtime less

@DrYuriMom SINT?

> except any nation that does have central banking can manipulate your currency, so that’s fun
The treasury exists @Sophie

You. Sidisnotthere. SINT

Feel free to refer to me as DYM

Well I agree, there isn’t any sign of a recession.

Bear market.

That isn’t due to a recession, it’s due to virus fears

Haha

The recent jobless claims have fallen, which would not be expected if we were in a downturn

Adorable

Thanks, I actually understand how the economy processes.

A stock market falling doesn’t necessarily mean there is a recession; in this case it means investors are temporarily feeling bearish due to exogenous reasons.

However the economy doesn’t show any signs so far. Like I said the Feb job reports and this weeks jobless claims falling.

What will happen after the pandemic is gone? Will the normal economy go back or is that too late to invest?

All that you mention are lagging indicators SINT

I think Sophie and I will be proved right