Message from @sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ
Discord ID: 533012498098552835
By that I mean he delayed it
The government does not help the economy by recovering froma recession
it only delays it
Which is what we saw under Hw Bush
Obama and FDR
This was the worst recession since the Great Depression hence why it took longer than previous recessions
Reagan had it worse
And it shouldn't have taken as long
it's only Obama's meddling which delayed it
By what I meant about Obama setting the stones for the next recession, his economy had interest rates set at 0% during his entire term and multiple QEs took place. None of which made a single annual year of above 3% gdp growth
With 0% interest rates malinvestments took place, an inflationary bubble
Which a bust will have to fix
No because in a time of a recession
the government does not "pull out"
It only delays with it's meddling
It can help pull out by cutting taxes and not interfering in the market as much. But thats not what Obama did.
@chad Not to mention he's the only President to never reach 3% annual growth. It was an embarrassing recovery
and unfortunately Trump will get the blame if a recession comes.
This type of thing has caused a recession throughout history, it's why central planning doesn't work and why the federal reserve should be abolished
Even one year of annual 3% growth
Pretty sure even FDR got 3%
It would have been possible, if he didn't tamper the economy
When you say growth do you mean GDP
yeah
annual gdp growth never hit 3%
And he probably set the stones for a bust
to clear up all the malinvestments during the 0% interest rates
but the 0% interest rates were an important tool during the recession
@hcaez No they cause malinvestments
it's happened throughout the last century
it will follow with a bust
by who and in what?
Central banks expand credit well beyond their own assets and by the funds of their clients, often supported or encouraged by the setting of low interest rates by a central bank. This additional credit flow into the economy from increased borrowing for capital projects stimulates economic activity. Projects which would not have been started before, seem now profitable, creating malinvestment. They increase demand for production materials and for labor and their prices rise, which, in turn, leads to an increase in prices of consumption goods. If the banks would stop the extension of credit, the boom would be rapidly over. To prevent the sudden halt of this boom (and the resulting collapse of prices), the banks must create more and more credit, and the prices will rise even more.
But this expansion of credit cannot continue forever. There is no additional capital or labor; there is only more money (and debt). The means of production and labor which have been diverted to the new enterprises have to be taken away from others. Society is not sufficiently rich to permit the creation of new enterprises without taking away from others. As long as the expansion of credit is continued this will not be noticed, but it can't be pushed indefinitely. The inflation and the boom can last only as long as the public thinks that the prices will stop rising in the near future.
ah my bad, I should've been more specific
yeah I understand your idea, I just wanted some specific examples
maybe some individual names or specific investment banks and what they did with the money they borrowed from the fed
@hcaez not borrowed from the FED really, the FED set the interest rates and expanded the money supply
Notable examples of them causing recessions would be
'29, '90 , '82, '08
