Controversial Truth Episode 12

Episode 12- Show Notes

Next Weeks Reading for Episode 13: Country’s that have taken the “medicine”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-19/krugmenistan-vs-dot-estonia#p1

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/13/paul_krugmans_baltic_problem

13 Responses to Controversial Truth Episode 12

  1. Glen Nagy says:

    Dave you said the reason the bankers got away with murder was because the rules didn’t contemplate their situation. It is more correct to say the bankers through lobbyist write the rules and we don’t. Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 saw the dangers of commercial banks being able to gamble their assetts by being Investment bankers. But Glass-Steagall was repealed because it lowered corporate profits along with lowering risk to the economy.

    • dduley says:

      Hi Glen. You are correct. There where rules in place that would have greatly limited the damages that these institutions made in the world economy. This is where “capitalism” gets a bad name when, as you pointed out, it was really corporate influence on the “rule makers” (government) that lead to the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the ensuing calamity. What we faced was “corporatism”, not free market capitalism.

  2. Betsy Ross says:

    Notice the Star Spangled Banner question is about the flag still being there after a long night of battle. Can you see it? Is it still there? Not a question about bravery and freedom. But I get Dave’s point: where have our freedoms gone?

    • dduley says:

      Only the last sentence appeared on the monitor at the football game. But technically you are correct….;-) The fact is, there are too many “sheep” and not enough people to challenge the information and “solutions” being presented by our “leaders.” We need more brave people to be willing to do the work and challenge assumptions. Thanks for listening and commenting Betsy!

  3. LP Johnson says:

    What’s depressing is all the heads in the sand. When I try to talk to family, friends, coworkers about “The Controversial Truth” (the reality, as oppossed to the brilliant podcast), I feel like Noah, building an enormous ship in my front yard…

  4. Wes says:

    A couple disjointed comments
    1. Why the fixation on world ending hyper inflation? There is a huge gap between our current inflation rate and Weimar Germany or Zimbabwe. We had double digit inflation in the 70s and the world did not come to an end. Please don’t forget there were a lot of smart people worried that the financial crisis would push us into deflation and a repeat of the Great Depression, and many still fear a lost decade Japan style future.

    2. You repeatedly dismiss printing money as absurd and pointless, but David is correct. There is no “way it always was” society is a giant experiment.

    3. I know you guys lean towards the commodity backed money side of things. Take a look at this stuff for a mirror opposite perspective. Could make for a very interesting comparison.

    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/

    • dduley says:

      Hi Wes
      1) I think hyper inflation will play out because, as evidenced by their actions, I think the FED will do whatever it takes to print money and pour it into the money supply. The idea of the money supply contracting I think it pretty unlikely simply because of our current “world currency” status. Think of it this way…you can’t be “half pregnant.” Thus, we will ride this train until someone like China introduces a viable alternative to the dollar. Once that happens then the printing press won’t matter and the FED won’t have enough tools to contract the money supply fast enough (and there would be an alternative world currency). I will check out the video! Thanks

  5. sonny says:

    Just read the Krugman article. Oh boy, what can I say? Well, see, Krugman is special. The Fed is especially special. They use special logic in order to achieve a special goal.

  6. Andrew Baker says:

    First time poster, 1 episode behind (Slowish reading of the Ascent of Money).

    Love the show and you guys are great, had a question in regards to QE3. During the Great Depression the book makes mention that injecting liquidity into the market would of maybe softened the Depression had it been done effectively. In the 90’s it was credited with preventing a serious economic downturn. How does this play into the recent QE? Is it then okay to say some QE is good policy to prevent a Depression and then to much of a good thing is a bad thing kind of deal?