Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Amazon Music Unlimited for Family Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's
Customer Review

10 of 45 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars A monetarist without a leg to stand on..., 18 Oct. 1998
By A Customer
This review is from: A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 (National Bureau of Economic Research Publications) (Paperback)
Professor Friedman argues that the Great Depression was caused by the Fed's reluctance and ultimate failure to provide sufficient liquidity to the fiancial system in order to save it from collapse. This is pure folly, as the Fed cut rates from 6.0% to 1.5% during 1929-31, during a time when the money supply did not decline until late 1930 and early 1931, while the stock market fell nearly 75%.
While some counter with the argument that Smoot-Hawley Tarrif Act of 1930 (which took effect in mid-1931) caused the Depression, nations such as Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Portugal, the Dutch East Indies, and South Africa all began raising tariffs in 1928-29 against a backdrop of commodities price deflation and a collapse in currencies.
I am sorry, Professor Friedman, the Great Depression was caused by misinvestment, excessive credit expansion, and structural collapse in the international credit system. Sound familiar (October 1998)?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 5 Nov 2008, 22:07:17 GMT
uranian says:
the monetary base (i.e. the money that the fed has direct control over) shrank 5% between April 1928 to October 1930, so to assert that the money supply didn't decline until late 1930 is simply wrong. m2 began to decline in 1929, too.

Posted on 15 Oct 2009, 09:33:07 BST
Last edited by the author on 15 Oct 2009, 09:33:31 BST
Sergei says:
Now in October 2008 do we still think that cutting rates alone is sufficient to inject liquidity into the system? Did Bernanake's critisism of Japan's Central Bank make no difference to this flawed proposition? Bernanke's own request for the 700 number while the rates were at 0.5%?

Posted on 30 Jan 2011, 18:07:33 GMT
I. Chaudhry says:
You miss the point of the book: it's not so much about the causes of the contraction but more so about the failure on the Fed's part to act in response to the contraction. In terms of causes there is no accepted belief, indeed some economists believe that the main reason for the Depression and its length is the Gold Standard - there is evidence to suggest this is so. Unfortunately with quantitative easing it is very difficult to prove whether it works or not. However many of us give it the benefit of the doubt due to recent recovery periods in the US and UK (although the next few months will prove very interesting)

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013, 11:55:45 GMT
Anthony says:
Nope, the reason for it is the controls that were placed on the economy that stopped it from adjusting. The gold standard wasn't responsible for the credit boom in the US.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Feb 2013, 11:56:08 GMT
Anthony says:
Prove it.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›