Reddit reviews An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power

Oh man! I'm in my element! I just finished reading Empire of Wealth! I'm gonna feel really smart now.

We actually did not go off of the Gold Standard until 71. It was proposed as one of several solutions to crazy inflation partly due to social programs implemented by progressive legislation. The economy was booming but LBJ was a child of the New Deal and thought the same solutions would work in a different climate.

The Federal Reserve was established in 1913, not 1929. It is the third iteration of a central bank in our country. The Fed did not limit the lending power of banks until during the Great Depression. Alexander Hamilton was a huge proponent of central banking and his central bank helped stop 2 runs on gold. Both eliminations of regulated banking in our country have been followed with recessions.

Hoover / Roosevelt increased our currency supply to pay for Public Projects. However it was a combination of import tax, deficit increase, and increased cash to pay tor these projects. They didn't just distribute printed cash to the wealthy.

I take it that you do not support the Federal Reserve and would like to reestablish the Gold Standard? Do you know of any existing models / specific time periods where this has worked out?

EDIT:

I read a bit more about the gold standard from some of the questions on the http://www.igmchicago.org economists panel.

What it comes down to for me is that commodities in a global economy, are volatile in value. New gold reserves and extraction methods could be discovered by a competing world power tomorrow. For a smaller, more isolated economy, you could base the value of your currency off of a limited commodity. That is how the system could function in a time when our economy was a) more isolated and b) lending non liquid assets without regulation.

Empire of wealth http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Wealth-History-American-Economic/dp/0060505125/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373551972&sr=8-1&keywords=empire+of+wealth

50 years in wall street
http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Years-Wall-Street-Part/dp/054813443X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373552186&sr=1-4&keywords=50+years+in+wall+street


http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Years-Wall-Street-Part/dp/0548134448/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373552186&sr=1-5&keywords=50+years+in+wall+street

If you are looking for books on the history of American Economics, check out American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism| A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America|An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power|or Crash!: How the Economic Boom and Bust of the 1920s Worked (How Things Worked).

Each of those are well researched and easy to understand.

Edit: I forgot to add: The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes Hard to have a strong understanding of economics without understanding Keynesian theory.

As you said you saw the usual classics I'll skip over Hayek, Hazlett, Milton Freedman, Orwell, ect

1.A very interesting read on America's Economic History. Not econ theory, this is the history of our economy crushing it for over 200 years. Will give you the faith that America's best days are always ahead of us as long as we remain capitalist :

https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Wealth-History-American-Economic/dp/0060505125

2.The best book on Foreign Policy I've ever read. It's a realist take on internation affairs which is what we are finally back to under this admin.

Nation's will work in thier own self interest, armies need to take territory to win wars, you need a great economy to have a great military, China must be confronted, ect:

https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Great-Power-Politics-Updated/dp/0393349276

A few points. This is reddit. Since when does anyone care about citations? Oh, only idiots like you when you disagree but have no ability to disagree. I have a Master's in Economics. I'm no expert, but I take liberty to make economic statements and people who challenge me usually can't prove me wrong. I'm sorry but disagreement doesn't automatically prove me wrong or put the onus on me to cite every stupid thing just because random reddit idiot doesn't know history that may be widely known and searchable if you cared. Let's put you in school though.

There's no citation needed for the guns and military comment because it doesn't apply. I'm saying that assuming the ONLY reason to have a 2nd amendment is to protect against our own military is stupid, because there are other reasons to own a gun and the Supreme Court has also already ruled the 2nd amendment applies not only to militias (for the express purpose of that) but also to individuals, but further, the concept of militias in the amendment was actually less to do with protecting from our own military and instead from any military that may arise to fight us. HINT: there was no really organized federal military at the time. The states practically individually did as they wished. Part of why the Articles of Confederation failed and a constitution with more federal power was needed. They were more concerned about the return of the British, the rise of Native Americans, or one state attacking another or something.

As for you needing citations on dictatorships being ECONOMICALLY efficient or slavery being an insanely efficient economical structure that drove our growth and allowed the industrial revolution to come on (pre-dated it), once again, go study some economics. You want a source? I suppose a single good source (I studied hundreds in and out of school) would be "An Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power" by John Steele Gordon (http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Wealth-History-American-Economic/dp/0060505125). Though you'll just argue against it somehow, not read it, or care. You don't want citations, you just want me to be wrong, which I'm not.

>but when other countries are ranking higher in just about every aspect of health and well being

This is under the assumption that these rankings are accurate or consistent, and also depends on the qualifiers used. One example: Part of the reason certain countries don't have the level of discourse we have is because they don't have the freedoms of speech we have. You get out of line, they throw your ass in jail. Better? That's not a statistical argument. It's a value argument, and America is unique in that respect. Applying that here would destroy everything America is. We accept a little bit of problems in order to have our freedoms. Just because something is not perfect doesn't mean anything else would be better.

But I prefer to deal with statistics, and one fact that I love that people hate is when they make these comparisons, they bring up countries like the Nordic countries. Yes, Sweden is amazing statistically. They have great health, etc etc etc. Good for them. Okay, just one small fact. Sweden is 97% Caucasian! Complete and pure homogeneity. Scientifically speaking it is PROVEN that people self-segregate and that assimilation is hard. Part of why America has things so difficult is because we have some of the worlds widest ranges of diversity in races, ethnicities, wealth classes, income streuctures, cultural differences, etc etc etc. America is so damn diverse in so many ways (not just race) that it inherently makes everything messy. People need to learn to accept that what works for some country with thousands of years of background, 97% homogeneity, and deep-rooted cultures that permeate every corner of the country, WILL NOT WORK in a screwed up freedom-embracing, incredibly diversified country as ours.