.

i'd like to make a little shout out to my wife who is not here but who is a wonderful woman together with me we are expecting an addition to our family in the relatively near future and we think foley have a wonderful relationship we're pretty much the only thing we fight about is which one is the better person and we are each making the case for the other, so thanks to that i am able to say to her yeah, honey, i'm going to buy a myself a conference in las vegas and i won't be around for three days and that sort of is okay. that works. and by and finkel to c-span for creating this record such an event it did in fact occur. [laughter] what i would like to talk about today of course very much revolves around the subject of my book, "meltdown," which i am happy to say spent ten weeks on

"the new york times" best-seller list earlier this year, however "the new york times" -- thanks. thank you very much. [applause] "the new york times" has refused to review it, however they will still to the coastal and pos paul krugman every week. that we are not going to be scared. but no dissent is allowed in "the new york times" put on the other hand we know about the financial picture "the new york times" is facing so i tend to think it doesn't want to promote a book that argues against bailouts. given but the media is obviously going to be demanding in the future. let's not talk about that particular depressing subject and i hope i am not going to depress you today because i am going to leave you with a suggestion there is a way out of this. whether they are going to follow it is a question but it's comforting to know if we wanted to get out of this mess we could do it, it isn't impossible. it could be done. i'm not going to talk about some of the things he would likely

encounter if you turned on right-wing radio where you would hear a lot of denunciation of the community reinvestment act that reaffirmed or freddie may delete kofi and amy r3 mac irresponsible decisions or fairly significant factor in all this all the same, there is nevertheless the elephant in the living room, the factor that more than any other contributed to the crisis but degette never gets mentioned, is never mentioned in a negative light certainly in political circles in fact to the contrary we are in effect not even to think about it and that is the federal reserve system. most americans here federal reserve system and think i don't even know what this is. this is probably too complicated and i'd better just what the experts take care of this. well, that's the problem. the experts are a bunch of quacks so it's important to learn this material so that we can have an informed opinion so

that we won't inadvertently in list in the army of drones who say the solution to the crisis is to give more power to work twice overlord. been there, done that. the federal reserve system is in charge of the country's money supply as i'm sure i don't need to tell people in this room. it has the ability to increase or decrease. i think we know the direction normally goes. it is supposed to act as a lender of last resort for the financial sector. there's one thing it knows how to do. we've seen that. they've got that pretty well under control. and we are told the fed is a great stabilizing agent in the economy so really we shouldn't be questioning it because the fed brings the scientific management to bear on our money supply. one question that? what kind of crank argue after all? this is for our own good. even the left which prides

itself on its slogan question authority, falls completely silent when it comes to the fed. few question the fed will cut that is taking question authority a little too far. i intend to do that. i think those whatever we are fed by the establishment and especially with the establishment has been obviously so wrong so we are inclined to ask fundamental questions normally passed over. so for example, normally what happens when there is an economic crisis of this kind is we get people on one side saying we need fiscal stimulus, we need to blow a lot of borrowed money on nonsense. that's the debate but we are introducing into this debate a third possibility which is the first two are completely juvenile and are only going to make the situation worse. but i am going to be talking

about today involves something called the austrian school of economics. this has nothing to do with austria perce other than the early figures in the school came from austria. this is important because right now the austrian school, school of economic thought, is the smallest probably in the world. it also happens to be the oldest continuing fall out of school and it is the fastest growing. why? disproportionately economists of the austrian school predicted we are seeing at the time the rest of the profession was completely blind sided. james galbraith estimates that maybe one-tenth or one one-hundredth of a percentage of economist solve this crisis coming. naturally he is not including the austrian economists because that is the job of james galbraith to pretend there are no austrian economists but we need to highlight these people because they did see what is coming and that is why people are interested.

meanwhile the mainstream so-called of the economics profession in my opinion disgraced itself during this crisis, not only because it failed to see it coming, not only because they told us this is the most robust economy anybody has seen, they said that in 2007, but also because the solutions, so called solutions they propose are utterly juvenile and extremely crude, and this is all they have to show for themselves. now the mainstream of the economics profession has in effect morphed from what was once a small corner of the profession namely a group of people who felt that the best thing for economics to do was a physics, so i think a lot of times and economics we have former or would be physicists who for whatever reason couldn't get through a physics problems of the next best thing is to become an economist and try to aid the methods of the physical sciences and so you come up with a certain models that apply only

to an economy on mars or a equilibrium we are never going to reach but never actually talk about the actual economy we are living in and so if you actually read the american economic review you will find this completely unreadable. it is all math, jargon and he would not be allowed if you are not subscribing to the american economic review. they did a study not long ago to ask how many people read the average article that answer was to and have people. i am assuming they are not including the editors and the author that we would be left with half runaround reading articles so the fact the mainstream isn't favorable to the austrian school of economics i don't count as a demerit, i count that as a point in its favor. i don't see that the mainstream profession has been doing a big nut job recently. what i want to talk about today is as follows, i want to explain

first the precipitating factor in what happened and no, it's not the regulation, it's not the free market is evil or the nonsense you get from cnbc or from the white house or whatever. all of that stuff is false. everybody who says the free market is failed and the drones so first what was the precipitating factor? the second by one to explain why fiscal stimulus is, why it only intensifies the problem likewise for monetary stimulus and then propose would actually could be done to accelerate the recovery. and here i am going to make reference to an episode in american history and no one has ever heard of, a depression that was over in about a year-and-a-half because the government did the exact opposite of what it is doing right now. so first to the fed, the fed has

nothing in my opinion whatsoever to do with the free market. the free market is social cooperation bounded by private property rights we engage in voluntary transactions with each other and cannot trespass upon other people's rights to life and property. that's all that is for the boogeyman definitions you've been given that's all it is. there is no room in that set up for a monopoly paper money producer. that violates the tenet of the free market which opposes monopoly and the free market would never produce a paper money system like we have now where the money is paper, it's not redeemable. the system we have now has never been created, no such thing. it's been produced through government and threats of violence and use of the police to suppress alternatives. it has never spontaneously

emerged. as the fed therefore is going to be the target of my remarks. i am of the opinion the free market more or less works in every situation so why don't make an exception to say that is the free market works however when it comes to money and interest rates we need a soviet commissar engaging in a central plan. i don't see it seems like inconsistency. i don't see need to concede this. and yet, like a god among nine in our financial press and in popular culture and television he was called the maestro, "the new york times" and it's typical toting totalitarian fashion referred to greenspan as the infallible maestro with our financial system. bob woodward, the reporter for "the washington post" supposedly the anti-establishment reporter,

bob woodward said in the wizard of oz, right away we are off to a creepy start, he says in the wizard of oz when the man behind the curtain is revealed we are disappointed, but a and greenspan we find comfort. just creep right? totally creepy. this is beyond the dignity of a free people for heaven's sake. or my favorite book sample is from the new republic magazine which i hope none of you waste your time reading but the new republic had a journalist who had a little bit of a problem in the 1990's he used to because of his stories and other journalists would be wondering why didn't i get that story because it cannot disguise brain, it didn't actually occur and one of the stories this guy who wrote, stephen glass, was about alan greenspan and he told the story that a group of wall street executives had built a little shrine to greenspan with his image and flowers and

candles and they would meet there and met heat front of him -- meditate in front of him. nobody noticed that was a phony @pñ,ñ they are to the country since we

have had the fed when you compare the number of panics and crises it has doubled since that time so don't give me it is a wonderful stabilizer. that is a whole lot of propaganda. f.a. hayeck as saying the opposite with the committee would want to hear. they don't want to hear the whole central banking thing is a big racket that destabilizes rather than stabilizes so it is very significant that he wins at all because he is seeking the opposite of what they would like to hear. anybody can understand his argument. again with exception of certain recent nobel prize winners but anybody in this room, anybody watching on television can understand this and if you really want to understand what happened in the economy and why it is completely even laughably bogus to blame this on the free markets i suggest just as two minutes you will find with the

minute this makes a lot of sense in fact i am happy to say i spoke at the university of colorado with boulder a few months ago and i didn't realize until i got there what boulder's reputation was that they are kind of on the political left. i didn't know that. they invited me to speak to ongoing and the room was full i was happy to see on a friday night so i don't care what your political outlook is if you are coming to an economic lecture friday night you get a pass from meek so these people were there and a lot of them were obama supporters and i thought i am not getting out of here alive but as it turns out afterwards they thought you made a good presentation. i got e-mail leader about this he made good presentation and made us think we don't see with the argument against what you are saying is. i did a show with a left wing host, howard monroe, had ten minutes to explain f.a. hayek's fees'. i'm not a genius i'm just explaining his theory.

he said while i was expecting to hate you. instead you make a good case. finally the guy who reads the audio book of "meltdown" and this guy has got the greatest reading voice you can imagine he's like the guy from the movies, in a world -- that kind of voice. he's an obama supporter, too and he said when he got "meltdown" he thought here we go, and other propaganda about the right wing market and he wrote me and said i have to admit you make a strong case so it is nice once in awhile even though we have disagreements we can be civil and listen to what we are saying. isn't this a wonderful break from what usually takes place? anyway, here is f.a. hayek's argument simply. he wants to know why is it the economy moves like this, how come we are doing great then everybody's in the toilet and then up and down? this is kind of an interesting question, isn't it. why is this happening, why is there but economists called a cluster of error where all of a sudden people who had been great

forecasters of consumer demand turn out to be terrible all at the why would this happen? this demands explanation. the market weed out people that stink at anticipating consumer demand. those people make losses and go out of business and people who are good at it expand and get more control over capital. so at any one time the market is promoting people who are the best at doing this, so why are these people selected by the market for their forecasting ability why are they so bad at the same time? good question. very rarely do you get an answer to this question other than a psychological one there were animal spirits that sometimes want to invest a lot and it turns around they don't want to invest so much, but eckert. what a total antiintellectual on satisfying explanation this is. hayek says there are real factors for why this occurs. and hayek focuses on interest rates and if you are inclined to say interest rates this is too

complicated, i am telling you interest rates are so important. you are going to have a dream to light about an interest symbol chasing you around. what he says is interest rates are not just arbitrary numbers. you can't just change them and expect nothing to happen. we all like to have lower interest rates in the same way we will all like to have no cassell first 5 cents a gallon but we only one that if it occurs spontaneously pier the government makes milk 5 cents a gallon that doesn't mean to the coming year going to get cheap milk that means we are going to get no milk so anything that seems good for me as a consumer must be good and super and let's have the government force it. you might as well ask the government to abolish the law of gravity because that is what you are trying to do. interest rates mean something. they are where they are for a reason and if you interfere with them, notice interfering in the free market, if you interfere with them you are going to lead

to massive discrimination because what is the interest rate to? what role does it play? it coordinates production across time which is a fancy way of singing when people are willing to postpone purchases into the future that is a time it makes sense for businesses to engage in long-term projects that will bear fruit in the relatively distant future whereas if people want to consider right now this is not a time to deploy resources on product development for new products to the interest-rate coordinates demand of consumers for goods now verses in the future. and secondly and this is the other side the interest rate makes sure there are enough resources act of physical resources available in the economy to complete all the relatively long term projects businesses engaged in. well, when save more and restrict consumption temporarily

this law was the interest rate. we put our money in the banks, this pushes interest rates lower. the banks have more land so to take a short cut the price of living goes down, just common sense. well when we do that that indicates we're postponing desire to consume in the future and number two because we are postponing desire to consume we are releasing resources in the economy for use by these longer-term projects because if we are not going to be producing as many immediate goods the factors that go into producing the goods are really stand made available for longer term projects like research and development or manufacturing or mining, expanding mining capacity. the reason the interest rates encourage long-term investment should be obvious. the longer term your investment is the more interest matters. if i have got to make a tend your project at 15% interest it might not be worth my while but

if the interest rate comes down to eight per cent it might be profitable for. the resources are available, people for the time it takes for these to mature so the interest rate please this crucial function. it's not the case you can create utopia by forcing interest rates down artificially and all of a sudden it will be sunshine and kittens every where. that is there to limit ambition to make clear we cannot do everything simultaneously. we cannot begin every conceivable production project at the same time. it limits this. hayek's point is this, suppose interest rates come down naturally. as we see we have coordination because we have a long-term

investment starting at that time people deferred consumption and released resources for use and longer-term projects or we might called higher stages of production. but let's say you have a central bank like the fed that has various means to push interest rates low were artificially. what's the difference here? here we have the same affect which is more long-term projects are undertaken but notice the difference in this case people haven't stopped consumer and were restricted consumption they are consuming as much as before if anything even more things to the low interest rates discouraging them from saving so now people and not releasing resources so now these long-term project is going to turn out they are not planned to be profitable because literally there are not enough resources to complete them because the resources supposed to be released from consumer goods production in to these more distant things haven't been released so there isn't enough to go around so the prices are

going to go up and that is going to seriously compromise the profitability of these projects so that in and out shell is what hayek how good is it if they are not finished. that is his argument if you interfere with the structure of interest rates as the market sets them, the result is a massive error on the part of investors, businessmen and consumers alike. this is the source of the cluster of error. now ludwig von mises died in 1973 let me point out that he had to flee north decontrolled europe which he had been teaching in europe, teaching and switzerland for a while and he had to flee even sure we not only because he was jewish but also what he was teaching was not ex ackley in conformity

with nazi economic program. von mises was talking about the division of labor and how the market is the best example of human cooperation across borders and wondrous thing is somehow we can take resources fro all over the place without central direction we can create wealth and amazing wonderful thing this is. it's not exactly what the nazi party wants to hear so they destroyed his papers and his library. he fled to the united states where he arrived in 1940 in his 50s almost empty-handed not speaking a word of english and no paid university position at a time every semi competent, every boob, every marxist could find employment there is von mises, one of the greatest economic geniuses of all time, and yet he went on to be as productive if not more than ever. his great treat this inaction 1949 is a fantastic best seller even though its 900 pages.

von mises was an extraordinary genius whose work is still being studied and remembered at a te all of those nobody's getting how your and welcome to have long since been forgotten. well, von mises after whom the institute ludwig von mises institute is named in action gives great analogy for what's happening in the economy when in fact you are playing havoc with interest rates. he says let's imagine the economy is a master builder building a house and is going to supply brakes he thinks is larger than it actually is and for the sake of argument let's say these are the bricks in the whole economy. it's better for him to discover this later rather than earlier because if he discovers it earlier he squandered so many of them had wasted his time but if he discovers the error has he's putting on the last brick this is a disaster. he's wasted more sleeper time. this house, part of it may have to be demolished if not the whole thing whereas if he

discovered this it sooner he can go back to his blueprint, cross things off, make the best of the situation. but notice what would not help him, but would not help this master builder if we simply got him drunk and said keep on building. yeah then he will be happy, it will look like an economic boom. he is working, he's building, this is an economic boom. well, is the house any more on buildable, any less than before? of course not he still can't finish it but now he will be misled into continuing even longer. that's what happens to the economy every time people say the cure for low-interest rate problems is even lower interest rates because in effect you are saying sure you start on investment projects that can't possibly be completed the physical resources don't exist keep doing that. how about start some more. that's what you're doing when you say we need more credit pumped into the economy. now we don't, we need the exact

opposite of that, and what von mises example shows, and i know this is easy to take out of context and hostile people can interpret it the wrong way i am speaking to people of good will, not tax and propaganda when i say the recession period, the recession phase as painful as it can be is actually wind we are restored to health because look at the master builder it simple, when his era comes to light and he says wait a minute i am engaged in on sustainable project. i either have to scale back expectations or abandon this project and move to something else. that's a good thing because in fact the bad part was the boom when he was allocating resources when he was squandering them on projects the economy doesn't have the resources to finish that was bad and in porsche's us because a lot of these resources cannot be recovered so we are that much poor so the recession

is when we say we have done a lot of stupid things we shouldn't have done and now we need to let the market system sort out what's profitable, what's sound, what is a public project, what needs to be abandoned and we start on a firú

quote homer simpson. we need to pump money into this economy and get interest rates down andhat will stimulate things again. in fact he did that. we had 11 straight cuts in 2001 and this is when he started being called the maestro because this man, this might be overboard before whom we are not ready to stand and whose presence we must wait in sense somehow held off an economic collapse. what an extraordinary man this is. here's what the extraordinary man actually did. in 2001 we had the first recession on record we have ever had and which housing starts didn't decline said that's because screens and wouldn't let the economy clear everything out, the bad investments. so instead people to the conclusion we've had a recession yet housing still robust so i guess that means housing never

goes down, it's the best investment we can make and the smiths it started because greenspan instead of saying we have to abandon what we have been doing he says full steam ahead, keep on doing what you have been doing so the crash we have now is all the worse because in the interim we have been persisting in fees incorrect flow of spending and production. it is all the worse because instead of corrected we were affirmed and so that is what greenspan has done and recently we had greenspan all tiers and pity on television say this crisis goes to show there is a flaw in the free market he had never noticed before. of course it means a lot when a guy like this, people falsely believe is a free market guy because of his ayn rand days and even if greenspan says there's a flaw who are you mere mortals to

dispute what greenspan says? i would simply say to greenspan not that he's listening, he sought making $150,000 a speech, pretty good racket he's got the win, but i would say to alan greenspan we have found the flaw and it is you. [laughter] [applause] .. >> if it was just psychology

the market would put a damper on that because where would you have gotten credit to keep investing in housing? if there is unusual activity, prices go up and if you have a free market, interest rates go up to say we are running out of stuff to lend you do not need three houses maybe you should rethink this, but when you have the soviet commissar running money and interest rates the free marketeers that he can create all of this new money coming in to keep interest rates low and keep this artificial thing going. this was always von mise argument that said any time you have the asset bubble there is always some kind of artificial credit inflating. th is what got him because there's no way you can afford the costly

increasing -- increasing prices of less there was some spigot of credit pomp into the economy. it is not fair to blame hdtv for the housing bubble. it is a crazy thing and it may have played a minor role but without the fred -- bad press and accelerate we would not have this problem also the issue of lowering lending standards is not altogether separable from the issue of the fed is not just the community reinvestment act but if the fed pumps money into the economy into the banking system, under the incentive structure of the banks want to stay loan to the legal extent possible if they get more money to lend out that burns a hole in their pocket, who will be the recipient? if not, the people they would have rejected otherwise be cut as the example i gave it "meltdown" let's suppose i have a basketball team then as soon as i pick my players i am

told you can pick to more. logically we're like those players? from the pool of people i had just rejected so naturally the standards will go down. that is unavoidable and all through this we have investors that new informally as the greenspan put to which everybody understood to mean that greenspan will not let things unravel if things turn bad for major market actors he will intervene and bail you out and it happened time and time again. it is not a theory i came up with you can google greenspan put and find out about this but where is the free market i would like to know? in what way could this be the free market? what happened when you have a central bank and since 1971 what happens is it institutionalize moral hazard we know that is the bail-out -- phenomenon when

people believe any losses they make are spread out by the public instead of borne by themselves individually. they can keep the profits but the fed institutionalizes this program why should institutions were about their capital or the type of investments when they can get injection of fresh liquidity when they need it? naturally there will be more risk taking and more recklessness than otherwise and i do not know how this can be disputed is the nature of the system. if people say we need more regulation you have got to be kidding me. you have got to be kidding me the banking industry is the most heavily regulated in the whole country. the regulators bought the securitization model was working just fine and just peachy so now we're told we need a systemic regulator that will be the fed? the fed creates the systemic

risk in the first place now, this is unbelievable it is like we're living in the world novel. it is unbelievable the wake up as a giant bug and they throw you in jail. [laughter] it is a bizarre situation we are facing. i will point* out by the way one objection to what i am saying we have a lot of booms and busts you cannot blame that on alan greenspan. that is true i cannot blame that on a person who had not yet been born with an institution that did not exist but i talk about this in "meltdown" if you look at the cases of the 19th century there caused by the same things we have either have national banks enjoy a monopoly privileges or -- and/or a banking system that is consistently bailed out when it gets into trouble so it can create more credit than there are safe resources to back it.

if you look at the 1870's the time of the long depression the worst ever actually economic historians do not believe there was a depression they do not believe this occurred now. the consensus is now there was a recession in 1873 but in the 1870's and 1880s were among the most robust decade america and history according to every criterion historians were misled into thinking it was a depression simply because prices declined on average 3. 8% per year we have been told declining prices is the worst possible thing zombies will roamed the earth i will not get into deflationary i talk about that but that is how people become rich before the fed you could save by just accumulating precious metal coins back when it circulated

as many they held their value or gained slightly when they circulated as money so how did people say for the future? they save of the coins. they did not have to go into the spot -- stock market becomes speculator is where and has lowered the value of the dollar by 95% since created no one in his right mind you would be wiped out. instead we have to become speculators or invest been heaven knows what or go into debt to buy a house, and yet you can get wiped out and ruined and yet we are told this is for the common man i would not -- we have to help the common man. are you kidding me? every time i hear the left taka questioning authority here you have the most regressive institution imaginable the rewards the financial e lead in the society and discombobulates

the financial planning of every normal person in the country and you can say that is not worth questioning or you are a crank to questionnaire before a crank not to question at this point* [applause] there is something wrong with the money. it can be created at will with any quantity was almost no resources expended this money it pushes the rates of interest down and creates a boom and bust cycle. then when the bust comes, the major players who are caught get crying with all two years and the sadness go cry to the central bank the paper money producer because they know there is no physical constraint on how much money the producer can create so they say bail me out and they usually get what they want

racemes it is not obviously the best conceivable system. we're being told what needs to be done is fiscal stimulus this is rich we have to spend $800 billion and a bullet on money-losing projects? how do i know that? the private sector would already be engaged and the sec in me when it has barney frank ever directed money to something that made sense whatsoever? you know, that is a money-losing project [applause] i do not excuse republicans who will say the problem with the stimulus is that we did not below the 800 billion on the right things. this is again, not the sharpest response you may make. but the government has no profit and loss mechanisms what has no way to know if it is doing well or destructively badly are wasting resources it has no way to know or feedback

mechanism and a gets resources by seizing them from the population. that is of civilized so it has no way of knowing how it is doing so they will lose money and it will make us rich? that is what we are told. now paul krug when he who shall not be named says we need more stimulus but notice the problem is the first crazy idea was a crazy idea we have not done enough of a crazy idea it is never lets reverse course we need to do more do exactly what japan did through the '90s what they continue to do now they are contracting on the annualized rate of 15% which you might expect to hear for haiti but that is to pay after following the advice of these geniuses to try to claim they did not follow our advice precisely there of 0.3% they did everything the keynesian

wanted them to do and this is what i have to show for it is a big old o. in terms of fiscal stimulus first diverts resources where are they coming from these projects? it takes away from the private sector the sophisticated keynesian come back with these resources are idle they are not doing anything anyway so it is okay if we yank them back into production. yes. that would be the case, perhaps, if you could devise stimulus package is that would make use of only precisely the resources that are currently idle but of course, they're not doing that but coming up with a repertory projects all of which will divert steel or labor from places where they are currently employed. this i will resource argument does not work on those grounds. secondly, weenie to spend money and the government to

borrow money to get all the resources back into productive activity. they never ask the question why are they to idle in the first place? why do we have idle capacity in the first place? what is going on? the austrian explanation this st,ñ ,ñ

thinks some-- every love my food 30 build a second location than the olympics go away. now the second location they're all standing around no tips, should we want to stimulate his idle resources back into activity? and no. that would divert resources from help the areas of the economy where the market needs to be given a chance to redeploy them. it would be a waste propose to mess packages are like drinking red bull instead of sleeping. [laughter] because it you had read will be for which i have not for i am like this naturally without rebels but if you had it coming you know, whatt is doing, it does not there is no perpetual motion machine you drink that and keep going. no. would ever part of your body is not totally exhausted the red bull will totally exhausted is not like that crash's not coming. the crash is coming. the fiscal stimulus it seeks

out like the parasite that it is, the profitable sliver of the economy and sucks resources out there for exhaust the economy still further. monetary stimulus but print more money and blow it again we have 40 see my that intensifies the problem and puts it offer a few more years and makes it more intense so we need the opposite and interestingly enough in american history we have an episode where that is what was done in 1920 and 1921 you may have heard me talk about this over and over and i have youtube on this very topic called what you have never heard of the great depression of 1920 and has 33,000 use it amazes me that the but this point* are so desperate that they will sit in front of their computers and watch tv for 45 minutes. that is wonderful people are listening. that is wonderful. what happened?

we had a depression in which we had double-digit unemployment, unemployment skyrocket from four up at 12% production dropped dramatically what was done? between 1920 and 1922 the federal government's budget was cut in half so instead of the fiscal stimulus we had the opposite effect today we're told the worst thing you can do is cut government spending during a depression because that will cut into aggregate demand the simplistic nonsense it is important for congressmen to get offices renovated it is for the good of the country but nothing to do with what we want. i have eight minutes? how much? according to my watch started at 11:35 a.m.. okay. i will try to finish. in 1920, 21 they do the opposite and by the mid 1921

the crisis was basically over they did the exact opposite and you never hear about this episode ever. i talk about this in view to buy looked at how out an economic historian still with that it is the opposite and it works fantastically i am not kidding. there are one or $0.02 is about this whole episode there was not even a wikipedia injury until this year and it has entries on a good drummer for journey in the 1980's and what his second wife did for a living there is nothing about this whatsoever so apparently i am lower on time than i realized of simply say the people we are told to look to for advice or listen to the so-called experts have no idea what they are talking about. in 2002 paul krugman said what we need more than anything are low interest rates to spur housing. that should pretty much finished it for paul krugman but wng