Retroactive Effect
Banned
It doesn't really matter what "should" happen, just what is... politicians tell lies or half truths to get people to vote for them, then they have years and a free hand if they get enough support, or have to make bargains if they don't, without the interference by the mob who generally know less and care even less... Don't have to even be a liar, just extremely charismatic and inspirational (like Obama).
If you got a better idea, let's hear it
I was just trying to figure out what your line of thought was on that. I think it's better to give a bit more control to the voters, you seem to think we are better off with some kind of professionally installed king and his professional advisers. Many people died for the more free and open system we have today. The price is every once and a while the public makes a mistake. At lest if a mistake is made they would have had a freedom of choice than one person or a small group of people making those choices for them and greatly limiting or getting rid of the public in the process all together.
Sorry, Nixon shock happened 40 years ago, and the world today is generally far more technologically and economically advanced than 40 years ago, and also more peaceful. Going to have to do better than that.
If we are talking about the Great Depression only, it's a whole other issue... your proposals don't really address the root causes of the Great Depression or Roaring Twenties. Hint, tight money and tight control made the situation far, far worse... Ben Bernanke Man of the Year saved us in 2008.
And now we are in endless Q.E and talking about world wide sub zero interest rates. But to address the Great Depression as this is what this is about, I think the proposals did address some of them. I could include things like no margin on stocks, but I think that is nearly a given based on what has happened in this ATL. There are some who argue that fiat currency and government spending made the situation worse in the great depression. I also question the choices Ben Bernanke made in 2008. I would have just given the 7 trillion to the people with deposits at risk than blow it on Q.E and eating there toxic sub-prime trash loans. The part you don't say is that the fed dumping tons of loose money likely is what pumped the bubble so high in the roaring twenties. So in effect the fed made the great depression worse by pumping it up pre-1929 and then made it worse after word maybe hoping to get rid of gold backed bills.
"The Federal Reserve believes it is possible that, ultimately, its operating framework will allow the elimination of minimum reserve requirements, which impose costs and distortions on the banking system." - The man of the year in 2008. Link: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20100210a.htm#fn9
He should be called the man who was lucky and then decided to push the end of the system once the house of cards falls. If I needed I can explain why this is a flawed idea that he pushed and any real expert in the field would have never dared to suggest what he did as a goal.
You haven't addressed how an economy would work without banks making loans to businesses, which is NOT about starting new business but making payroll and meeting operating costs. Timing, everything is about timing.
If a business can't make payroll with out a loan then it's most likely going to fail. But this was a clear oversight on my part so I will rewrite the OP to include installment loans and other kinds of loans including those for payroll.
I don't have to source anything, you need to source an actual modern government that works by opinion poll. Note that these governments are generally from BCE, when the definition of citizen was so restrictive and people had so much free time to participate in votes about mundane budgetary issues.
Really this system isn't that much different than what we have. In local elections many low level things are voted on like for the many departments in town that aren't too much unlike what is seen at the federal level.
The EPA is a special case because you can't reverse environmental damage (or can at great cost). Someone dumps some toxic waste, can't sue your way to fix the ground water. Environment is generally the exception to the rule to heavy regulation.
You can't reverse someone killing themselves because they lost everything there Job, housing and money because some bankers were stupid. You can't sue that person back to life. Most environmental damage can be reversed if given the time and money. There was a whole lot more to the 2008 crash than the 700 or so billion. The real amount it cost is over 7 trillion with fed holding bad paper(Sub-prime home loans), Q.E and a host of other things. I can explain this in more detail if you like. If you didn't know this before Q.E or Quantitative easing even by some very well respected experts has a very questionable impact to economic growth but they do it anyways.
Well libertarianism is generally anti-regulation and pro-free market. Your ideas are more social democratic. Besides, "But this is about the great depression, not 2016 and beyond."
You seem to have a problem with fiat currency.
I would say I do due to the higher risk of hyper inflation and that is much worse than deflation. I said from the first post my ideas are more socialist and hopefully more democratic. The thing I have the biggest issue with though is the federal reserve being mostly under private control and yet is supposed our head of government economist to decide how banks should be handled. You may as well sell off the EPA to big Oil and let big Oil appoint EPA agents or sell the DEA to the drug cartels.
The type of controls you say has its own downsides, massive, slow economic growth... you never addressed the payroll point. It is a fact of business, that most loans have nothing to do with "starting" the business but ongoing cost.
Other obvious downside is moral hazard... if suddenly the bank employees choosing the winners and losers to give loans to are government employees then nepotism and corruption sets in... hello stagnant economy... but you know that...
There is a moral hazard to be had no matter what. There is this kind of corruption in private banks as well and if you think there isn't then I have a bridge to sell. I realize it has downsides such as slower economic growth, but it would likely be a more stable system less prone to out right failure. Though I would have to say the last 8 years GDP wise have been fairly stagnant, but to return to 1930 I know there are downsides but I think they don't out number the upsides. The only dividing line between international businesses and elected officials if they screw the world up one can be voted out, the other can't.