Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 39
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    desert
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 76 Times in 47 Posts

    The "Federal" Reserve. Say what?

    The "Federal" Reserve is not actually owned by our government, it's just private bank, which we are most dependant on? This does NOT sound stable, or right:

    "Its primary responsibility is to maintain the stability of the national currency and money supply, but more active duties include controlling subsidized-loan interest rates, and acting as a lender of last resort to the banking sector during times of financial crisis (private banks often being integral to the national financial system). It may also have supervisory powers, to ensure that banks and other financial institutions do not behave recklessly or fraudulently." -Wiki.

    Thomas Jefferson, letter to secretary of treasury 1802:
    "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

    That sounds familiar.. Can someone explain to me how the fuck any of this works?


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,883
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,066 Posts
    It doesn't work, where have you been for the past year?
    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    desert
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 76 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BuckWeisel View Post
    It doesn't work, where have you been for the past year?
    Not paying attention obviously, lol. I just don't understand why we're not revolting against this control.. I want to fuck some politicians/bankers up right about now.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    My drawing board
    Posts
    359
    Thanks
    466
    Thanked 236 Times in 170 Posts
    "Fed Reserve to be given sweeping powers”
    In other words, USA Pwned by Fed Reserve.
    “The plan is aimed to streamline and consolidate banking and securities regulation in one or two agencies —
    now is expected to sidestep most jurisdictional disputes and simply
    impose across the board standards to be applied by all financial regulators, according to administration and industry sources, ”
    The Washington Times-
    It seems, the Fed, which is already totally unaccountable to Congress, is to be placed in
    complete control of the entirety of the
    US financial system, to do as it pleases, without repercussion.
    As the LA Times reports, the government, in conjunction with the private Federal Reserve, would effectively have the clout to simply
    seize and take over any company it desires.
    The “heads” of nine of the biggest banks in the derivatives market, including JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America, secretly lobbied
    to keep derivatives under Federal Reserve “oversight” and away from real scrutiny.
    The NY Times-
    "And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill.
    And they frankly own the place," -Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
    This is the same privately run entity that refused to comply with congressional demands for transparency and disclose the destination of
    Trillions of dollars in “bailout” funds.
    Bloomberg-
    It is the same privately owned entity that has withheld internal memos,
    in spite of freedom of information act requests. It is the same private entity, run for the most part by European banking elites, that has
    arrogantly refused to tell Senators and Congressmen which banks were in receipt of government loans.
    Bernanke is worried that the citizens of the U.S.A. will demand a Fed Reserve Audit.
    HR 1207's companion bill is in the Senate, S 604 The Federal Reserve Sunshine act
    Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty has since reported that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has become the first cosponsor of S 604.
    Without support for S 604, the Senate may be able to block HR 1207 and other legislation seeking to audit the Fed
    The key Senators to pressure on this bill are:
    Kay Hutchison (R - TX) 202-224-5922 (on the Senate Banking Committee)
    Robert Bennett (R - UT) (202) 224-5444 (on the Senate Banking Committee)

    Other Senators on the Banking Committee can be found here:


    Use this site to contact your reps:

    List of all senators & contact information:
    If passed, HR1207 will ensure that the Fed make public the destination of the trillions in taxpayer “loans” that have been simply handed over to private banks without oversight.
    Last edited by Mebiusu; July 1st, 2009 at 05:39 AM.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Mebiusu For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    2,777
    Thanks
    152
    Thanked 236 Times in 103 Posts
    bernanke says if audited it would cause complete economic colapse for the US

    wooo ! err ;/

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Penticton, BC
    Posts
    1,515
    Thanks
    63
    Thanked 128 Times in 85 Posts



    'Zeitgeist, The Movie' and 'Zeitgeist: Addendum' were created as Not-for-Profit expressions
    to communicate what the author felt were highly important social understandings which
    most humans are generally not aware of. The first film focuses on suppressed
    historical & modern information about currently dominant social institutions, while
    also exploring what could be in store for humanity if the power structures at large continue
    their patterns of self-interest, corruption, and consolidation.

    The second film, Zeitgeist: Addendum, attempts to locate the root causes
    of this pervasive social corruption, while offering a solution. This solution is not
    based on politics, morality, laws, or any other "establishment" notions of human affairs,
    but rather on a modern, non-superstitious based understanding of what we are
    and how we align with nature, to which we are a part. The work advocates
    a new social system which is updated to present day knowledge, highly influenced
    by the life long work of Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project.

  9. The Following 4,294,967,295 Users Say Thank You to seth1 For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


  10. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Cherniga View Post
    Kay Hutchison (R - TX) 202-224-5922 (on the Senate Banking Committee)
    Robert Bennett (R - UT) (202) 224-5444 (on the Senate Banking Committee)
    Actually this falls to Barney Frank. A LOT of this mess falls to Barney Frank. Last time I checked he was sitting on the bill... and demanding TARP funds, and bullied banks into giving loans, and was hustling auto makers, etc.

    I'm glad some people in the MSN are finally starting to really talk about it. It's been a long time coming that everyone should know how the economy can be manipulated in such an adverse way. But MSN and polarized political fanaticism play a strange dynamics when it comes to what would seem like common sense.

    I want the fed audited, but am keeping my eyes on Cap & Trade a lot more.
    5 states make generate over 40% of our GDP. The most stable of these being Texas. Due to it's abundance of natural gases, oil, biomedic research, IT, and lack of blowing up housing prices; It's stayed and can stay above water. But, Cap and Trade's crony capitalism*key words is crony* can do serious harm to this.

    If anything, as bad as it would be in a recession; I think a flat carbon tax would be fine. It won't do anything for the environment (Cap & Trade would do even less) and it certainly won't help us except hopefully using less oil from the Mid East. Virtually everything would rise in price and that not what we need right now.

    Multiple front battle to get things back in order. Over-spending, the inevitable onset of inflation, cronyism, deals on the house floor, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by seth1 View Post



    'Zeitgeist, The Movie' and 'Zeitgeist: Addendum' were created as Not-for-Profit expressions
    to communicate what the author felt were highly important social understandings which
    most humans are generally not aware of. The first film focuses on suppressed
    historical & modern information about currently dominant social institutions, while
    also exploring what could be in store for humanity if the power structures at large continue
    their patterns of self-interest, corruption, and consolidation.

    The second film, Zeitgeist: Addendum, attempts to locate the root causes
    of this pervasive social corruption, while offering a solution. This solution is not
    based on politics, morality, laws, or any other "establishment" notions of human affairs,
    but rather on a modern, non-superstitious based understanding of what we are
    and how we align with nature, to which we are a part. The work advocates
    a new social system which is updated to present day knowledge, highly influenced
    by the life long work of Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project.
    *sigh*
    Can we stick to facts and evidence vice speculation and cult movies?

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GhostValkyrie For This Useful Post:


  12. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    472
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 27 Times in 16 Posts
    WAIT.. I thought this was common knowledge since... it was initiated?

    I mean, I'm not even from the states.

  13. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    284
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 264 Times in 96 Posts
    The "Federal" Reserve is not actually owned by our government, it's just private bank, which we are most dependant on? This does NOT sound stable, or right:
    This isn't true. The Fed is a government institution, not a private bank.

    And if it doesn't work, then it's been doing a poor job of failing over the last ~100 years.
    Last edited by Elam; July 1st, 2009 at 11:27 AM.

  14. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,883
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Elam View Post
    And if it doesn't work, then it's been doing a poor job of failing over the last ~100 years.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_bubble
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_and_bust
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis
    # Panic of 1819 - pervasive USA economic recession w/ bank failures; culmination of U.S.'s 1st boom-to-bust economic cycle
    # Panic of 1825 - pervasive British economic recession in which many British banks failed, & Bank of England nearly failed
    # Panic of 1837 - pervasive USA economic recession w/ bank failures; a 5 yr depression ensued
    # Panic of 1857 - pervasive USA economic recession w/ bank failures
    # Panic of 1873 - pervasive USA economic recession w/ bank failures, known then as the 5 yr Great Depression & now as the Long Depression
    # Panic of 1893 - pervasive USA economic recession w/ bank failures
    # Panic of 1901 - limited to crashing of the New York Stock Exchange
    # Panic of 1907 - pervasive USA economic recession w/ bank failures
    http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_D..._United_States
    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  16. #11
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    284
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 264 Times in 96 Posts
    Gee, you mean you have ups and downs? Life isn't perfect? Who knew.

    Since your clearly too lazy to click and read, the current Fed was set up after most of the recessions/panics you posted and was in fact was set up in response to those.

    Regardless, the overall graph trends upward, ergo, it's been pretty successful.

  17. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,877
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 632 Times in 400 Posts
    It's a funny bunny.

    Not only that, if they opened up the vault and gave away all the diamonds in reserve away everyone in the world would own a few but they would be worthless.

    But why then do they still dig these massive holes in the earth where trucks turn into dinky toy's is beyond me. Job creation?
    ----------------------------------
    Scetchbook: View the exhibitionist's stuff.

  18. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    4,078
    Thanks
    278
    Thanked 1,056 Times in 672 Posts
    It is quasi-public and quasi-private. It is both, and neither. Not everything can be painted in pure blacks and whites, no matter how much we may feel compelled to try.

    The Fed existed in the nineties during that time of supposed deregulation that allegedly caused all this trouble. Interesting that people still think we can build a regulation so big that no crisis can surmount it. They must have gone to the same school that taught those government dike building guys. I wouldn't bank on the Fed being able to solve our way out of this economy (pun used knowingly).

  19. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    250
    Thanked 42 Times in 29 Posts
    well the various lobbys and the fed reserve bank and similair institutions around the globe are obviously doing a good job convincing people they're useful and represent the interests of the people... *sigh*

    Quote Originally Posted by Elam View Post
    Regardless, the overall graph trends upward, ergo, it's been pretty successful.
    upwards for whom?

  20. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,883
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Elam View Post
    Gee, you mean you have ups and downs? Life isn't perfect? Who knew.

    Since your clearly too lazy to click and read, the current Fed was set up after most of the recessions/panics you posted and was in fact was set up in response to those.

    Regardless, the overall graph trends upward, ergo, it's been pretty successful.
    I've read the FRA article. 1913.

    So because there was a greater length of time before the FRA than between 1913 and now means that it's working? You can't say that there are less recessions after it because there's not enough data yet.

    The economy is on a bubble system. Bubbles expand until they burst, then they start expanding again. When's the last bubble that burst? Yeah, 2008. So no, the FRA hasn't taken care of shit. Failing is still built into the economy. We will magically climb out of the hole we're in now and then bubbles will burst again.

    You know what other graph has gradually risen? National debt. Yep things are looking up for sure.
    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


  22. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    284
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 264 Times in 96 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BuckWeisel View Post
    I've read the FRA article. 1913.

    So because there was a greater length of time before the FRA than between 1913 and now means that it's working? You can't say that there are less recessions after it because there's not enough data yet.

    The economy is on a bubble system. Bubbles expand until they burst, then they start expanding again. When's the last bubble that burst? Yeah, 2008. So no, the FRA hasn't taken care of shit. Failing is still built into the economy. We will magically climb out of the hole we're in now and then bubbles will burst again.

    You know what other graph has gradually risen? National debt. Yep things are looking up for sure.
    Recessions and bubbles are a fact of life and are a product of any economic system. Please, tell us what economic system doesn't have them or doesn't fail from time to time. The American economic engine produces a lot more than bubbles and recessions. It has produced massive quantities of wealth and innovations, more than any other institution in the history of mankind in such a short amount of time. To say 'it doesn't work', is absurd.

    Debt is not a product of the fed. It's because adminstrations spend more than they have, and since the 40's, it's graph in relation to the GDP is a valley.
    upwards for whom?
    Certainly for the overwhelming majority of Americans, but you can make a pretty strong argument for the entire world.
    Last edited by Elam; July 1st, 2009 at 04:33 PM.

  23. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    My drawing board
    Posts
    359
    Thanks
    466
    Thanked 236 Times in 170 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostValkyrie View Post
    Actually this falls to Barney Frank. A LOT of this mess falls to Barney Frank.
    I understand. Sorry if my wording gave the impression that I thought the "buck" stopped with them. The senators were listed so their constituents can pressure them regarding the S 604 bill, without which, it appears that HR 1207 may be in danger of being swept under the rug.

  24. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 397 Times in 177 Posts
    I'm curious, how would you all propose to keep inflationary forces in check without a central bank? (the Fed is not a private bank, where does this idea come from?)

    And yes, failing is built into the economy, but so is creation! This is a key concept of market economies: creative destruction. You seem to see only the destructive side of things. Market economies have been proven time and time again to raise standard of living, increase average income, raise life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, increase food supply, increase housing development, raise employment, etc. etc. etc. Honestly I could go on and on and on. Please note that I am not saying our current state is perfect. 40 million people without health insurance is unacceptable, however, it pains me to see people so disillusioned about the way market economics work via films like "Zeitgeist: Addendum" (that man's ideas would be wonderful if America's economy was the size of Rhodesia, unfortunately, this is not the case).



    Buckweisal, your anger should not be directed towards the Fed, because the Fed's priority is to minimize the destructive part of the economic cycle. The first ever "soft-landing" of the economic cycle was brought about in large part to the Fed's raising of interest rates in 1995 under chairman Greenspan. Also, National Debt has very little to do with the fed. That is what is known as Fiscal Policy, which is controlled by congress and the president. The Fed is in control of Monetary policy.

    Also, National debt is not an entirely bad thing (when kept in check, the prospective amount for the future is ridiculous). This is because debt is a byproduct of economic growth, so it cannot be used as a coincident indicator of economic status. Also, having a surplus in the National budget can entail a whole host of economic woes, in fact, the debt reduction of the Clinton era was undone in some part to fears of a National surplus. Of course, I do agree that America's national debt is getting out of hand, and could become a problem in the future.

    Please people, do not get your economic analysis from the internet and documentaries, they only show one perspective and in a very skewed manner.
    Last edited by Goog; July 1st, 2009 at 05:26 PM.

  25. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Big Easy
    Posts
    1,865
    Thanks
    625
    Thanked 700 Times in 367 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by seth1 View Post



    'Zeitgeist, The Movie' and 'Zeitgeist: Addendum' were created as Not-for-Profit expressions
    to communicate what the author felt were highly important social understandings which
    most humans are generally not aware of. The first film focuses on suppressed
    historical & modern information about currently dominant social institutions, while
    also exploring what could be in store for humanity if the power structures at large continue
    their patterns of self-interest, corruption, and consolidation.

    The second film, Zeitgeist: Addendum, attempts to locate the root causes
    of this pervasive social corruption, while offering a solution. This solution is not
    based on politics, morality, laws, or any other "establishment" notions of human affairs,
    but rather on a modern, non-superstitious based understanding of what we are
    and how we align with nature, to which we are a part. The work advocates
    a new social system which is updated to present day knowledge, highly influenced
    by the life long work of Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project.
    Zeitgeist would be great if it weren't for all the anti-established religion, pro suncult mumbo jumbo. And the addendum with the so called "solution" was just plain idiotic.

    Anyways, the Zeitgeist trend was SOOO last administration. If you're going to go for the cool conspiracy films you need to get up to date and start pushing "the Obama Deception."



    Quote Originally Posted by Goog View Post
    I'm curious, how would you all propose to keep inflationary forces in check without a central bank? (the Fed is not a private bank, where does this idea come from?)
    Whatever it is, it is neither owned nor opperated by the US govt. It is no more federal than federal express.
    Last edited by Peter Coene; July 1st, 2009 at 05:32 PM.

  26. #20
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Cherniga View Post
    I understand. Sorry if my wording gave the impression that I thought the "buck" stopped with them. The senators were listed so their constituents can pressure them regarding the S 604 bill, without which, it appears that HR 1207 may be in danger of being swept under the rug.
    Oh, no. I meant no aggression. NO need to apologize, just making a note of it. And you're correct, those are senators to be pressured. I'm not entirely sure by her sways, but I'm hopeful K B Hutchinson will listen to her constituents.

    Like I said though; I have more worries about Cap & Trade. Why anyone, especially representatives of a state that will be dismantled by this, would vote for it is beyond me... Well, except when you take into account special interest groups that get the majority of the revenues. Heh... Argentina all over again.

  27. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 397 Times in 177 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Coene View Post


    Whatever it is, it is neither owned nor opperated by the US govt. It is no more federal than federal express.
    Yes, however, the independence of the Fed is an important aspect to have in place. The Fed needs to be free of government interference else politics would get in the way of sound monetary policy. For example, if Clinton had his way with the Fed, he would have kept interest rates artificially low, which would have resulted in a hard-landing in 1995 instead of a soft one which maintained a 2.5-3.0 GDP growth rate. Also, if George Bush Sr. had his way with the Fed, it estimated that monetary inflation would have increased greatly during his tenure.

    Low interest rates are looked upon with lust by the market, and the market does not react favorably to raising them (raising interest rates usually leads to slightly lower production, and therefore slightly lower employment, etc.). Obviously, if a President wants to get re-elected, he would want to keep interest rates low, in order to appease the economy. Remember though, interest rates are just one example of why the Fed needs to remain independent from the government. The Fed needs independence because the study of economics is a science (albeit not a perfect one), and you can't allow politics to disrupt it. I understand why some would fear the possibility of too much power given to too few, but there are plenty of measures put in place to keep the Fed in check. If you don't believe me, go read a book about the Fed, instead of watching Zeitgeist: Addendum. (I cringe at the sound of that movie's name being spoken. He doesn't even recognize the necessity for fiat money in a large economy! I would love to live in an existential utopian paradise, but there are simply too many problems here in the real world that need addressing before that can happen.)

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Goog For This Useful Post:


  29. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,033
    Thanks
    3,765
    Thanked 1,054 Times in 586 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Goog View Post
    I'm curious, how would you all propose to keep inflationary forces in check without a central bank? (the Fed is not a private bank, where does this idea come from?)

    And yes, failing is built into the economy, but so is creation! This is a key concept of market economies: creative destruction. You seem to see only the destructive side of things. Market economies have been proven time and time again to raise standard of living, increase average income, raise life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, increase food supply, increase housing development, raise employment, etc. etc. etc. Honestly I could go on and on and on. Please note that I am not saying our current state is perfect. 40 million people without health insurance is unacceptable, however, it pains me to see people so disillusioned about the way market economics work via films like "Zeitgeist: Addendum" (that man's ideas would be wonderful if America's economy was the size of Rhodesia, unfortunately, this is not the case).



    Buckweisal, your anger should not be directed towards the Fed, because the Fed's priority is to minimize the destructive part of the economic cycle. The first ever "soft-landing" of the economic cycle was brought about in large part to the Fed's raising of interest rates in 1995 under chairman Greenspan. Also, National Debt has very little to do with the fed. That is what is known as Fiscal Policy, which is controlled by congress and the president. The Fed is in control of Monetary policy.

    Also, National debt is not an entirely bad thing (when kept in check, the prospective amount for the future is ridiculous). This is because debt is a byproduct of economic growth, so it cannot be used as a coincident indicator of economic status. Also, having a surplus in the National budget can entail a whole host of economic woes, in fact, the debt reduction of the Clinton era was undone in some part to fears of a National surplus. Of course, I do agree that America's national debt is getting out of hand, and could become a problem in the future.

    Please people, do not get your economic analysis from the internet and documentaries, they only show one perspective and in a very skewed manner.
    Goog, the constant tampering with interest rates, lowering them to 1% and holding them there especially (courtesy of Alan Greenspan), blew our last bubble by enabling reckless lending. Most people who were paying attention and not joining the party saw this recession coming years ago. Yes, booms and busts are built into our economic system, but there's a good case to be made that the Fed's constant tampering has worsened it, constantly. The idea that Greenspan created a soft landing effect is ridiculous, as is the idea that the Fed keeps inflation in control. Their actions over the last year have been specifically geared at combating deflation, which we're in because the destruction of credit VASTLY outpaces their expansion of the money base (which in any other climate would be hyperinflationary, that's why you constantly hear Peter Schiff talking about how we're going to become Zimbabwe... he'd have the right idea if the money base were the only measure of inflation, but so far he seems to be ignoring the rapid loss of credit and the fact that all the world's currencies are racing to lower their own values).

    Disclaimer: I'm not saying Greenspan's the only one to blame for this mess, so nobody put words in my mouth .

  30. #23
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Elam View Post
    Regardless, the overall graph trends upward, ergo, it's been pretty successful.
    So does the amount of inflation and spending. Even though much of the data is suppressed or not included in their calculations (fuel/food/etc.)

    Don't forget the control over the currency and the way the system functions. Having all these dollars around and allowing banks to simply hold a reserve to satisfy a minute percentage of a loan is ridiculous. What happens when people want all of their money, or can't pay that money back? Uhh-ooohhhh.

    Granted these practices and the amount of money flow that has resulted in depreciation has been due to Congress' ignorance and/or lack of care. And the programs in place require revenues that they simply can't fund. We seem to cut programs that work and continue the ones that are failing. People always get just so caught up in fixing things they'll break something perfectly good just to get a chance to 'fix it'.
    Last edited by GhostValkyrie; July 1st, 2009 at 06:31 PM.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to GhostValkyrie For This Useful Post:


  32. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,033
    Thanks
    3,765
    Thanked 1,054 Times in 586 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Goog View Post
    The Fed needs independence because the study of economics is a science (albeit not a perfect one), and you can't allow politics to disrupt it.
    This is assuming the Fed actually knows how to handle an economy. Once again, you're under the assumption that Greenspan reduced inflation by keeping interest high- he did, once, and then he brought rates crashing down and blew the big bubble. That's the problem with the Fed- people like Greenspan should never have had the power to recklessly mess with interest rates.

  33. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 397 Times in 177 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidharth Chaturvedi View Post
    many words
    If I assume correctly, I believe that you are referring to the lowering of rates after Sept. 11 by chairmen Greenspan. While I do not hold the Fed to be infallible, I do believe that if almost any other economist (Chicago school or Keynesian) were put in their (the Fed's) shoes he or she would have almost certainly lowered interest rates. This is because, historically speaking, economies have always been left in shock after a crisis, and lowering interest rates would be seen as beneficial to accommodating a potentially disastrous capital account. In hindsight, the Fed should have just let the markets work. This is why I refer to econometrics as an imperfect science, as I do recognize that it is extremely hard to predict future problems, especially with the rise of globalization.

    Also, I am in confusion as to why you believe that the fed had no impact on the soft-landing in 1995. Do you see this as a simple statistical discrepancy?

    I am in agreement with you about deflationary forces, the Fed is not perfect. But, in my opinion, there needs to be some sort of independent entity equipped with the proper levers of monetary control in order to combat inflationary (when things are good) and deflationary (when things are bad) forces. While you can make the argument that the Fed's dealings have caused more harm than good, I believe that there is enough statistical evidence for me to make the argument that the Fed is doing its job somewhat efficiently. I simply do not believe that the Fed "..recklessly mess with interest rates". If this was the case they would be torn apart and fed to the dogs by congress during their "show trials", and ousted accordingly. (Bernanke has been getting pummeled recently .)
    Last edited by Goog; July 1st, 2009 at 07:31 PM.

  34. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Posts
    4,078
    Thanks
    278
    Thanked 1,056 Times in 672 Posts
    The state uses inflation as one of the three means by which it can fund its activities (inflation tax), the other two being taxation and borrowing. Various forms of military spending is often cited as a reason for resorting to inflation and borrowing, as this can be a short term way of acquiring marketable resources and is often favored by desperate, indebted governments.

    The above is stripped out of Wikipedia. It is the Austrian School opinion. I just thought I would toss this out because I just read somebody suggest that inflation happens when things are going good.

    The German government shortly after WWI printed a bunch of free money to support the workers in the Ruhr in the general strike it had suggested they go on to protest a French occupation of the area. Not good. That is where the pictures come from of a woman with a wheelbarrow of money going down to buy a loaf of bread. Not good.

    Don't worry though. I am sure the United States government is neither desperate nor indebted, and there is no way it would spend enormous amounts of money that it doesn't actually have. We have nothing to fear.

  35. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to arttorney For This Useful Post:


  36. #27
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by arttorney View Post
    Don't worry though. I am sure the United States government is neither desperate nor indebted, and there is no way it would spend enormous amounts of money that it doesn't actually have. We have nothing to fear.
    LOL. I am sure you are being sarcastic, but I will ask anyway for certainty. Are you?

  37. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 397 Times in 177 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by arttorney View Post

    The above is stripped out of Wikipedia. It is the Austrian School opinion. I just thought I would toss this out because I just read somebody suggest that inflation happens when things are going good.
    Yes, I assumed we were talking about the American economy, which I highly doubt would fall prey to such an undesired monetary policy (see last paragraph). Inflation is here in America, usually a byproduct of growth. If you don't understand this, you may need to study up on Macroeconomics and the Foreign Exchange. In fact, this is the reason why China buys up so much of America's debt, in an attempt to offset the inflationary forces being imposed on the yen due to the growth of exports. This example in China also shows how a central bank is needed to stabilize a currency.

    Also, in regards to an inflationary tax, it is only a rare case in which inflation is considered an acceptable addition to the economy in order to cure the federal deficit (again, the deficit is not a by-product of the Fed. You need to direct your anger towards your local congressman's propensity to spend money which does not exist.) Yes, the Federal Government through the Fed could dispense with taxes altogether and pay for the entire cost of the federal government through inflation alone. However, this would prove to be economic suicide. The cost of consumer goods and services would skyrocket, and, since consumers account for 70% of GDP, a cut that deep to this sector would cause an intense depression. To put the concept simply, while an inflation tax in in theory can work, its negative effects usually outweigh its positive, and so it does not often come into play. Basically, the Federal deficit would have to pose such a threat to the economy that the Fed would have to risk straining the economy.

    To me the inflation tax is just another reason why the Fed needs to stay separate from the government. When you have a president like George H.W. Bush ("Read my lips, no new taxes!"), had the Fed been under his control, an inflationary tax might have been high on his agenda. However, since the Fed was out of his grasp, he was not able to follow through on his iconic campaign promise, and had to instill new taxes.

    So you do not think me insane for the earlier comment in this post, pumping money into the economy right now would not cause inflation. In fact I read in a recent issue of Businessweek about how the Fed may actually not be pumping enough money into the economy. This is because household debt has become so large (around 13 trillion I think?), and the debt-to-income ratio has risen twice as fast as it did in the 1990s. Also, household net worth (assets minus liabilities) fell 1.3 trillion in the first quarter of this year alone, and that is only half the average quarterly decline in 2008. I think it is safe to assume that consumers will not be consuming, and on a rather grand scale. So, in order to combat the massive deflation that would normally occur, money (and alot of it) has to come from somewhere. Personally, I belive that America's economy is dynamic enough to prevent a depression without much intervention from the Fed. However, I think there is a possibility that the Fed's involvement may significantly reduce the economy's recovery time. Yes, there will be a burden on the taxpayer, but I do not believe it to be as significant as common thought believes it to be.
    Last edited by Goog; July 1st, 2009 at 10:12 PM.

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to Goog For This Useful Post:


  39. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    1,193
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 188 Times in 146 Posts
    this reminds me of how income tax is illegal

  40. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,883
    Thanks
    752
    Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,066 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Goog View Post
    Buckweisal, your anger
    I am not angry. If I were, I wouldn't be posting.

    And just as a general statement, I don't critique the system because I watched a documentary.

    I guess my problem, maybe due to ignorance, is with the whole "We know it will fail, but that's just life" thing. Is there really no better system? It's like buying a new car driving it until it breaks down and just saying "Oh well, knew it was coming." You gotta change the oil, replace parts, do periodic maintenance. If you do all that and it still breaks down, then I think the answer is to get a different car.
    "Astronomy offers an aesthetic indulgence not duplicated in any other field. This is not an academic or hypothetical attraction and should require no apologies, for the beauty to be found in the skies has been universally appreciated for unrecorded centuries."

  41. The Following User Says Thank You to s.ketch For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. SketchBook: Art_Addict :: """"""""""""" PRAHA DROP """"""""""""
    By Art_Addict in forum Sketchbooks
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: March 26th, 2010, 03:43 PM
  2. 3 Shorts : "Open" "Grow" "Robot Ali"
    By kingsley in forum Art Critique Center
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 12th, 2007, 05:18 PM
  3. The Federal Reserve, IRS, and You
    By Chingwa in forum Artist Lounge
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 16th, 2006, 01:02 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: September 7th, 2006, 09:25 AM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 9th, 2005, 01:33 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Designed by The Coldest Water, we build the coldest best water bottles, ice packs and best pillows.