More on price stabilization bye the Fed (pun intended)


By Vaticanus   Follow   Sun, 1 Aug 2010, 8:15pm   9,010 views   286 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Aug. 1, 2010

GUEST COMMENTARY: The Coming Currency Crisis

By Pat McGeehan

Freedom lies at its darkest hour not by threat of sword, but by threat of poverty. And our country’s impoverished condition continues. The American Republic is dying. Our nation is bankrupt. This is no longer a Republican or Democrat “issue”—it’s just a “math” issue. Tomorrow, if the entire federal government was eliminated—including the US Military—we could still not afford to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We would still run a budget deficit. These three bloated programs and we can’t foot the bill. For anyone not yet paying attention, this sobering predicament is your wake up call.

Furthermore, despite what you may hear to the contrary, the economic depression still lingers. It will get worse. To examine what this means to your future, we must examine the cause of our economic downturns and how it is bankrupting our society.

The source does not rest with “Wall Street greed” or a shortage of consumer spending. The real cause of our economic roller coaster ride stems from an opaque institution known as the Federal Reserve. This quasi-government creature not only orchestrates the “booms” and “busts” we are familiar with, but it also makes possible our colossal national debt. While our country’s central bank may not seem very significant to your daily life, it’s crucial Americans begin to pay more attention.

All of our past economic depressions or “busts” are caused because the Federal Reserve increases the nation’s supply of money. Though hidden through complex bureaucratic terminology, the process is really quite simple. To “stimulate” the economy, the Federal Reserve utilizes its money printing tools to artificially lower interest rates. IOU checks are written by the Fed to the nation’s largest and most politically-connected banks, and with a few keystrokes of the computer, money is created out of thin air. These big banks gain more cash on hand, profiting by having the privilege of being the first lender. Remember though, all this newly granted cash is counterfeit. These reserves represent zero new resources produced and saved from economic growth. However, by printing more money, the Federal Reserve gives the appearance that more resources are now available for investment, and so begins the boom. It should be noted, this counterfeiting bank cartel is purely a product of government. There is nothing “free market” about it.

When something is more plentiful or abundant, the price tends to fall. This is also true of the interest rate, which plummets as the supply of paper money increases. After the Fed injects counterfeit reserves into the vaults of its member banks, the price of this diluted capital now appears cheaper. But remember, all of the genuine resources in the economy have now been watered-down by the government counterfeit. The interest rate does not fall because of an increase in voluntary savings; but through government intervention. The Federal Reserve is simply price fixing.

The new counterfeit money now makes its way into our economy from the banking system, typically first appearing through the loan market. The Fed deceives businessmen and entrepreneurs, who because of the lower interest rates, are falsely signaled more resources are available to invest in long term projects. These artificially cheap rates cause banks to make more business loans, and more credit is granted. As a result, more projects are started, and more investments are made. Politicians in office are praised for healthy economic prosperity. But it’s simply an illusion—all of it pure fantasy. The government’s counterfeit merely diluted scarce resources, causing real capital to become misallocated, squandered, and ultimately wasted. The situation just outlined has been the plague of our American economy.

Thus, it is important to note that the boom phase is the unhealthy stage where the economy grows sick. All of these new investment projects cannot be sustained, as consumers never actually demanded any of them. Once the money-printing scheme ceases, the bust phase sets in. All of these businesses or projects are now realized to be, in fact “malinvestments” and they must be liquidated (i.e. an overabundance of houses for which no one demanded be constructed). Businesses close. Mass unemployment is created—all at once. These recessions are painful but necessary for true healthy economic growth to resume in the country. Trying to sustain the boom is equal to trying to keep the economy sick.

Our primary illness now is that we have tried to deny that our economy has been sick. By doing so, we have merely prolonged the recession. Through trillion dollar stimulus plans and even lower interest rates, we have aggravated our economic woes. The Federal Reserve has now maintained 0% interest rates for 21 months straight, a reckless and unprecedented government maneuver. But the denial can only last so long.

Our denial has exchanged short term pain for long term misery. Our spending and money printing has prompted a coming currency crisis. The US dollar is losing its value and the country faces possible hyperinflation, or even the collapse of our paper money system. Prices will rise higher and higher, robbing the poor and driving middle class families into poverty, as they are forced to eat away at their savings to compensate for higher food and energy costs. Interest rates at the national level will begin to rise, and no trick left in the Fed’s playbook will be able to stop this. As our national debt mounts, we will face insurmountable payments on our annual interest alone (likely exceeding 65% of all federal tax receipts within the next 3 years).

If history is a benchmark, we will attempt to “print-up” even more money to pay for it, throwing more and more worthless paper into circulation. Unless we do something soon, this is the end game. Prolonged economic depression, rising unemployment, and 20 dollars for a loaf of bread—15 bucks for a gallon of milk. This is a real possibility—and this is what it could look like for you and your family.

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/columns/100801-mcgeehan-columnscrisis.html

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 247-286 of 286     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    386 threads
    20,370 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    247   4:31pm Wed 18 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    SF ace says

    because the person who net 100 million a year is deploying capital to allow the nurse to even have a chance to be employed and pay tax.

    So let me be very clear about the point you're trying to make. It's the core of the supply side economics lie so I want to boil it down to its most basic form. EVERYONE should understand that it's a fraud, although not always intentional:

    1 person making $100 million per year and deploying capital makes jobs because of investment. (even when there's no demand because everyone is broke?)

    100 people making $1 million per year can't possibly buy stock/put money in a bank where they will provide the EXACT same $100 million investment??

    1000 people making $100,000 per year must be taxed at 50% because THEIR contribution (demand for products) doesn't matter. It's only capital investment after all.....who needs a market?

    2000 people making $50,000 a year must be taxed at 35% because they don't have enough money left over to consume anything, so we might as well take what they have left??

    A nurse will ALWAYS have a job as long as there is demand for nurses, even if she has to work out of a tent. A cook will ALWAYS have a job as long as there's a demand for food, even if he has to buy from local gardens. This goes for every occupation you can think of. There is no such thing as supply side economics, it's a lie and a fraud and it needs to die a horrible bloody death so people can understand the way things really work.

    ALL ECONOMICS ARE DEMAND SIDE. If there's a market, someone will figure out in a garage somewhere how to profit from it. If it's a viable product, financing will come. (there have always been rich people, even in 1946) When people wanted computers in their home, two geeks with a budget of nothing started selling them. When people wanted airplanes, two bike mechanics put one together. DEMAND drives innovation. DEMAND makes profits. Without demand, capital investment is a joke. It's rich people building luxury homes in Dubai or burying money in bonds. Why do rich people accept 2% on their money right now? Answer: It's because investing in jobs will make them LESS than 2%, therefore they don't do it and unemployment goes up.

    There is absolutely no argument to tax rich people at 15% while people who are struggling to pay the bills pay 50%. It's an abomination and I can't believe there are so many people who agree with it. In another era, there would be revolution.

  2. pkennedy


    Follow
    Befriend (8)
    28 threads
    1,388 comments
    male

    248   4:59pm Wed 18 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    @iwog

    In reality it probably doesn't make a huge difference. The quality of life difference comes from the difference of income between you and your neighbors and not between how much you make (and/or taxed). The super wealthy, 100M will live the same extravagant life style they live now, whether they are taxed 15% or 50%, while you will also live the same lifestyle. Your income will great increase, but so will the prices of all goods and services.

    If you made 200K per year, and so did everyone in the bay area, you would be worse off than you are now (assuming you make less than 200K).

    If you made 150K per year, but everyone in the bay area made 100K, you would be far better off.

    The difference in taxes will allow us to import more crap and buy more crap, but houses, cars, and services will all increase radically in cost offsetting anything else.

  3. SFace


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    76 threads
    940 comments

    249   5:17pm Wed 18 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Iwog, I’m open ears, admittedly, i don't study economics, I study business.

    Let’s strip off the 15% and 50% difference. That is misleading. The long term capital and qualified dividends rate is 15%, there is no preferential treatment for state tax. Combine tax rate is around 20-25%, even for the rich who has no earned income.

    I just checked, a 50K single earner (a Buffet example) on standard deduction with no credit would pay no more than about 6,200 in federal and about 1,800 in CA state or about 18% combined. Everything else is comparing apples and oranges as employment tax are tied to Social security, medicare, and unemployment insurance for which the payer directly benefit eventually.

    Now I’m not as smart as you so I just apply theories in real life. Tesla Motors wants to deploy capital In Fremont, and Fremont wants Tesla. Fremont doesn’t need the property tax revenue and CA doesn’t need the income/sales tax revenue, that is insignificant, the big picture is Fremont wants a company to deploy capital in Fremont and hire and spend in their city, creating a ecosystem that supports other business and other taxes. They lose what they see in front of them, but gain tremendously indirectly. If I was the mayor of Fremont, I’ll look for as many deal as possible as long as it provides high paying jobs. That's what the US does, deploying capital contribute tremendously indirectly.

    It's all about the working capital, there's no eco-system without working capital. Silicon valley wouldn't be what it is without the VC's like Sequioa capital, Golden Gate Capital, Farralon, Hellerman etc. behind them. Sequioa Capital wouldn't be Sequioa Capital without rich people behind those money to create those funds. Facebook, Linkedin and the recently acquired 3PAR only makes it this far with real money behind them before establishing their worth. So yes, I believe things start from the money side as there would be no demand without refining a product or service.

    China followed the demand side losgistics for many years, 1B people so there must be demand. Guess what, no capital, no product and Service? You put capital behind them and allow an enviroment where capital is freely deployed, and the economy expanded 2000X since 1997.

    Deploying working capital is not risk free. In another era, there is a limited choice in where capital can be deployed so perhaps the rich can accept being taxed to death for the risk in another era. In 2010, there are real opportunities in other jurisdictions such as India, China, Israel where capital and risk to deploy capital is not taxed.

  4. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    250   5:20pm Wed 18 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    pkennedy says

    houses, cars, and services will all increase radically

    why ?

  5. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    386 threads
    20,370 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    251   10:07pm Wed 18 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    SF ace says

    Iwog, I’m open ears, admittedly, i don’t study economics, I study business.
    Let’s strip off the 15% and 50% difference. That is misleading. The long term capital and qualified dividends rate is 15%, there is no preferential treatment for state tax. Combine tax rate is around 20-25%, even for the rich who has no earned income.

    Nope, not misleading at all. First of all, super rich people locate their corporation in a tax free state, then fly to their real home in their private plane. They don't pay state taxes, that is only for working peons.

    Second of all, people are on the hook for 15% social security and Medicare tax up to whatever the limit is now. $(110k?) Then they have to pay state taxes if they live in a taxing state. The capital gains income that rich people pay themselves with are subject to none of it.

    The REAL tax rate that most working Americans have to pay is close to 50%. The REAL tax rate that rich people pay is around 17%. I can't imagine that taxes are this regressive anywhere else in the world.

    Work for your money? Slave away day after day? Pay 35-50%.

    Sit on your ass and watch Oprah while the checks roll in from your trust fund? 15%.

    It is beyond outrageous that people don't realize how bad it is.

  6. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    386 threads
    20,370 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    252   10:10pm Wed 18 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    Working capital: Money.

    It's that simple. There are hundreds of billions of dollars available for the next big thing. There is no lack of funding anywhere. Even in the 1950s and the era of a 90% top tax bracket, Howard Hughes was sitting there ready to write a check. If he didn't, his bank did.

    I can't stress this enough. Supply side economic theory is a fraud. There is ONLY demand and as long as demand exists, jobs will follow. The reverse isn't true. There can be a zillion dollars available for investment, but if no one has any money to buy anything, there's no economy. The game is over. You pack up the Monopoly board and put it in the closet.

  7. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    253   10:59pm Wed 18 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    The REAL tax rate that most working Americans have to pay is close to 50%

    I agree, the way to think about it, and what is usually meant is if someone makes 50K, what percent of the last $1000 they made goes to all taxes, yes including payroll taxes.

    iwog says

    There can be a zillion dollars available for investment, but if no one has any money to buy anything, there’s no economy

    Maybe eventually we can make more things here to sell to the Chinese.

  8. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    4,739 comments

    254   1:08pm Fri 20 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Iwog,

    I 100% agree with your sentiment that taxation must become more progressive, but would like to point out that you are pretty casual with your numbers. You really don't bolster your arguments by mixing and matching statistics that suit you and ignoring those that don't. You frequently do this with posts about housing also, randomly choosing local or national numbers or even analysts opinions without differentiating, whichever supports the point you want to make.

    For example you emphasis the 17% effective tax rate which is the actual federal taxes paid to the IRS for the wealthiest 400 taxpayers in the US. I also read the article which was in the NY times I believe. That does not include any other taxes other than federal. You then mix it with the 50% rate which is for ALL taxes paid for an undetermined and undefined group of taxpayers you label everyone else (actually the phrase you use is "working americans" whatever that means). Since 50% of working people don't pay any federal taxes at all I have my serious doubts that state taxes+fica amount to 50% tax on those people. You also constantly throw around the 90% tax bracket in the 1950's. That was a nominal bracket, look into it you will find the effective rate was about 50%. The 17% number is an effective rate, so once again you are comparing apples to oranges. Either stick to nominal or effective. If you really believe in what you say then let the facts speak for themselves.

  9. Honest Abe


    Follow
    Befriend (41)
    108 threads
    1,839 comments

    255   2:15pm Fri 20 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    The government is financially burying all of us. The radical left winger's think things are just fine, and want to spend even more. Everyone else thinks "spending" $500 Million, PER DAY, on interest payments to cover the governments debt is a bad idea.

    defeat the debt.com

  10. jljoshlee3


    Follow
    Befriend
    4 threads
    33 comments

    256   3:14pm Fri 20 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    the government created the 12 regional boards of the fed to do same job as the bank of england did, a huge english private bank, a bankers bank, in order to create stability in the banking sector. This was done to end the phenonimina of bank runs. It is there explicity to support banks in time of crisis, not for joe and jane usa, although by preventing financial meltdown, it does have a tangent to normal americans.

    There is a ton of ignorance, double speak, and inuendo among politicians about the fed, because they and the fed would sort of like us to believe that we in some way control it. but we do not. It is a monopolistic super bank, really nothing more.

  11. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    257   7:45pm Fri 20 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    jljoshlee3 says

    It is a monopolistic super bank, really nothing more

    They are a somewhat independent entity in charge of US monetary policy. Someone here said, "sort of like a fourth branch of the government." Their goals truly are about stable prices, and optimizing economic growth to the extent that monetary policy can.

    When the economy does well, all banks benefit yes.

    Those who don't like the fed come up with twisted descriptions of what they do, and of cause and effect, but usually their real issue is with our fiat currency system. If you want us back on some kind of gold standard, with a much simpler monetary system (GLOBALLY), then of course you don't like the fed. Because the fed and it's function are an integral part of the international currency system we have today.

  12. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,274 comments

    258   11:19am Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    The Federal Reserve operates under a veil of secrecy. It has a track record of devaluing the dollar 96% in less than 100 years. It failed to prevent the real estate bubble. In fact it helped the bubble along rather than raising alarms like it should have been if one of its goals is to insure stable prices. marcus says

    Those who don’t like the fed come up ....blah blah blah sweeping generalization...blah blah the new world order blah blah... the leader is good.... blah blah globalism.... blah blah .....gold standard straw man blahh blah

    Ben Bernanke even denied the real estate bubble existed right up until he could no longer lie about it and retain any credibility. The Federal Reserve benefits the minority of wealthy bankers and huge corporations at the expense of the majority of working people. That is why it must be exposed and abolished. We don't need a gold standard, we just need freedom from debt. We will never have freedom from debt as long as the Federal Reserve has the power to "stabilize" prices. That is just double speak for maximizing profits for the elites and maximizing debt for the working class while maintaining the illusion of freedom of choice. But whether we abolish the FED or not, the dollar is not going to survive the test of time. It is only a matter of time before confidence in the paper/electronic dollar fails. More than likely the ptb will "save us" with a new North American or even one world currency that will take its place. That is of course if we fail to reign them in/limit their power and learn to take care of ourselves before it is too late.

    No offense marcus, mainly just pointing out your sweeping generalization is false/misleading propaganda in support of the aristocracy and one of its tools the FED.

  13. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    259   12:27pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Speaking of sweeping generalizations. Maybe you could explain to yourself, and then the rest of us exactly how this happens ?

    AdHominem says

    The Federal Reserve benefits the minority of wealthy bankers and huge corporations at the expense of the majority of working people

    Your answer is sure to include meaningless general statements such as

    debt is bad

    devaluation of currency is bad

    Funny, I thought that in modern times debt was good. Are you going to tell me that the only way I can start a business that will require 2 million dollars worth of assets is to raise 2 million dollars ?

    Regarding devaluation of the currency. I'm not at all convinced that the Fed is singlehandedly responsible for this, but assuming it is, wouldn't we have to consider:

    1) What happened to inflation adjusted GDP and inflation adjusted incomes over any time frame we are drawing inferences from.

    2) Who does inflation benefit more ? The borrower or the lender ?

    3) as to the claim that the concentration of wealth at the top is the feds fault. IS that just because you get to magically assign cause and effect. I saw a leaf fall in to the river. Later I saw a fish. Oh my lord, the leaf turned in to a fish.

    Really, I am not bad with logic and reasoning. Help me out.

  14. bob2356


    Follow
    Befriend
    3 threads
    4,739 comments

    260   12:36pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AdHominem says

    It has a track record of devaluing the dollar 96% in less than 100 years.

    Why to you keep throwing that meaningless crap statistic out? The only value of any currency is purchasing power per unit of work. The average person 100 years ago worked very hard 10 to 12 hours a day 6 days a week (as did all the children over the age of about 7) to live in a 300-500 sq ft tenement or dirt floor farmhouse with lots of other people crammed in lacking electricity or running water. I think you could safely say that the average standard of living in America has gotten better no matter what the dollar is worth. Please feel free to go back to the good old days if you so desire.

  15. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,274 comments

    261   12:42pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    Funny, I thought that in modern times debt was good.

    Nope. But thanks for the straw man.

    marcus says

    Are you going to tell me that the only way I can start a business that will require 2 million dollars worth of assets is to raise 2 million dollars ?

    Nope. Debt is one way, recruiting investors is another.

    marcus says

    Regarding devaluation of the currency. I’m not at all convinced that the Fed is singlehandedly responsible for this

    It isn't really entirely responsible. Fractional reserve banking, deficit spending (by congress and state and local governments), and the fiat nature of the dollar all play a role in the devaluation of the dollar. Ultimately congress and the people who support congress are responsible for the devaluation because congress authorized the creation of the FED and the people have accepted it and the consequences of deficit spending.... so far.

    marcus says

    Who does inflation benefit more ?

    The people who have FIRST or earliest access to the newly created supply of money before it has a chance to trickle down and cause an increase in prices (typically the elites by nature of their position, power and influence have first or earliest access to any new money that is created).

    marcus says

    as to the claim that the concentration of wealth at the top is the feds fault.

    You misconstrue and present another straw man. It is not the FEDS fault it is congress and the people's fault for allowing them to use the Fed for their own protection. The whole idea of too big to fail and justifying government intervention in markets enables the elites to privatize profits while socializing losses.

  16. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    262   12:48pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    For clarification, I don't deny that the fed is ultimately good for corporations, and often for the economy in general, it's specifically this part that I want to understand.

    AdHominem says

    at the expense of the majority of working people

  17. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    263   12:50pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AdHominem says

    marcus says

    Funny, I thought that in modern times debt was good.

    Nope. But thanks for the straw man.

    It's not a straw man, I mean that I (not you) see debt as a good thing.

  18. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    264   12:56pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AdHominem says

    It is not the FEDS fault it is congress and the people’s fault for allowing them to use the Fed for their own protection. The whole idea of too big to fail and justifying government intervention in markets enables the elites to privatize profits while socializing losses.

    But this was a "black swan" event, and there is new legislation which at least attempts to decrease the chance of too big to fail in the future.

    Besides if you wanted to argue for new anti-trust laws, breaking up too big to fail institutions, I would be all for it. That has nothing to do with the Fed. The feds intervention was trying to prevent the ultimate too big failure.

  19. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,274 comments

    265   1:02pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    bob2356 says

    The only value of any currency is purchasing power per unit of work.

    Lets assume this premise. How much work does JP Morgan have to do to rake in interest on deposits he does not even have (they have already been loaned out and "redeposited" to the point where there is at best one dollar in possession for every 10 dollars on "deposit")? Seeing as how JP Morgan does little or no work, and rather is a parasite on the productivity of the working class, why should he and others like him receive bailouts/have a lender of last resort when they overextend themselves?

    Advancements in technology that have raised American standard of living aside: What is the likelyhood of a new immigrant or high school graduate with no capital of saving enough money to buy a house, start a business and provide for his family without going into years and years of debt servitude? Can we blame the FED for this reality? Not entirely, but their policy of serving as lender of last resort creates a moral hazard and leads to increased malinvestment. It also results in socialization of losses while allowing private corporations to reap most of the profits. Ultimately the worker pays higher prices for goods and receives lower wages for services because we must first pay the banker and subsidize the losses of the "too big to fail." We must also subsidize deficit spending on foreign wars in the name of National Security and "Making the world safe for Democracy" which are really just about Big Business. The Fed (which is approved by congress and accepted by the people.... for now) makes all this deficit spending and socializing of losses possible.

  20. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    266   1:05pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Debt is a wonderful thing that allows our economy to function. It is only when debt is too high relative to asset values and relative to cash flow that we have a problem. And I am not going to repeat observations made in the past about specific series of events, including the pre-millennial irrational exuberance, or the many financial mistakes made since.

    But I have basic problems with the assertion that getting rid of the fed would help prevent bubbles or panics, or (not addressed) that it will help us to function better in an extremely complex international economic environment.

    The one thing that you said that I agree with very much, is that it is too easy to make sweeping generalizations, or even simple statements that have no sound justification. Since ending the fed would be a enormous challenge, with countless unforeseen effects, it would seem to me that the burden of proof is on you to explain more clearly what the key problem with it is, and also what you would replace it with.

  21. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    267   1:13pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    As for deficit spending on wars, which may really be more about supporting the military industrial complex, I agree. But here is where you are wrong. You think the fed enables that. I would argue that China and other purchasers of US Treasury securitities are the real ones who ultimately determine interest rates.

    Interest rates are determined in markets. The fed is involved, but please do some homework before trying to assert that any long term rates are determined by the fed.

  22. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,274 comments

    268   1:14pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    But this was a “black swan” event

    WHAT was a black swan event?

    marcus says

    there is new legislation which at least attempts to decrease the chance of too big to fail in the future

    The Fed was CREATED to serve as lender of last resort for the too big to fail. That is the origin of the FED.

    Since 2008 there are even less banks, and the surviving banks have become even bigger and more powerful, as has the FED.

    So much for reducing too big to fail.

    marcus says

    The feds intervention was trying to prevent the ultimate too big failure.

    Exactly, that is my point. The "too big to fail" (who are really just private corporations that knowingly overextended themselves) create fear that if they collapse they will take us all with them. It is circular reasoning and an endless cycle of fear that keeps us in debt and under control of the FED/Bankers/Corporations.

  23. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,274 comments

    269   1:19pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    I would argue that China and other purchasers of US Treasury securitities are the real ones who ultimately determine interest rates.

    Do you even know who most of the debt is owed to?

  24. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    270   1:23pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AdHominem says

    It is circular reasoning and an endless cycle of fear that keeps us in debt and under control of the FED/Bankers/Corporations.

    Sounds like a conspiracy theory. What I meant by black swan event, is the crash of 2008 that led to all the bailout. I think it's better to try to continue understanding the credit bubble mentality of the last 30 years, that may have replaced a more vibrant productive economy, before doing anthing as drastic as ending the Federal Reserve.

    But this was a once in a hundred years kind of event, that is going to take a long time to come out of. Let's take our time and understand it well.

    Think about this. Do you trust our current government to come up with something (to replace the fed) that is less skewed toward the benefit of the rich and of corporations ?

    Really ?

  25. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    271   1:29pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AdHominem says

    marcus says

    I would argue that China and other purchasers of US Treasury securitities are the real ones who ultimately determine interest rates.

    Do you even know who most of the debt is owed to?

    Yes, and it's not what Al Gore meant when he suggested a "lock box."

  26. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,274 comments

    272   1:38pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    What I meant by black swan event, is the crash of 2008 that led to all the bailout.

    The FED has been bailing out "too big to fails" since 1913. That is the primary purpose that JP Morgan and other big business tycoons lobbied for its creation. Politicians like it because these tycoons help get them elected, and the FED enables deficit spending (it is even a buyer of last resort for US treasuries!) which also helps politicians buy votes. The whole system is an ingenious way of giving the appearance of democratic government while the economy is completely controlled by the elites for the elites.

    marcus says

    Do you trust our current government to come up with something (to replace the fed) that is less skewed toward toward the benefit of the rich and of corporations ?

    Of course not, but I do trust them and the ptb/media to continue to find new and creative ways of making us fear "too big to fail", terrorism, Iran, global warming etc... and to stir up endless meaningless battles between left and right, conservative and liberal, religious vs. athiest, rich vs. poor, minorities vs. Caucasian, tea party vs Obamabots: so that we don't wake up and elect leaders who actaully WILL change our government to one less skewed toward the benefit of the elites.

  27. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,274 comments

    273   1:41pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    AdHominem says

    marcus says
    I would argue that China and other purchasers of US Treasury securitities are the real ones who ultimately determine interest rates.
    Do you even know who most of the debt is owed to?

    Yes, and it’s not what Al Gore meant when he suggested a “lock box.”

    Then why do you even bring up the Chinese? The majority of it is owed to the FED and Americans (in the form of pension plans etc...) And with the Fed serving as buyer of last resort on Treasuries that trend is only going to continue. America is more screwed than anyone else when we devalue our own currency. Eventually the world will abandon the dollar as reserve currency and we will know the true consequences of our deficit spending.

  28. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    274   1:46pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AdHominem says

    marcus says

    Who does inflation benefit more ?

    The people who have FIRST or earliest access to the newly created supply of money before it has a chance to trickle down and cause an increase in prices (typically the elites by nature of their position, power and influence have first or earliest access to any new money that is created).

    This looks familiar (austrian school).

    Banks work with a fairly small spread. Ultimately, when the lend money at 3%, Maybe they borrowed it at 2.7% (including effects of leverage). That is their profit right there, period. But someone probably other than the bank is willing to get a 2.7% return on their money.

    Are you certain that the low interest rates now are going to cause inflation ? What's to stop ordinary credit worthy people from benefiting ?

  29. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    275   1:52pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AdHominem says

    Then why do you even bring up the Chinese?

    Because on any given auction of treasury securities, they may be bidding for much more than their and other foriegn investors percentage holdings. They are a huge factor in the pricing of treasuries, as are all the other investors who happily accept low interest rates. They don't have to. They can go to other countries, or municipalities, or corporations (bonds), etc,....

    I brought it up because you implied that the fed facilitated debt that goes toward wars and ultimately corporations. I assumed you meant by its influence on the availability of borrowed money to the government. To me it felt like you then tried to change the subject.

  30. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,274 comments

    276   2:00pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    Banks work with a fairly small spread

    So do insurance companies and casinos. But the longer you play (on average) the more you lose. So the point I am making is lets not play the game anymore. Lets not let the banks and corporations continue to socialize losses while privatizing gains. Lets not allow the FED to enable any more deficit spending.

  31. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    277   2:04pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AdHominem says

    we will know the true consequences of our deficit spending.

    I agree about the problem of excessive deficit spending. And maybe in a small way the Federal reserve is complicit, but primarily by not stopping it (more than by supporting it). It is almost as if using mirrors and slight of hand, we avoided recessionary pain that might have been beneficial. That is, the austrian school point of view isn't without some small degree of merit.

    In simplistic terms, living beyond our means can't be good. But I believe that ultimately incremental increases in taxes, especially at the high end is how you bring about fiscal restraint. Ultimately corporations and the rich have a lot of influence on congress. If you effectively made higher taxes to the rich, an immediate consequence of fiscal irresponsibility, what do you think congress would do ? Which would they chose ? Fiscal responsibility ? or higher taxes ?

    It has to become an either or proposition, and then I would have hope.

  32. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    278   2:05pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AdHominem says

    Lets not allow the FED to enable any more deficit spending

    Okay, I give up.

  33. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,274 comments

    279   2:09pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    To me it felt like you then tried to change the subject.

    I felt the same way about your apparent straw man....

    Now, where do the Chinese (or American pension plans for that matter) get the dollars to buy treasuries in the first place?

  34. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    280   2:14pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Our agreement is on the evil of deficit spending. Although I am probably far more sympathetic to some of the sorts of "emergency" spending that may continue to be necessary in coming months or years.

    We differ on the solution. Mine is way simpler. Basically an aggressive "pay go" with teeth, backed with very progressive taxation until we fix things.

  35. Vaticanus


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    80 threads
    1,274 comments

    281   2:22pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    Our agreement is on the evil of deficit spending. Although I am probably far more sympathetic to some of the sorts of “emergency” spending that may continue to be necessary in coming months or years.
    We differ on the solution. Mine is way simpler. Basically an aggressive “pay go” with teeth, backed with very progressive taxation until we fix things.

    My solution is even simpler. Take our lumps, let the overextended fail and the prudent will rebuild using the stagnant capital goods. There will be no need to increase taxes, if we allow the imprudent to bear the expense of their own mistakes. Yes, whole neighborhoods may fail, yes there will be bankruptcies yes it will be painful, but when you have to swallow a frog, do it quickly.

  36. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    282   2:27pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    thunderlips11 says

    Would also like to see unearned income taxed higher or at least the same as earned income

    I'm not so sure about that. You can raise corporate taxes, or capital gains, but to do both would be bad for investment, and maybe unfair (double taxation).

  37. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    283   2:34pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    My solution is even simpler. Take our lumps, let the overextended fail and the prudent will rebuild using the stagnant capital goods. There will be no need to increase taxes, if we allow the imprudent to bear the expense of their own mistakes. Yes, whole neighborhoods may fail, yes there will be bankruptcies yes it will be painful, but when you have to swallow a frog, do it quickly.

    I've been mostly talking about government deficit spending. I don't see how this prevents congress from wastefully supporting it's benefactors in the future with deficit spending.

  38. Nomograph


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    104 threads
    2,848 comments

    284   2:41pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    AdHominem says

    when you have to swallow a frog, do it quickly.

    I disagree.

    If you have to swallow poison, it's best to swallow small amounts over time. If you swallow the whole dose you die.

    To use your analogy, most people will choke on a whole frog. If not, give me a call tonight . . .

  39. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,486 comments

    285   2:55pm Sun 22 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    AdHominem says

    Lets not allow the FED to enable any more deficit spending

    I hope that you will at least explore the differences between what the credit markets do, and what the Federal Reserve does. After that, we should maybe continue that part of the conversation.

  40. Bap33


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    17 threads
    3,488 comments

    286   9:30pm Mon 23 Aug 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Nomo, you are talking BullFrogs, AdHo is talking little tree frogs. If I have to swallow a frog it will be thinly sliced, breaded and deep fried .. served warm and with some horseraddish to dip in.

    If I have to swallow poison, it will be labled "Wild Turkey".

« First     « Previous comments    

Vaticanus is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 250 milliseconds to create.