patrick.net

KarlRoveIsScum says

I have a novel idea, why can't we print money to make jobs!!!!!!!!

Because unless what the job produces is valued more highly by the rest of the society spending their own money as free individuals than what it costs to maintain the job position, what you have created would just be like having someone digging a hole in the ground and another filling it back up.

The problem with those negative-sum jobs is that eventually you end up with a social upheaval on your hand, just like the original 1848 version in France.

The whole advantage of money system is keeping track of those incremental profitabilities of human endeavors. If you really have that much faith in central planning by a few wise men, why bother printing money at all, just issue fiat commands instead!

Mick Russom says

Of course. And the banks always win, the ones that lose are consolidated into too big to fail banks, and We The People always, invariably ALWAYS lose.

Thats how it works.

In the game of consolidation and concentration of power, ultimately nobody wins. The cattle may think he is harvesting the grass roots, and growing fatter, but the beef does not belong to the cattle but to the farmer.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Oh please!!! It's an institutionalized crime.

They work with economists,, colleges and universities. They work with teachers, students, and principles. Likely the people they work with end up at the FED!

Unless and until the theories are put to the market test in real life, what the institution with government funding doing is no different from the medieval church: forcibly collecting a tithe on the population while feeding a bunch of scholarstics singing praises of the state religion.

The result is not intellectual freedom or integrity.

tatupu70 says

Maybe it would be at 25%...

If that's what it takes to hit bottom and the deleveraging is completed, maybe then we can recover. But preventing corrections literally forever, mostly for political purposes, pretty much always ends the empire.

U6 is 15% now, reported is 8%, and what they are going to do is change how we report unemployment to keep this in an acceptable range, say, 4-9%, but we all know its a lie. The UE rate of 25% is what it takes to do a correction, if thats what its going to take, it will happen. It will just go unreported.

Reality says

megabanks still exist!

How quickly the words "too big to fail" left the vernacular. Nothing to see here, folks.

But but but, end glass steagall, promote goldman, do sarbox, dodd-frank, etc, and somehow, with all this going down, the big banks got even bigger and mixed retail and investment banking.

Reality says

preventing business expansion on one hand and government printing money to enable people file for UE benefits on the other hand

They painted themselves into a corner and need to walk the knife edge now. The problem is we are at ZIRP/negative real rates of return, not much further you can go from here.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Keep dreaming.......

Then all political discussions are really just another form of entertainment. If no one wants to address the root cause, just sit back for the end of an empire. Might be quick, might take a while, who knows.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Likely the people they work with end up at the FED!

The leadership at the fed is coming from the banking institutions they regulate. Its eyes wide shut crime empire.

tatupu70 says

I'm not saying money printing creates jobs, only that if you let credit markets dry up, jobs will be lost. And they won't magically return.

Jobs suck, anyway. They're bad for your health.

Money is all that matters.

Reality says

what you have created would just be like having someone digging a hole in the ground and another filling it back up.

The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world.
Goods must be produced, but they need not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world. All members of the Inner Party believe in this coming conquest as an article of faith. It is to be achieved either by gradually acquiring more and more territory and so building up an overwhelming preponderance of power, or by the discovery of some new and unanswerable weapon. The search for new weapons continues unceasingly, and is one of the very few remaining activities in which the inventive or speculative type of mind can find any outlet. In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for " Science ". The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty. In all the useful arts the world is either standing still or going backwards. The fields are cultivated with horse-ploughs while books are written by machinery. But in matters of vital importance - meaning, in effect, war and police espionage - the empirical approach is still encouraged, or at least tolerated. - George Orwell, 1984

.

JodyChunder says

Jobs suck, anyway

Most of the jobs have devolved into worthless paper pushing, clinging to life against automation, bureaucratic crap, or the paper pushing required for all the citizens being prosecuted by the police state.

Hardly anyone does real work, and even fewer innovate.

Its the slave sheeple class and society the bankers have always dreamed of.

KarlRoveIsScum says

Let's do both. End lobbying, and shadow banking

Keep dreaming.......

That's actually good advice. I rate dreaming far above resignation and sneering.

Mick Russom says

Most of the jobs have devolved into worthless paper pushing, clinging to life against automation, bureaucratic crap, or the paper pushing required for all the citizens being prosecuted by the police state.

Hardly anyone does real work, and even fewer innovate.

Its the slave sheeple class and society the bankers have always dreamed of.

Automation never coughed up a good pair of boots. Never wrote a good book or made a good film or dreamt up a new recipe or strung together some interesting chords.

When machines can dream, then I'll start sweating.

Reality says

Then please tell us again why you think monetary inflation is necessary for
employment and prosperity.

I think a very low level of inflation is probably the best comporomise.

Reality says

That's what corporate reserve capital is for. Corporate captains running
their corporations on short term paper is no better than individuals relying on
credit cards for funding. That's not financial health for house keeping or
healthy corporation.

I disagree. Forcing coporations to keep large reserves is not the ideal situation. It will hamper corporate investment and job creation.

Reality says

The Federal Reserve spends over $400million a year buying research papers (in
an industry that has only a few hundred practitioners). Here is a link to the
more in-depth analysis:

That's interesting--I wasn't aware how much they spend on research. Obviously, you have a poor opinion of the Federal Reserve so it taints your perspective, but it is possible that they are doing research.

Reality says

The Federal Reserve is the very reason why those megabanks still exist!
Otherwise, they'd have gone bankrupt in the last recession, and therefore
wouldn't be around to pay the billions of dollars of political bribes to silence
the American public.

Yes--the Federal Reserve tried to keep the country's economy from imploding. Like I said though--let's get campaign finance reform and get the money out of politics.

Speaking of no difference between R and D. Do you think a Democratic Supreme Court upholds Citizen United?

tatupu70 says

I think a very low level of inflation is probably the best comporomise.

Monetary inflation is theft from the downstream masses.
i guess you are only advocating petty theft.

tatupu70 says

I disagree. Forcing corporations to keep large reserves is not the ideal situation

Sometimes its not possible to grow. Sometimes its ok to just make a lot of money and not sell some BS growth story.

The fatal flaw is when economies saturate quickly due to super-efficiency and productivity it takes a while for technology to leapfrog and create whole new markets for growth.

Its like expecting a car company to show massive growth when everyone already has at least one.

Inflation is used by the banking cabal and wall st to make perpetual growth look possible. Sometimes it isnt.

JodyChunder says

When machines can dream, then I'll start sweating.

I'm a relatively successful technologist. But if I had to pick a time it may not be this one. Technology has done many wonderful and wicked things to humans. I think we are losing our humanity in this mess. And if the technology was to suddenly collapse, the die off would be astonishing and fast. Probably 99.99% of us would be dead if forced to live stone age within a year.

Reminds me of the story of the Yanomamo woman, Yarima.

She was taken from the jungle, westernized, had kids with a fellow named Good, etc.

Read about it here.

http://www.singingtotheplants.com/2009/08/love-story/

She ended up running off back to the jungle, leaving the kids and Good behind.

When asked about this, she summed it up.

She asked about her three children in New Jersey, adding, "Here good. Jersey bad."

Seems like a reasonable critique of modern life. Its starting to suck. And we are out of touch.

With all of our technology that could allow us to architect better lives and enjoy life and family time we instead engage on a maddening greed race where the necessities are hoarded jealously.

Reality says

On which of those most important decisions would we have had a different outcome if the alternate party had been in office / in control? None!

yeap.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/edNmwmKRLeA

Dont expect the fanatic sycophantic zealots of the power structures to admit they are wrong.

THE LIE TO THEMSELVES BECAUSE THE BENEFIT IN SOME WAY.

tatupu70 says

I think a very low level of inflation is probably the best comporomise.

Best for whom? The cronies who receive the money first.

tatupu70 says

I disagree. Forcing coporations to keep large reserves is not the ideal situation. It will hamper corporate investment and job creation.

What "forcing"? Don't you realize how big the cash reserves are among the corporations that make goods and services that people actually want? Don't you think the companies that already have a profit record are the ones that are probably more capable of creating jobs and expand capacity that are profitable? Instead of the morons who have to rely on loan sharks to pay their workers?

tatupu70 says

That's interesting--I wasn't aware how much they spend on research. Obviously, you have a poor opinion of the Federal Reserve so it taints your perspective, but it is possible that they are doing research.

"Research" as in propaganda pieces, just like the communist party of the former soviet union paid for a lot of "research" into Marxian economics and rewriting parrty history, repeatedly.

tatupu70 says

Yes--the Federal Reserve tried to keep the country's economy from imploding. Like I said though--let's get campaign finance reform and get the money out of politics.

Yet you insist on maintaining the most significant source of political money: the FED and the TBTF banks that it shuffles money through to buy off politicians.

Speaking of no difference between R and D. Do you think a Democratic Supreme Court upholds Citizen United?

Of course it would, just like the Republican appointments that affirmed Obamacare. The political parties are looking for more money to pay their more and more hangers-on.

Robert Sproul says

Monetary inflation is theft from the downstream masses.

i guess you are only advocating petty theft.

I think people do this because they think they can gain a little bit faster than everyone else loses. Everyone wants to "get theirs" and then close the entry door.

tatupu70 says

I disagree. Forcing coporations to keep large reserves is not the ideal situation. It will hamper corporate investment and job creation.

They dont keep large reserves. They only have 3-4 months of actual "cash reserves" the rest has already been spent on buying up "cash equivalent" marketable securities.. mainly Treasury notes/bills. So yes, they are already investing their money.

I sure dont hear the Govt complaining since Corporations are buying up the Treasuries.

But lets tax them some more....

Reality says

Yet you insist on maintaining the most significant source of political money: the FED and the TBTF banks that it shuffles money through to buy off politicians.

The dont get it. They dont understand the course the world will now take is actually out of their control. Its going to get worse before it gets better. The only question is, when we come out on the other side, will freedom and liberty and natural rights be a long lost dream, or a New Hope?

I dont think we will get a second chance at this, but we are now doomed to have the next great experiment. We have no chose to give our superpower government (one world) total monetary, military, judicial, executive and legal control over our very lives.

These things do end. Generally badly.

Now with all the rubbish going on one would hope that a second coming was possible given how far gone it is.

thomaswong.1986 says

the rest has already been spent on buying up "cash equivalent" marketable securities.

The do this because they know that holding on to actual cash leads to a loss of purchasing power.

Robert Sproul says

Monetary inflation is theft from the downstream masses.
i guess you are
only advocating petty theft.

Bullcrap. If you choose to keep dollars in your mattress, then that's your problem. The dollar is a medium of exchange, not a store of value.

Mick Russom says

Inflation is used by the banking cabal and wall st to make perpetual growth
look possible. Sometimes it isnt.

No, it's not. It's a way to try to keep money productive rather than idle.

Mick Russom says

Reminds me of the story of the Yanomamo woman, Yarima.

She was taken from the jungle, westernized, had kids with a fellow named
Good, etc.

Read about it here.

http://www.singingtotheplants.com/2009/08/love-story/

She ended up running off back to the jungle, leaving the kids and Good
behind.

When asked about this, she summed it up.

She asked about her three children in New Jersey, adding, "Here good. Jersey
bad."

OK--I think I see the problem. Why in the hell did they take her to Jersey??? I'm not from the jungle, but I'd probably run if given the opportunity now too.

Reality says

Best for whom?

Best for the economy.

Reality says

What "forcing"? Don't you realize how big the cash reserves are among the
corporations that make goods and services that people actually want? Don't you
think the companies that already have a profit record are the ones that are
probably more capable of creating jobs and expand capacity that are profitable?
Instead of the morons who have to rely on loan sharks to pay their workers?

I don't think you understand--ALL companies rely of short term paper. The interest rate is typically very low, so calling it loan sharking is a bit ridiculous.

Reality says

Yet you insist on maintaining the most significant source of political money:
the FED and the TBTF banks that it shuffles money through to buy off
politicians.

I really don't. First, I have no problem breaking up the TBTF banks. Second, I'm for getting ALL money out of politics, including the financial industry. Think about it for a second. If you get rid of the Federal Reserve, who will decide when and how much money to create? Congress? Can you imagine how money money will be spent to buy influence with Congresspeople? Say you break up the TBTF banks. I guarantee you that the next largest banks will grow and spend just as much once the TBTF banks are gone. You need to fix the problem--not the symptoms.

Mick Russom says

I think people do this because they think they can gain a little bit faster
than everyone else loses. Everyone wants to "get theirs" and then close the
entry door.

Whether or not your real income grows or falls has very little to do with overall inflation rate. If we're in a period of deflation and you get a 25% pay cut, then you lose. If we are in a period of inflatoin and you get a 20% pay raise, then you win.

tatupu70 says

The dollar is a medium of exchange, not a store of value.

It's technically both, and you know it. One need only point to the value of labor which is measured in dollars. And yes, it could be argued that debasing the purchasing power of said medium through rate manipulation and commodity inflation is a sneaky form of larceny.

JodyChunder says

It's technically both, and you know it. One need only point to the value of
labor which is measured in dollars.

Absolutely incorrect. Labor is measured in dollars but that labor value (in dollars) is not a fixed number. Said labor might be worth $10/hour today and $10.03/hour tomorrow.

tatupu70 says

Absolutely incorrect.

No, it absolutely is not. Christ, even Wikipedia gets it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

It states "The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value."

If you want to make the argument that dollars themselves have no intrinsic value as a commodity, fine. But they are most certainly a store of value. People usually put forth this silly argument to dissuade people from saving.

RE: labor value -- the point isn't whether it's fixed number -- that's a completely separate discussion. The point is that the value of labor is measured by and remunerated in dollars. Therefore, dollars are a store of value. If they were not regarded as such, they wouldn't work very well as a unit of payment.

JodyChunder says

even Wikipedia gets it.

You mean the guy who happened to write the section on Wikipedia. I'll grant you that some people think money should be a store of value. And that it's debatable.

JodyChunder says

RE: labor value -- the point isn't whether it's fixed number -- that's a
completely separate discussion. The point is that the value of the labor is
measured and remunerated in dollars. Therefore, dollars are a store of
value.

The point is absolutely whether it's a fixed number. If it's a "store of value" doesn't that imply that it's not changing? I don't get your argument though. You can value labor in terms of lots of things--big macs, barrels of oil, gold. We use dollars because they are the medium of exchange. It's hard to go to the 7-11 and give them barrels of oil to pay for your smokes.

tatupu70 says

You mean the guy who happened to write the section on Wikipedia. I'll grant you that some people think money should be a store of value. And that it's debatable.

Oh come now. Yes, I slummed it, stooping to use Wikipedia...as opposed to relying on Tatupu70 on patnet. Besides, it's a pretty standard text book definition of money.

tatupu70 says

The point is absolutely whether it's a fixed number. If it's a "store of value" doesn't that imply that it's not changing?

It implies no such thing. Name one commodity that has a "fixed" value; that rises and falls in perfect unison with inflation/deflation across all markets. Any investment or otherwise 'store of value' can potentially suffer from inflation/market volatility.

tatupu70 says

You can value labor in terms of lots of things--big macs, barrels of oil, gold.

But people are not remunerated in Big Macs or barrels of oil (two commodities even more volatile than the dollar index, incidentally -- not cool if you're on a fixed income). Any reasonably stable medium of exchange necessarily has purchasing power which can be deferred in a savings account. Short of massive inflation, that same dollar will hold its relative value in one year or likely even two or three. Therefore, it is a store of value. It isn't perfect, but hey...

tatupu70 says

Robert Sproul says

Monetary inflation is theft from the downstream masses.
i guess you are

only advocating petty theft.

Bullcrap. If you choose to keep dollars in your mattress, then that's your problem. The dollar is a medium of exchange, not a store of value.

You can't make that shit up! It's a contract that the neither government nor the fed is supposed to break. By your logic people should be free to print/counterfeit their own money - after all it's good for the economy and it's the problem of people who put that money away under their mattress for rainy days if their money is suddenly worthless! Or, if I write you an IOU and then simply declare it worthless, hey, that's your problem, you could have traded it in the meantime for some other shit, why are you holding on to it? This is getting better by the day,

The stability of a currency's value is important so that people don't have to constantly chase the next big MOMO play and then suddenly are left holding the bag after the other players front-runned them and left the building. Or do you want grannys to throw out their money for gold, silver, guns and ammo and also get in on some juicy real estate where prices can only go up?

tatupu70 says

Best for the economy.

The history of the US economy shows clearly that the economy does far better during the absence of central banks than during periods with central banks. Central banks not only account for the Great Depression, the 70's malaise, the current Greater Depression, but also WWI, WWII and American Imperialism of the 20th century and on-going. All of which have grave consequences on American standards of living. It's amazing how one can be blind to the link between the founding of the FED to WWI and WWII, and the final delinking between dollar and gold to 4 decades of no real growth in standards of living among the average working Americans.

tatupu70 says

I don't think you understand--ALL companies rely of short term paper. The interest rate is typically very low, so calling it loan sharking is a bit ridiculous.

Have you ever inquired about factoring discount for your own company? It works exactly like payday loans: you get a 5% discount on an invoice that lasts only a few days to a few weeks! Plus a fee! The effective rate is very high.

tatupu70 says

I really don't. First, I have no problem breaking up the TBTF banks. Second, I'm for getting ALL money out of politics, including the financial industry. Think about it for a second. If you get rid of the Federal Reserve, who will decide when and how much money to create?

Under gold coin standard, the working class men and women decide when and how much money to create: when money supply gets tight, they decide to move out and mine gold! The central bank is a device for robbing the working men and women of that natural right.

Congress? Can you imagine how money money will be spent to buy influence with Congresspeople?

You still believe the fiction of central bank independence? I suppose you are against lifting the debt ceiling? If you are for lifting the debt ceiling and never default on government debt, then the FED is simply forced to buy every debt the Congress and the Treasury creates.

Say you break up the TBTF banks. I guarantee you that the next largest banks will grow and spend just as much once the TBTF banks are gone. You need to fix the problem--not the symptoms.

You are arguing against your own point. The root problem is the FED handing out money to big banks at near-zero interest that the rest of the population is not qualified to receive. The interest difference is money. The banks receiving the provilige pass some of the loot to the political class and thereby control the political class.

Reality says

The root problem is the FED handing out money to big banks at near-zero interest that the rest of the population is not qualified to receive. The interest difference is money. The banks receiving the provilige pass some of the loot to the political class and thereby control the political class.

Tell it, brother.

Reality says

Central banks not only account for the Great Depression, the 70's malaise, the
current Greater Depression, but also WWI, WWII and American Imperialism of the
20th century and on-going.

lol--you forgot about Hurricane Sandy and the Japanese tsunami.

Reality says

Under gold coin standard, the working class men and women decide when and how
much money to create: when money supply gets tight, they decide to move out and
mine gold! The central bank is a device for robbing the working men and women of
that natural right.

You can't be serious. That is so absurd, I wonder if you are pulling my leg.

Reality says

You are arguing against your own point. The root problem is the FED handing
out money to big banks at near-zero interest that the rest of the population is
not qualified to receive. The interest difference is money. The banks receiving
the provilige pass some of the loot to the political class and thereby control
the political class.

No--I don't believe I am. Banks make money in many ways, not just the one you describe. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve won't eliminate bank profits and political donations.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Central banks not only account for the Great Depression, the 70's malaise, the

current Greater Depression, but also WWI, WWII and American Imperialism of the

20th century and on-going.

lol--you forgot about Hurricane Sandy and the Japanese tsunami.

How else would the wars have been funded if not for the central banking system? How else could bubbles have been as big if not for the central banking system?

tatupu70 says

You can't be serious. That is so absurd, I wonder if you are pulling my leg.

What's absurd of people going digging for gold when economy goes bad under gold standard? That's how the New World was colonized: by people looking for gold when the economy of Europe was going through "winter."

tatupu70 says

Banks make money in many ways, not just the one you describe. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve won't eliminate bank profits and political donations.

There's nothing wrong with banks making profits so long as it's by consumer choice, just like any other business. The problem is not profits, but not going bankrupt after mis-allocating capital to such a severe degree as the TBTF banks did. That prevents other banks that consumers like better from emerging and replacing the existing cabal. What you have in the FED is a monopoly-enforcement mechanism. That's why big banks spend money buying politicians, and the latter in turn make laws that favor the cabal at the expense of the public.

Reality says

What's absurd of people going digging for gold when economy goes bad under
gold standard? That's how the New World was colonized: by people looking for
gold when the economy of Europe was going through "winter."

I think most would consider it progress that people no longer have to go digging for gold when times get bad.

Reality says

The problem is not profits, but not going bankrupt after mis-allocating capital
to such a severe degree as the TBTF banks did. That prevents other banks that
consumers like better from emerging and replacing the existing cabal. What you
have in the FED is a monopoly-enforcement mechanism. That's why big banks spend
money buying politicians, and the latter in turn make laws that favor the cabal
at the expense of the public.

I agree that it would have been better if the TBTF banks weren't TBTF and could have been allowed to go bankrupt without destroying the economy. And I'm all for breaking them up now so if there is a next time, they can be allowed to fail. You are way too fixated on that problem though. Step back and take a look at the bigger picture. Money influences politics everywhere. Look at the military industrial complex. Look at health care. Look at Wall St. We need to stop the problem of money in politics and that problem is far bigger than the TBTF banks.