3
0

The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%


               
2013 Jan 25, 2:50am   138,930 views  354 comments

by Thedaytoday   follow (0)  

The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.

An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.

But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the “dollar” in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.

The Fed's zero interest rate policy accentuates the negative consequences of this steady erosion in the dollar's buying power by imposing a negative return on short-term bonds and bank deposits. In effect, the Fed has announced a course of action that will steal — there is no better word for it — nearly 10 percent of the value of American's hard earned savings over the next 4 years.

Why target an annual 2 percent decline in the dollar's value instead of price stability? Here is the Fed's answer:

“The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's mandate for price stability and maximum employment. Over time, a higher inflation rate would reduce the public's ability to make accurate longer-term economic and financial decisions. On the other hand, a lower inflation rate would be associated with an elevated probability of falling into deflation, which means prices and perhaps wages, on average, are falling–a phenomenon associated with very weak economic conditions. Having at least a small level of inflation makes it less likely that the economy will experience harmful deflation if economic conditions weaken. The FOMC implements monetary policy to help maintain an inflation rate of 2 percent over the medium term.”

In other words, a gradual destruction of the dollar's value is the best the FOMC can do.

Here's why:

First, the Fed believes that manipulation of interest rates and the value of the dollar can reduce unemployment rates.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/

#investing

Comments 1 - 19 of 354       Last »     Search these comments

1   curious2   @   2013 Jan 25, 4:04am  

Thedaytoday says

Here’s why:

...because ZIRP wouldn't be such a huge gift to Fed member banks if the Fed did its job and maintained a stable currency. Forcing inflation onto everyone else, while borrowing at ZIRP, is much more lucrative for the TBTF bankers than ZIRP alone would be.

In the 100 years since the Fed began, the currency has lost more than 95% of its value. That is unprecedented in the history of the republic. Meanwhile, unemployment has doubled.

So, the evidence is very clear. The Fed does not maintain a stable currency, and does not reduce unemployment. Instead, it entrenches its TBTF member banks, enriching their executives beyond all reason. It fails conspicuously in its stated purpose, but it continues because it's a smashing success from the POV of the executives who control the politicians who control policy.

Crony capitalism and lemon socialism build self-reinforcing patronage networks, of which the Fed is an example. ZIRP, QE, Operation Twisted, all serve the Fed patronage network at the expense of everyone else. To pretend that the policy is "helping homeowners" or "creating jobs" is incredibly naive.

2   Patrick   @   2013 Jan 26, 10:12am  

The Federal Reserve should not exist.

The idea that we can trust a cabal of bankers to manipulate the currency in the public interest is laughable.

3   mell   @   2013 Jan 26, 12:11pm  


The Federal Reserve should not exist.

The idea that we can trust a cabal of bankers to manipulate the currency in the public interest is laughable.

Yep. I don't need no federal reserve to print myself to financial prosperity. I just need to get a petition passed that will make it legal for everyone.

4   Dan8267   @   2013 Jan 26, 12:28pm  

mell says

Yep. I don't need no federal reserve to print myself to financial prosperity. I just need to get a petition passed that will make it legal for everyone.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/

If we're serious about this, how about we launch a campaign to get a million signatures to disband the Federal Reserve and return the power to create money to Congress, not that I like Congress, but it's better than the top five banks controlling our currency.

Such a petition should be well thought out first, and then written and debated here, and then advertised, and once we have a lot of support, finally submitted and signed in mass.

You have to get a lot of signatures in a very short period of time to get the attention. Too many tea-brains trying to impeach Obama for not being a US citizen ruined the We the People site. So organization is key.

5   mell   @   2013 Jan 26, 12:43pm  

Dan8267 says

If we're serious about this, how about we launch a campaign to get a million signatures to disband the Federal Reserve and return the power to create money to Congress, not that I like Congress, but it's better than the top five banks controlling our currency.

I'd support that. Maybe we could start drafting this here on patnet. What are the rules around citizenship regarding submitting or supporting (signing) a petition?

6   MsBennet   @   2013 Jan 27, 1:54am  

If the value of the dollar is declining, then it seems like a good idea to purchase real estate and lock in that purchasing power in 2012 because it will take 50 percent more money to buy that property in 2032.

7   mell   @   2013 Jan 27, 2:21am  

That being said, I would support to give the power to create money / inject credit to congress rather than having the Fed and would hope that congress would use it judiciously. Maybe you could tie it to a 2/3 majority or something similar to make it a bit harder.

8   mell   @   2013 Jan 27, 10:51am  

But if I had to print money for the "greater good" I would try and dispense all that money among the poor and maybe middle class, knowing some of it will trickle up when they buy stuff - this is inevitable. But I certainly would not give it to the richest and those who have first access to it like it has been done - criminal. The small amount that trickled down to the poor after the banks borrowed all that new money for zero is a drop in the bucket. The poor and middle class hardly had any access to it. Some who qualified - likely not poor but middle class - were able to get cheaper loans, but that is after the banks took their profit by borrowing for zero and lending for 3% - how is that helping anybody but the banks? Criminal.

9   mell   @   2013 Jan 27, 11:39am  

Besides I don't want the government to decide who is special.

10   New Renter   @   2013 Jan 27, 11:43am  

mell says

You have no idea how special I am in my plight of investing in small novel biotechs

You invest in small, novel biotech? Seriously, WHY?

11   JodyChunder   @   2013 Jan 27, 12:20pm  

MsBennet says

If the value of the dollar is declining, then it seems like a good idea to purchase real estate and lock in that purchasing power in 2012 because it will take 50 percent more money to buy that property in 2032.

Nah...they'll craft some means by which to get you into as much debt as you'd like in the future, too. Don't worry.

12   mell   @   2013 Jan 27, 12:22pm  

New Renter says

mell says

You have no idea how special I am in my plight of investing in small novel biotechs

You invest in small, novel biotech? Seriously, WHY?

Not exclusively, but mostly. I have studied a fair amount of medicine and medical research the most interesting things are happening in small biotechs (some scams too, but that happens in every sector) as big pharma is more focused on squeezing the last bit out of their expiring patents and then continue their M & A spree. Plus I like to gamble (no margin/debt though) ;)

13   New Renter   @   2013 Jan 27, 3:13pm  

mell says

New Renter says

mell says

You have no idea how special I am in my plight of investing in small novel biotechs

You invest in small, novel biotech? Seriously, WHY?

Not exclusively, but mostly. I have studied a fair amount of medicine and medical research the most interesting things are happening in small biotechs (some scams too, but that happens in every sector) as big pharma is more focused on squeezing the last bit out of their expiring patents and then continue their M & A spree. Plus I like to gamble (no margin/debt though) ;)

I've worked in a few of those SV biotechs. I'm STILL waiting for my stocks to be worth enough to buy something from the Taco Bell dollar menu...

14   curious2   @   2013 Jan 27, 4:40pm  

mell says

the most interesting things are happening in small biotechs (some scams too, but that happens in every sector) as big pharma is more focused on....

DTC advertising and lobbying. Alas PhRMA scored a really big deal with ObamaCare, which will subsidize pills and increase taxes on vaccines and devices. Getting hundreds of billion$ in subsidies directly from government is impressive in itself, but bribing that same government into starving and taxing your competitors is priceless. At best, small biotechs can hope to be bought out by big PhRMA, but drug companies aren't interested in producing technologies that would reduce their own revenues. It's a terrible shame really, the gap between what could have been and what is; future generations may look back and wonder how we can have been so stupid.

Back to the original topic, good investments are difficult to identify because the whole economy is being reoriented around TBTF corporations that can buy politicians and change the rules to suit themselves. And, those same corporations are being looted by their own executives, who tip out to politicians' campaigns. Just as the best investment in Russia is proximity to Putin, the best investment in America is lobbying, and it's the biggest players who win that game. This applies in the medical sector as well as banking, where the big players get even bigger so they can secure their seats in the Capitol.

15   zzyzzx   @   2013 Jan 27, 10:20pm  

Thedaytoday says

it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years.

Haven't they been doing this, or more, every 20 years already?

16   EBGuy   @   2013 Jan 28, 6:23am  

Headset said: Worked for Zimbabwe
The irony is that Zimbabwe is on the mend now that they've settled on the US dollar as their currency.

17   Mick Russom   @   2013 Jan 29, 6:21am  

uomo_senza_nome says

Deleveraging can get very disorderly if not managed properly

Yes, it gets messy because you have to use smoke and mirrors to keep brutally expensive things expensive. So the squeeze play is on, housing, rents, tuition, food, commodities, the actual cost of living for all the produces, MUST GO UP - to keep the banking class capitalized.

I've never seen the upper echelons of the upper middle class work so hard to protect massive wealth in the hands of the few.

And they do this claiming they are liberal in nature. Laughable.

18   mell   @   2013 Jan 29, 6:32am  

Mick Russom says

My cost of living budget has double in the last 10 years. Easily.

Rent, tuition, commodities, cost of repairs, transportation, bridge toll, goods, services, everything. I can pull out budgets from 10 years ago and today and clearly show for the same situation costs have doubles.

My salaries have not. I've done well, but no way its keeping pace with inflation.

Yep - that's exactly the problem for the majority of people.

19   MsBennet   @   2013 Jan 29, 7:13am  

My "rent" has actually gone down. In 1989 I paid $2,000 a month in mortgage payment and now I pay $1450 a month. I think our interest rate was 10 percent back then.

Comments 1 - 19 of 354       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   users   suggestions   gaiste