patrick.net

Which is it ? Inflation benefiting the biggest borrower the US govt. , or deflation burning all the borrowers, especially the biggest one. How can it be both ?

It is hard to understand the Federal Reserve. Not saying that I do nearly as well as I would like. Things I don't understand scare me. But for the record, I believe that there are much more important factors effecting the changing value of money than the Fed trying to enrich bankers. The Fed does maybe excessively attempt to effect those other factors with it's policies, but usually with the goal of benefiting the economy as a whole as much as possible, and bankers only very indirectly.

Clearly that is what they believe anyway.

"If citizens were truly aware of the lives they really should be living right now, and who has taken it from them, there would be a revolution tomorrow."

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in "free markets" for the whole world. If so, then all seven billion should have hope of this great standard of living that even we are not close to ?

How do you reconcile that with where the planet is at with natural resources, and the environmental degradation that has come with free market improvements in standards of living so far. Is it really the Fed holding us back ?

I wonder whether the fed and other policies have facilitated too much growth in recent decades

It isn't the Federal Reserve alone; it is the central banking system as a whole.

Your question about believing in "free markets" for the whole world is unclear; I don't know if you are asking what I feel is proper, or what exists in reality. I personally advocate a free market (within certain reasonable bounds, of course - which is a separate discussion). What exists in the real world, of course, is quite different. Some economies/nations talk as if they have one, but do they? Every significant economy in this world that I am aware of is under the direct or indirect control of a central banking system (or worse). The slow rape I describe above is perpetrated on nearly all productive citizens, worldwide.

But yes, I do assert what you suggest: if any nation breaks these binds and extricates themselves from such control, they will thrive fantastically. Was this not exactly the case with our nation between 1776 and 1913? We removed the leeches, and look what happened. They returned, and look what happened.

Food for thought.

Seems you missed my big question. What are we 300,000,000 out of 7 billion ?

Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted the response to the first one. But then I read it again, and wasn't exactly sure what you meant. Could you define it/them (concerning natural resources, etc.) better?

As for your reference to the rest of the world, I believe I did address that.

marcus says

How do you reconcile that with where the planet is at with natural resources, and the environmental degradation that has come with free market improvements in standards of living so far. Is it really the Fed holding us back ?

I don't really want to elaborate and get all doom and gloomy. It's just that I don't really see the Fed as the bogeyman you do, and I think that looking forward there are bigger constraints on our standard of living.

Here is some reality:

You have fallen into the fallacy of anthropomorphosis; your argument is based upon ascribing human characteristics and emotions to a nonhuman entity. Whatever you opinion of the Fed may be, this type of argument is always flawed.

And you may have fallen into the trap of circumlocution. You have attempted to project an educated air, while simultaneously demonstrating a certain insecurity with the English language and efficient logic. How does one "fall into" a fallacy? Why use a word, and then define it?

For you to ponder:
a) To what non-human entity have I ascribed which traits?
b) How is such a presentation "always flawed"? One can certainly make a perfectly intact logical argument in such a way. Stating that this approach is "always flawed" may feel good rolling off your tongue, but is incorrect.

Except that it does improve, and it improves immensely. On the whole, we enjoy the highest quality of life that has ever been known on the planet.

It has not improved nearly as much as it should have. The central banks are not gods, and cannot restrain all of technology. That is NOT the point. The point, if you will forgive me restating what was already made clear, is that the central banks have created a mechanism to skim your productivity via money control. You may choose to ignore the 95% devaluation of our currency by the Fed. You may choose to believe that the average working person should be enslaved for 30 years to buy a home, when an honest money system would allow for such in less than half that time. You may point with pride at a nice computer, television, or car without ever knowing what you really could be pointing at.

99.999% of human beings could have never afforded anything that you own. Just strolling down to the corner store to buy a fresh orange was an unheard of luxury only a few years ago. Hopping on an airplane and flying coast to coast was only for the wealthy. Actually owning your own automobile, much less two, was inconceivable.

I have lived around the globe, and in third world nations for some time. I will not waste time detailing to you what I've seen, and the conditions under which many people must live - not only a few years ago, but right now. You will see that I haven't digressed.

Your point is that our standard of living has risen. My point is that it has risen far more for a certain group of non-producers than for those who have engineered and produced, and continues to do so. If you are unable to see this in our Western civilization because you are laughing with your buddies over a frappuccino then maybe you are fine with it. It is probably a bit clearer, however, to that guy in Burma who has paid for your Blackberry a hundred times.

I thought Troy's point about anthropomorphizing the Fed made sense. Because this "skimming" and other descriptions of yours implies a motive, as if the Fed were a person looking to enrich himself or his buddies. I see no evidence that is the case ( unless the feds buddies are our entire economy). But this isn't to say, that I think the fed, our our general fiscal policies are nearly perfect.

It is true that in one sense, inflation can be like a tax, if incomes don't increase as much as prices. And it is true that relative to housing, health care (costs), college tuition and other costs of living our standard of living has decreased. But that's over the last 30 years or so. If you compare to 1913 though, it is so much better in many ways. And if you compare to the developing world, we are way ahead.

Lets say for the sake of argument that we have a decreasing standard of living. We also have the Fed, always tinkering with monetary policy in ways (outcomes) that are very difficult to grasp. I just don't see that you (or the various websites that rant about this) have convinced me in the slightest that this is effect and cause.

Oh, it was Nomograph, not Troy. Sorry. I knew it was you, blame it on not having my coffee yet.

the name changing .. I must say .. is very funny. lmao

Those $15 words .... I feel are being used as compensation devices. lmao

marcus says

I thought Troy’s point about anthropomorphizing the Fed made sense. Because this “skimming” and other descriptions of yours implies a motive, as if the Fed were a person looking to enrich himself or his buddies.

The central banks are run by very real people, with very real motives. The anthropomorphosis assertion is weak. It would make sense if one tried to compare an economy, or natural market forces, to a person.

Nomograph says

That’s pure Pollyanna fantasy. Historically, 99.9999% of people had ZERO chance of becoming landed.

Maybe after your 15-year program has made everyone a landowner, then all the children in the world can hold hands and sing songs of peace.

Historically, the same structures have been in place. I was told about my fantasies several years ago as well, when I talked about $300,000 homes selling for under $150,000 in short time. Recognizing that I can now buy the same place for less than half the price (and in less than half the time), the onus is on you to demonstrate the fantasy of my economics.

Nomograph says

That’s the reality of free markets, and I’m afraid your argument has gotten lost in the bitter morass of unfairness.

Look deeper.

Here is an example of another kind of flawed logic. Shortly after Bush became president, he was considered a joke in many circles. I recall there was even a satirical TV show about him and his presidency. Then 9/11 happened. Bush gained a huge amount of respect in the aftermath of that tragedy, and that tragedy also probably made possible our adventures in Irag, which Cheney and other neocons had written about extensively in their "Project for a new century."

An entire cottage industry has been built around the logic "just look to see who benefits," to conclude that 9/11 was an inside job. If you believe that, please let's not go there. My point is that most conspiracy theories use this kind of reasoning (if you want to call it that).

As far as I can see, your "argument" is very similarly built, and it is the reason that Nomograph's point is good. You look at nearly independent simultaneous events and then conclude that these were somehow cause and effect, based on peoples motives on the cause side.

Where exactly did the skimmed profits go ? Was it to the salaries of bank ceos ? Was it to the Hedge fund managers ? Maybe it was to the profits of insiders who knew what monetary policy would be before it happened. Help me out here, give me some specific examples from start to finish.

NastySlapper says

You may choose to believe that the average working person should be enslaved for 30 years to buy a home, when an honest money system would allow for such in less than half that time

I predict "Honest money" would keep renters as renters and owners as owners, since if renters are able to save money, landlords are able to raise rents.