Inflation = Taxation

[Parker2112]

So when Bernanke says the Fed will further reduce the standard of living for the Middle and Lower class, I have one question:

Which elected official can you turn to to prevent this devaluation?

The answer is none. The Federal Reserve doesnt answer to anyone in the Federal Gov.

Is this not "Taxation without representation?"

Wake up.

[Parker2112]

"Taxation without representation?"

Anyone understand the concept? Anyone?

[boutons_deux]

so deflation is a taxcut?

awake or asleep, Human-Americans can't, even if the sleep heads wanted to, compete with Corporate-Americans.

[RandomGuy]

So when Bernanke says the Fed will further reduce the standard of living for the Middle and Lower class, I have one question:

Which elected official can you turn to to prevent this devaluation?

The answer is none. The Federal Reserve doesnt answer to anyone in the Federal Gov.

Is this not "Taxation without representation?"

Wake up.

Inflation is taxation?

Expand on this statement. How? What is the mechanism and how is it similar to taxation?

[CosmicCowboy]

Inflation is taxation?

Expand on this statement. How? What is the mechanism and how is it similar to taxation?

It pretty simple.

Lets say the government need a trillion dollars. They can either collect the trillion dollars in taxes or they can simply print a trillion dollars and put it into circulation. That trillion dollars then dilutes the pool of other dollars in circulation and they automatically become incrementally less valuable than they were before the money supply. Thus, a hidden tax as everyones net worth drops.

[Parker2112]

Inflation happens when the Fed increases currency supply. This power exists independently of our elected representatives.

Inflation reduces the value of money. So for the guy making $3000 a month, inflation means his buying power is reduced as inflation causes prices to rise. An indirect tax on his earnings. Now his $3000 only buys $2700 in goods/services.

Whats worse, who gets hit the hardest? Those that have the least feel this disprportional tax the worst. The rich dont get hit so hard, because the reduction in the value of their currency is offset by the increase in the value of assets.

For those renting, borrowing lower and middle class debtors, the reduction equates to a direct reduction in their standard of living.

The mechanism is the printing of additional currency. The taxation happens when this tax is used to benefit Wall Street and Banking entities, where the lower and middle class are the ones who will pay.

And it all happens at the direction of the unelected banking interests in charge of the Fed, and with a sleight of hand so slick, very few understand it or question it.

"Taxation without representation."

[Parker2112]

It pretty simple.

Lets say the government need a trillion dollars. They can either collect the trillion dollars in taxes or they can simply print a trillion dollars and put it into circulation. That trillion dollars then dilutes the pool of other dollars in circulation and they automatically become incrementally less valuable than they were before the money supply. Thus, a hidden tax as everyones net worth drops.

CC, my motherfuckin' hero. :toast

And how do you feel about the fed being completely outside of the reign of the electorate?

Bernanke is poised to expand our currency even further. And there isn't a representative or senator that you can call to try and stop it.

"Taxation without representation."

[Winehole23]

CC, my motherfuckin' hero. :toastUnless he cooked the motherfuckin food, you don't hear that too much around here.

Soak in in, CC. You got a admirer. :lol

[boutons_deux]

When the VRWC Lie Machine wants to block the economy from growing, to keep people unemployed, in pain, impoverished, it spews lie about (Dem) deficits and inflation, so people vote the horrific Repugs back into power to shut down govt.

Krugman said a much larger stimulus, $1T?, $2T? (for a $13T GDP economy) was needed short term due to the size of the Banksters' Great Depression, the stimulus and getting demand going again (in an economy that is 70% consumer spending), to get taxes coming in again. The risk of inflation was vastly outweighed by the BGD and the risk of a long-term depression and stagnation.

Well, here we are about 2 years later, the too-small stimulus isn't completely spent, SS COLA absent for the 2nd year in a row, inflation is Too Small To Mention, citizen savers earn nothing while the financial sector sucks 100s of guranteed $Ms out of T-Bonds, BGD drags on with no sign of 9.5% unemployment relenting and needs many years to come down to full rate of 5%, GDP growth is looking like 1% for 2010.

Who was right, the VRWC inflation-fear-mongers or the Krugmans?

The wealthy VRWC, insulated from the pain its inflicting, wins again, inflicting and extending maximum pain on the non-wealthy and starving the beast of the taxes it needs
to function.

So all you inflation fear-mongers go GFY.

[Parker2112]

Unless he cooked the motherfuckin food, you don't hear that too much around here.

Soak in in, CC. You got a admirer. :lol

He knows more about economics than you, evidently.....

[Parker2112]

When the VRWC Lie Machine wants to block the economy from growing, to keep people unemployed, in pain, impoverished, it spews lie about (Dem) deficits and inflation, so people vote the horrific Repugs back into power to shut down govt.

Krugman said a much larger stimulus, $1T?, $2T? (for a $13T GDP economy) was needed short term due to the size of the Banksters' Great Depression, the stimulus and getting demand going again (in an economy that is 70% consumer spending), to get taxes coming in again. The risk of inflation was vastly outweighed by the BGD and the risk of a long-term depression and stagnation.

Well, here we are about 2 years later, the too-small stimulus isn't completely spent, SS COLA absent for the 2nd year in a row, inflation is Too Small To Mention, citizen savers earn nothing while the financial sector sucks 100s of guranteed $Ms out of T-Bonds, BGD drags on with no sign of 9.5% unemployment relenting and needs many years to come down to full rate of 5%, GDP growth is looking like 1% for 2010.

Who was right, the VRWC inflation-fear-mongers or the Krugmans?

The wealthy VRWC, insulated from the pain its inflicting, wins again, inflicting and extending maximum pain on the non-wealthy and starving the beast of the taxes it needs
to function.

So all you inflation fear-mongers go GFY.

How in the hell do politics and taxes play any part in whats going on with the federal reserve, dumb ass? Those aren't elected officials calling the shots that reduce the middle class to shambles through foreclosures and layoffs.

The right wing is manipulated by the Bankers/Wall St, not the other way around. Pull your head out of your ass, Boutons.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Sad but true. I really don't know how I would take the events of the past 2 years if I were in my late 50s or so, had worked my whole life by doing the right thing and saved up in my 401k hoping to be secure in my later life....only to be fucked royally in every orifice.

It's sad because most people who saved had no idea what was coming or what to do when it happened. I realize some people probably adjusted accordingly and maybe even avoided massive losses from 07 to 08 but the majority did not.

Essentially all the wealth that responsible middle-aged middle-class americans had accumulated by being "responsible" was sucked right away from their accounts and transferred to a very small elite.
Then to add insult they're going to redistribute the wealth again via inflation.

Sucks but theres absolutely nothing any of us can do.

[boutons_deux]

"How in the hell do politics and taxes play any part in whats going on with the federal reserve, dumb ass?"

The Fed is trying to get the economy going again, an economy cratered by Repug/VRWC politics that deregulated the financial industry and freed up $1T in tax cuts, a $1T cash that went looking for fast, high returns in the commodities and housing markets.

The Fed doesn't operate in a vacuum, you ignorant asshole. The Fed is basically a secret, private club setup by and operated by the financial sector.

"Those aren't elected officials calling the shots that reduce the middle class to shambles through foreclosures and layoffs."

The ELECTED Repugs have blocked all Dem efforts to get the economy moving again, to keep the maximum number of people in maximum pain running up to the mid-terms. The ELECTED Repugs also blocked Spitzer and 18 other state AGs from shutting down predator lending, the Wall St got the Repug Exec to take down Spitzer, aka, the Sheriff of Wall St.

"The right wing .... the Bankers/Wall St"

... are the same thing, you ignorant asshole.

[Parker2112]

"How in the hell do politics and taxes play any part in whats going on with the federal reserve, dumb ass?"

The Fed is trying to get the economy going again....

The Fed is nothing but a bunch of bankers who see the time is right to pluck max wealth from the middle class. The collective population's nuts are in a vice, and the time is right for chopping. They have propogated boom/bust cycles since bankers were given control of our economy...[THE KEY] spreading cheap credit to general public AND THE GOVT, and then shutting down currency, stalling the economy and reeling in everything and everyone they have on a hook.

This doesnt fit in your good guy/bad guy scenario...time to do some study on the fed, Boutons.


The Fed doesn't operate in a vacuum, you ignorant asshole. The Fed is basically a secret, private club setup by and operated by the financial sector.

"Those aren't elected officials calling the shots that reduce the middle class to shambles through foreclosures and layoffs."

The ELECTED Repugs have blocked all Dem efforts to get the economy moving again, to keep the maximum number of people in maximum pain running up to the mid-terms. The ELECTED Repugs also blocked Spitzer and 18 other state AGs from shutting down predator lending, the Wall St got the Repug Exec to take down Spitzer, aka, the Sheriff of Wall St.

"The right wing .... the Bankers/Wall St"

... are the same thing, you ignorant asshole.

The banking interests dont give a fuck about which party you join, because they own them both. And then once they get into office, and need to bring home fat to the constituents, who do you think ALL POLITICIANS turn to? How about the FED!!! :rollin

Yes thats right, we are ALL on the hook to the fed, from you, me, the mailman, Obama, Boner, Mccain...we the people, we the govt, we the nation are borrowing from the fed. But those that are lucky to reach the utmost upper reaches of financial wealth benefit from their policies while the rest fall flat on their ass...

And your contention that the Right is Bankers/Wall St is only correct so far as the Right is bought and paid for...but if you cant see that its a rigged game and that while the two parties appeal to distinct members of the voting public, the Fed buries us ALL...

Then you need to do more study on the subject. You stopped at the two parties, which is exactly where they want you to stop, because then you wont ever question how lenders who initiate currency make up to and over 1000% interest on govt debt through fractional reserve lending, printing money out of the game, and sending poor people into despair. And no, those decisions arent made by politicians.

Wake the fuck up.

[Parker2112]

pEAjOk_UY9I

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Considering the currency markets as well as the OPEC price manipulations, inflation is really not a big deal. If anything they have done well keeping inflation in check.

The president also appoints the fed chairman. At that point you could argue that defense spending or really anything for that matter could be construed as taxation without representation.

Really having 2 maybe three choices in constituencies of multiple millions is where representation breaks down.

[BlairForceDejuan]

Sad but true. I really don't know how I would take the events of the past 2 years if I were in my late 50s or so, had worked my whole life by doing the right thing and saved up in my 401k hoping to be secure in my later life....only to be fucked royally in every orifice.

It's sad because most people who saved had no idea what was coming or what to do when it happened. I realize some people probably adjusted accordingly and maybe even avoided massive losses from 07 to 08 but the majority did not.

Essentially all the wealth that responsible middle-aged middle-class americans had accumulated by being "responsible" was sucked right away from their accounts and transferred to a very small elite.
Then to add insult they're going to redistribute the wealth again via inflation.

Sucks but theres absolutely nothing any of us can do.

Yep, but it still beats any alternative wal-mart greeting mattress stuffing reliance on SS checks for cat food. As long as they don't sell off shares that have depreciated in the short-term, they have not lost anything in a way. They can even buy more shares now.

By the time you hit your 50's, you should already be transitioning to much less riskier investments if you are scared of losing a big chunk of your nest egg.

In your 50's you could easily already have $1mil+ saved up. It could be worth the risk to now be able to swing your $1mil+ sword in the market and try to get a modest 8% return for the next couple of years. Because of the sum and compound interest you could be making $100k+ a year (TAX FREE) from your retirement account alone just from sitting. on. your. ass. Add in other investments outside of your private retirement account and the sky won't be falling too badly.

The game is rigged, but if you don't play - you lose.




For the OP though, we are awake. What now? Nothing. Nothing can be done. Nothing will be done. It is what it is.

[RandomGuy]

It pretty simple.

Lets say the government need a trillion dollars. They can either collect the trillion dollars in taxes or they can simply print a trillion dollars and put it into circulation. That trillion dollars then dilutes the pool of other dollars in circulation and they automatically become incrementally less valuable than they were before the money supply. Thus, a hidden tax as everyones net worth drops.

With the slight difference that labor prices will follow.

It is really more of a tax on capital than on labor. Generally people's paychecks follow inflation.

It would also have the effect of diluting currently held debt.

Bit of a blessing and a curse.

[RandomGuy]

Inflation happens when the Fed increases currency supply.

F-

Please study the material.

[Wild Cobra]

F-

Please study the material.
If it doesn't happen at a national level, then we should, because it will change the global money exchange rates, won't it?

[boutons_deux]

Well, Fed's been done QE, and announced QE2, still no demand, still no inflation, so inflation scare mongering has been fake and wrong so far.

Do demand push, no wage push, no inflation.

(banks are loving it, borrow from the Fed 0%, lend to the govt at 3%, guranteed, risk free)

[Wild Cobra]

Well, Fed's been done QE, and announced QE2, still no demand, still no inflation, so inflation scare mongering has been fake and wrong so far.

Do demand push, no wage push, no inflation.

(banks are loving it, borrow from the Fed 0%, lend to the govt at 3%, guranteed, risk free)
Don't forget, the banks are also buying US debt. I just wonder if they are doing that with the 0% loans.

[RandomGuy]

The Fed is nothing but a bunch of bankers who see the time is right to pluck max wealth from the middle class. The collective population's nuts are in a vice, and the time is right for chopping. They have propogated boom/bust cycles since bankers were given control of our economy...[THE KEY] spreading cheap credit to general public AND THE GOVT, and then shutting down currency, stalling the economy and reeling in everything and everyone they have on a hook.

So you think they are intentionally causing harm?

Do you have some first hand statements that shows they are intentionally "plucking" wealth from the middle class?

Seems like you are implying an aweful lot of motive here. Am I right or are you going to backpedal from this claim too?

[RandomGuy]

Well, Fed's been done QE, and announced QE2, still no demand, still no inflation, so inflation scare mongering has been fake and wrong so far.

Do demand push, no wage push, no inflation.

(banks are loving it, borrow from the Fed 0%, lend to the govt at 3%, guranteed, risk free)

Yes. Banks are making a lot of risk-free profits. Nice if you can get it.

Of course now they are going to have to swallow all that bad debt from their shitty lending and mortgage packaging practices.

[Winehole23]

He knows more about economics than you, evidently.....I don't doubt for a second CC knows way moren I do about economics. That aint too uncommon, and CC is hardly common.

If you know something too, please teach us Parkay. Hand waving at the fractional reserve banking concept while barking repeatedly at perceived "currency manipulation" did not convince. Thanks for your consideration.

[Winehole23]

The connection between inflation targeting and the cyclical "plucking" of wealth from the middle class seems not well established to me.

[Winehole23]

(indigestion)

[Parker2112]

F-

Please study the material.

Bitch please. Weren't you the one who made the lame comments about how we would need to replace the Fed with something so the issue was moot? You dont even understand the fuggin issue...

[boutons_deux]

The Fed is not the top problem facing the country, nor is inflation.

Changing the Fed, also captured by Wall St, is a probable as rescuing the country from VRWC/Wall St.

[RandomGuy]

Bitch please. Weren't you the one who made the lame comments about how we would need to replace the Fed with something so the issue was moot? You dont even understand the fuggin issue...

I understand the issue very well.

You stated something that was, in a fair sense, inaccurate, although essentially correct.

Perhaps a C- might have been more appropriate. ;)

1) What else can cause inflation besides increases in the money supply?

2) Does this debasement of currency mean that it takes longer for the average person to earn enough money in an average job to buy a loaf of bread? (simple yes or no will do)

[RandomGuy]

So you think they are intentionally causing harm?

Do you have some first-hand statements that shows they are intentionally "plucking" wealth from the middle class?

Seems like you are implying an aweful lot of motive here. Am I right or are you going to backpedal from this claim too?

Haven't gotten any response to this question either.

[Winehole23]

Bitch please.In fairness, your bit on on inflation really sucked.

Weren't you the one who made the lame comments about how we would need to replace the Fed with something so the issue was moot? You dont even understand the fuggin issue...Neither do you. It's like you skimmed the material 15 minutes ago then made yourself the teacher of it.

Your spirit of sharing is commendable, but you just barely learned the lesson yourself, Parkay. A little bit of woodshedding might have gone a long way.

[Winehole23]

Thematically related Bloomberg piece: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-15/fed-wants-to-hoodwink-public-fools-itself-commentary-by-caroline-baum.html

[Winehole23]

Considering the currency markets as well as the OPEC price manipulations, inflation is really not a big deal. If anything they have done well keeping inflation in check.The Fed's concerned about a .5% undershoot. Does it really target the upside so well? Just curious, my ignorance here is close to total.

The president also appoints the fed chairman. At that point you could argue that defense spending or really anything for that matter could be construed as taxation without representation. Parker's Paul Revere impersonation sucks.

Really having 2 maybe three choices in constituencies of multiple millions is where representation breaks down.Elitism is a bitch.

[boutons_deux]

So we're going to have (hyper) inflation because the Fed wants it and causes it with QE2, in the absence of severely depressed consumer demand and screwed-up housing sector?

If we wanted inflation in the imminent cold season, the oilcos could oblige the Fed's "healthy" inflation target and raise the price of transport fuel and heating oil 20% - 50%.

A lesson that the deregulation-loving, "nine-most-terrifying-words" true-believers refuse to acknowledge is that unregulated capitalism is a repeated/repeatable disaster for the lower 98%.

[greyforest]

inflation is a flat tax on everyone who holds on to us currency, so it's probably better than actual taxes which ultra rich people / giant corporations loophole their way out of

[Winehole23]

Haven't gotten any response to this question either.We might be on ignore. Parker's been curiously reluctant to engage of late.

[Winehole23]

(Zero'd out)

[Winehole23]

(dead fish eye)

[RandomGuy]

We might be on ignore. Parker's been curiously reluctant to engage of late.

My guess:

He is probably also posting somewhere else.

We have seen behind his reasonable facade into the depths of his real thoughts on things. His "I'm just asking questions" facade/cover has been blown.

Since we no longer view him as reasonable, and have started treating his conspiracy claims with the level of dubiousness they deserve, he is probably a bit frustrated.

Or, he could just be busy. Hopefully he is ok.

[Parker2112]

Neither...my brother gets married next weekend. Lots to do in the meantime.

[Parker2112]

My guess:


We have seen behind his reasonable facade into the depths of his real thoughts on things. His "I'm just asking questions" facade/cover has been blown.

Since we no longer view him as reasonable, and have started treating his conspiracy claims with the level of dubiousness they deserve, he is probably a bit frustrated.

Or, he could just be busy. Hopefully he is ok.

You have yet to contribute to the debate. Just keep that in mind. So before you start claiming "seeing behind the facade" you might want to wander out of the dark first..

[RandomGuy]

You have yet to contribute to the debate. Just keep that in mind. So before you start claiming "seeing behind the facade" you might want to wander out of the dark first..

Fair enough. Wedding it is.

All the best to your brother and his bride. :married: :toast

When the hangover wears off, let us know.

[RandomGuy]

You have yet to contribute to the debate.

1) What else can cause inflation besides increases in the money supply?

2) Does this debasement of currency mean that it takes longer for the average person to earn enough money in an average job to buy a loaf of bread? (simple yes or no will do)

[RandomGuy]

You dont even understand the fuggin issue...

My economics and finance professors would disagree, based on the grades they have given me.

[Parker2112]

My economics and finance professors would disagree, based on the grades they have given me.

Show your work. Besides, the fact that you can regurgitate the stuff they hand you doesnt say much...let's see you apply what you know with some success.

Thus far, I havent seen anything but peremptory arrogance on your part.

Lets take score:
1) no clue on the Federal Reserve's operation
2) No clue on History
3) No opinion on any matter at issue
4) A continuing attempt to attack the speaker, rather than the statement.

Sounds like a run of the mill repug tactic...you might want to check you're approach. I give it the same grade I would give most of the repugs around here....

[Parker2112]

1) What else can cause inflation besides increases in the money supply?

2) Does this debasement of currency mean that it takes longer for the average person to earn enough money in an average job to buy a loaf of bread? (simple yes or no will do)

1) Inflation=rise in prices, which can happen from currency increase as well as from increased demand.
2) Not necessarily. But keep in mind, many citizens are on a fixed income that does not come from earnings.

Now, for mine (and back on point of the Fed, rather than your economics lectures)...
1) If inflation is inflicted on every US taxpayer by unelected bankers, does that equate to taxation without representation?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Fed's concerned about a .5% undershoot. Does it really target the upside so well? Just curious, my ignorance here is close to total.
Parker's Paul Revere impersonation sucks.
Elitism is a bitch.

The inflation rates have been consistently been less than 5% since Bush 1 ie 20+ years.

The euro and yen going to shit, OPEC price fixing and the US trade deficit are as impactful if not moreso.

His assertion that the fed is not beholden to anyone is just wrong.

Its not elitism that I have an issue with. There is a very significant portion of the population that has no business in policy making. My issue is the intent and collusion within the elites. Its been Andrew Jackson style politics for at least the last 60 years and I would argue ever since Teddy Roosevelt left office.

[Parker2112]

The inflation rates have been consistently been less than 5% since Bush 1 ie 20+ years.

The euro and yen going to shit, OPEC price fixing and the US trade deficit are as impactful if not moreso.

His assertion that the fed is not beholden to anyone is just wrong.



What we are seeing is beyond inflation. Its hyperinflation.

And as for the Fed, they must be beholden to some extent if Paulsen had to resort to fear mongering as well: 55lOhYw8Lxk

[RandomGuy]

Inflation happens when the Fed increases currency supply.


1) What else can cause inflation besides increases in the money supply?


1) Inflation=rise in prices, which can happen from currency increase as well as from increased demand.

So increased demand is also "taxation without representation"?

Who should we complain to when that happens?

[Parker2112]

But actually, fuzzy, I think you're claim that they are beholden to the taxpayers is flat out wrong, given that our government has not and cannot see their books. If we cant audit, how can we have any control?

Here is a discussion of Ron Paul's proposed legislation to see the books.

http://www.ronpaul.com/legislation/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/

[Parker2112]

So increased demand is also "taxation without representation"?



This is the stupidest leap of logic I think you could have made from everything I said above. Really. Really dumb. :toast Congrats, you have topped yourself!

[RandomGuy]

2) Does this debasement of currency mean that it takes longer for the average person to earn enough money in an average job to buy a loaf of bread? (simple yes or no will do)



2) Not necessarily. But keep in mind, many citizens are on a fixed income that does not come from earnings.


So the answer is no.

If labor's earning power is unaffected, then why should someone who works care if inflation is present?

Productivity gains that more than outstrip inflation mean that buying power actually goes up.

If your contention is that we are all so much worse off than we were in 1920 when the dollar was "worth more", then why does it take so much less time for the average person to earn enough money to buy a loaf of bread in 2010, than in 1910?

Doesn't that mean that we are generally better off, despite this inflation?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What we are seeing is beyond inflation. Its hyperinflation.

And as for the Fed, they must be beholden to some extent if Paulsen had to resort to fear mongering as well: 55lOhYw8Lxk

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/currentinflation.asp

Hyperinflation? The data does not agree. Sure the economy is shit but that is hardly the feds fault exclusively.

As for the accountability to the public, sure. Thats the federal government's MO nowadays in pretty much everything and has been for a long time. He still has to report to an elected official.

[RandomGuy]

Show your work. Besides, the fact that you can regurgitate the stuff they hand you doesnt say much...let's see you apply what you know with some success.

Thus far, I havent seen anything but peremptory arrogance on your part.

Lets take score:
1) no clue on the Federal Reserve's operation
2) No clue on History
3) No opinion on any matter at issue
4) A continuing attempt to attack the speaker, rather than the statement.

Sounds like a run of the mill repug tactic...you might want to check you're approach. I give it the same grade I would give most of the repugs around here....

Yes, yes, I have no idea how the Fed operates, I have no idea as to the history of the Fed, and this is the very first time I have ever talked about this subject with a conspiracy theorist on the internet.

I have never read the lengthy articles, watched the scary youtubes, or talked about this for hours over the course of the last 10 years in various internet forums.

I do not have 50+ hours of graduate finance and economics courses, and I never got A's in them.

So it is up to you, noble internet crusader to fill my empty head with your your awesome ideas.

Preach on, brother. :rolleyes

That being out of the way...

[Parker2112]

And yet you haven't stated a single credible fact about the federal reserve system in this thread. Sounds like someone didnt get their money's worth!

[Parker2112]

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/currentinflation.asp

Hyperinflation? The data does not agree. Sure the economy is shit but that is hardly the feds fault exclusively.

As for the accountability to the public, sure. Thats the federal government's MO nowadays in pretty much everything and has been for a long time. He still has to report to an elected official.

The additional currency doesnt have an immediate affect on prices. Economic confidence delays the effects.

[Parker2112]

He still has to report to an elected official.

I can imagine a ton of scenarios where the tail wags the dog here. Which I think have been stated over and over through the years.

[RandomGuy]

This is the stupidest leap of logic I think you could have made from everything I said above. Really. Really dumb. :toast Congrats, you have topped yourself!

It was a simple question to clarify what it is you are trying to say.

The title of the thread is, in case you didn't notice,

"Inflation = Taxation"

The logical form is A = B

You acknowledged
"if increase in money supply, then inflation"
If C, then A

You also acknowledged
"if increase in demand for goods, then inflation"
If D, then A

Since you yourself made A = B, then simple logical substitution rules dicatate that If D, then A = B.

You did not qualify "some inflation = taxation"

My logic may be a bit rusty, but I can dig up that text book as well, to double check. Yes, I got an A in that class too. It was fun.

[RandomGuy]

I can imagine a ton of scenarios where the tail wags the dog here. Which I think have been stated over and over through the years.

I can imagine purple unicorns.

Does that make my imagination's exercise valid?

[RandomGuy]

And yet you haven't stated a single credible fact about the federal reserve system in this thread. Sounds like someone didnt get their money's worth!

I'm sorry, I missed where "stating credible facts" was listed as a prerequisite for participating. :lol

Do be so kind as to tell me what credible facts you want, and I will be happy to produce them.

[RandomGuy]

So you think they are intentionally causing harm?

Do you have some first-hand statements that shows they are intentionally "plucking" wealth from the middle class?


Still waiting on this one.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The additional currency doesnt have an immediate affect on prices. Economic confidence delays the effects.


I can imagine a ton of scenarios where the tail wags the dog here. Which I think have been stated over and over through the years.

This a history that covers decades. There is no empirical evidence to substantiate your claim or really anything at all.

The last major inflation period was triggered by OPEC 30 years ago.

I am sure there is quite a bit of back and forth but that works both ways.

[RandomGuy]

What we are seeing is beyond inflation. Its hyperinflation.

Really?

Please define "hyperinflation".

My limited understanding is that the loaf of bread I just bought seems to be stubbornly the same price it was last month.

Please do elaborate.

[RandomGuy]

The additional currency doesnt have an immediate affect on prices. Economic confidence delays the effects.

Tell us then, if the hyperinflation is not now, then when?

Be sure to be as specific as possible, so we have a testable date.

:corn:

Be sure to spend all of your money on gold, too. :lobt:

If you are convinced, put your money where your mouth is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Tell us then, if the hyperinflation is not now, then when?

Be sure to be as specific as possible, so we have a testable date.

:corn:

Be sure to spend all of your money on gold, too. :lobt:

If you are convinced, put your money where your mouth is.

Gold is so overvalued right now that typically volatile markets like commodities have a better prospectus.

[Parker2112]

This a history that covers decades. There is no empirical evidence to substantiate your claim or really anything at all.

The last major inflation period was triggered by OPEC 30 years ago.

I am sure there is quite a bit of back and forth but that works both ways.

Fail.

The dollar is worth about 97% less today than it was when the Fed Reserve act was passed. Do the research

[Parker2112]

this is exactly your MO, RG... the further you are from truth, the more material you post.

[RandomGuy]

Gold is so overvalued right now that typically volatile markets like commodities have a better prospectus.

If hyperinflation is in the offing, then gold is extremely undervalued at the moment.

Parker, since he seems to believe hyperinflation is imminent, should be buying all the gold he can get his hands on, and borrowing as much money as he possibly can to do it, since that debt will be super cheap in the future for the same reasons.

If Parker is not doing these things, we can safely assume he doesn't buy his own bullshit either.

[Parker2112]

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_Inflation.asp

[Parker2112]

this is exactly your MO, RG... the further you are from truth, the more material you post.

COme to think of it, that is the best time to STFU and listen. Take a hint.

[RandomGuy]

this is exactly your MO, RG... the further you are from truth, the more material you post.

Tell us then, if the hyperinflation is not now, then when?

Please define hyperinflation.

[RandomGuy]

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_Inflation.asp

So how long did it take an average wage-earner to earn enough money to buy a loaf of bread in 1913?

in 2010?

Do the research and get back to us champ.

[RandomGuy]

COme to think of it, that is the best time to STFU and listen. Take a hint.

You only wish that people would sheepishly accept everything you say as if it is manna from heaven.

I know when my boots are being pissed on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fail.

The dollar is worth about 97% less today than it was when the Fed Reserve act was passed. Do the research

Compared to what? Its a function of buying power and the cost of goods. I assume that by hyperinflation you are talking about major inflation above 8% or the like.

Can you show anything that indicates a correlation of the fed lending out tons of cash and hyperinflation? I know there was some 'hyperinflation' back in the late 70s but fed currency manipulation was not the cause of it. OPEC started price fixing.

And now you are starting to get shitty. Do you really want to go down that path?

[Parker2112]

Compared to what? Its a function of buying power and the cost of goods. I assume that by hyperinflation you are talking about major inflation above 8% or the like.

Can you show anything that indicates a correlation of the fed lending out tons of cash and hyperinflation? I know there was some 'hyperinflation' back in the late 70s but fed currency manipulation was not the cause of it. OPEC started price fixing.

And now you are starting to get shitty. Do you really want to go down that path?

No, I appreciate the intelligent challenge. I'll get back with you on this.

[Parker2112]

Compared to what? Its a function of buying power and the cost of goods. I assume that by hyperinflation you are talking about major inflation above 8% or the like.

Can you show anything that indicates a correlation of the fed lending out tons of cash and hyperinflation? I know there was some 'hyperinflation' back in the late 70s but fed currency manipulation was not the cause of it. OPEC started price fixing.

And now you are starting to get shitty. Do you really want to go down that path?

I will say this...what if our currency in circulation was tied to population, and the issuance was governed by set-in-stone deteminants, like the census and tax returns to the IRS, etc.

Wouldnt that prevent us from losing purchasing power?

Also, Im waiting for you to get back to me on the legislation to audit the fed, and how that contradicts your assertion that the Fed answers to the fed gov and the voters.

[Parker2112]

In fairness, your bit on on inflation really sucked.
Neither do you. It's like you skimmed the material 15 minutes ago then made yourself the teacher of it.

Your spirit of sharing is commendable, but you just barely learned the lesson yourself, Parkay. A little bit of woodshedding might have gone a long way.

You assume this winehole. I've read at least two books covering the subject, and seen tons of the ol Ron Paul propoganda (which is really the bulk of what I have talked about here), along with those two hour videos you wouldnt watch...and evidently all of this is worth more than 50 hours of graduate economics:rolleyes

[angrydude]

So the answer is no.

If labor's earning power is unaffected, then why should someone who works care if inflation is present?

Productivity gains that more than outstrip inflation mean that buying power actually goes up.

If your contention is that we are all so much worse off than we were in 1920 when the dollar was "worth more", then why does it take so much less time for the average person to earn enough money to buy a loaf of bread in 2010, than in 1910?

Doesn't that mean that we are generally better off, despite this inflation?



Because you can't save. And if you can't save you can't have growth.

[angrydude]

Compared to what? Its a function of buying power and the cost of goods. I assume that by hyperinflation you are talking about major inflation above 8% or the like.

Can you show anything that indicates a correlation of the fed lending out tons of cash and hyperinflation? I know there was some 'hyperinflation' back in the late 70s but fed currency manipulation was not the cause of it. OPEC started price fixing.

And now you are starting to get shitty. Do you really want to go down that path?



inflation is an increase in the money supply, not just an increase in CPI, just like a ruler is a tool to measure length, not length itself.

We are experiencing inflation right now, look at the stock market. Do you think the money flowing in there is from mom and pop and their life savings?

inflation is taxation, but not on your paycheck, but rather on your savings. It allows the first people who get the new money to buy products using tomorrow's money at today's prices. The difficulty is is that prices don't rise until the last person in your economy gets the new dollar.

can it's pros outweigh its cons? Maybe. But that also depends on who is getting the new money, how much inflation you're allowing, and what else your economy has going on.

[Parker2112]

inflation is an increase in the money supply, not just an increase in CPI, just like a ruler is a tool to measure length, not length itself.

We are experiencing inflation right now, look at the stock market. Do you think the money flowing in there is from mom and pop and their life savings?

inflation is taxation, but not on your paycheck, but rather on your savings. It allows the first people who get the new money to buy products using tomorrow's money at today's prices. The difficulty is is that prices don't rise until the last person in your economy gets the new dollar.

can it's pros outweigh its cons? Maybe. But that also depends on who is getting the new money, how much inflation you're allowing, and what else your economy has going on.

Ownership. Lock stock and barrel.

How do you feel about the fed then?

[RandomGuy]

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_Inflation.asp

So according to the graphic there "inflation since 1913" there has been 1923.23% inflation over the period 1913 to 2006 (93 years).

That is an average of 3.2% inflation per year.

Does that meet your definition of "hyperinflation"?

[RandomGuy]

Because you can't save. And if you can't save you can't have growth.

Savings rates are generally tied to inflation.

The interest rate the bank pays you on deposited funds mirrors the inflation rate, as does the return on any investment.

How exactly does inflation imply you "can't save"?

Indeed, there is some justification for believing that if there were NO inflation, there would be no investment.

[Parker2112]

So according to the graphic there "inflation since 1913" there has been 1923.23% inflation over the period 1913 to 2006 (93 years).

That is an average of 3.2% inflation per year.

Does that meet your definition of "hyperinflation"?

How tha hell would currency distributed in 2009-2010 be reflected in the inflation rates for each of the last 93 years?

I see you trying to twist shit in a dishonest manner, as usual.

Werent you the one with more graduate economics hours than the entire website combined? Please, man. Please.

[RandomGuy]

What we are seeing is beyond inflation. Its hyperinflation.



The additional currency doesnt have an immediate affect on prices. Economic confidence delays the effects.



The dollar is worth about 97% less today than it was when the Fed Reserve act was passed. Do the research



http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_Inflation.asp


So according to the graphic there "inflation since 1913" there has been 1923.23% inflation over the period 1913 to 2006 (93 years).

That is an average of 3.2% inflation per year.

Does that meet your definition of "hyperinflation"?


How tha hell would currency distributed in 2009-2010 be reflected in the inflation rates for each of the last 93 years?

I see you trying to twist shit in a dishonest manner, as usual.

Werent you the one with more graduate economics hours than the entire website combined? Please, man. Please.

Actually, that would be scott the economics professor. He has a PhD in economics I would assume.

But you still didn't answer my question.

Taken all together, what you are trying to say seems a tad vague. I have only asked questions to clarify what exactly it is you think/believe here, and have gotten precious little coherent response.

You have been complaining that today's dollars are so worthless compared to what they were when we started the Fed.

You have also railed against hyperinflation.

I took one of your own links, and found that 1923% inflation over 93 years is only 3% average inflation over that time. That level of inflation can't really be considered "hyperinflation" by anybody's measurement.

The question remains unanswered.

How do you define hyperinflation?

[Winehole23]

The inflation rates have been consistently been less than 5% since Bush 1 ie 20+ years.By inference, then, Fed inflation targeting works. The results of the last 20 years tell the tale, something like that?

I was sort of asking a question about the accuracy of Fed inflation targeting, not whether it has been successful overall. Assuming arguendo that this is so, I suppose it matters very little if Fed targeting has been inaccurate at the micro level as some suggest.

[Winehole23]

You assume this winehole.Your incessant handwaving at the putative evidence speaks otherwise.

I've read at least two books covering the subject, and seen tons of the ol Ron Paul propoganda (which is really the bulk of what I have talked about here), along with those two hour videos you wouldnt watch...and evidently all of this is worth more than 50 hours of graduate economics:rolleyesIt isn't worth a bucket of warm spit in the hands of an expositor like you.

RG's high-handedness at least has some kind of take behind it. All you do is dodge and weave behind your sources while castigating the idiocy of anyone who doesn't agree with their conclusions and pretending to know how they arrived at them.

Persuasive.

[RandomGuy]

By inference, then, Fed inflation targeting works. The results of the last 20 years tell the tale, something like that?

I was sort of asking a question about the accuracy of Fed inflation targeting, not whether it has been successful overall. Assuming arguendo that this is so, I suppose it matters very little if Fed targeting has been inaccurate at the micro level as some suggest.

The Fed has been very successful at keeping inflation within a narrow band.

It's current and more pressing problem is that of potential DE-flation. By some accounts, and I would agree, deflation would be much more horrendous.

I have not seen ANYONE credible predicting hyper-inflation. Possible? Sure, I guess. A rapid contraction of the money supply would short circuit that in a hurry if it really reared its ugly head.

Perhaps Parker could share some original thoughts on the matter to help clear up what exactly it is that he is freaked out about.

[RandomGuy]

RG's high-handedness at least has some kind of take behind it. All you do is dodge and weave behind your sources while castigating the idiocy of anyone who doesn't agree with their conclusions and pretending to know how they arrived at them.



My take as well, and that includes the bit about me being high-handed. I should be a bit less full of myself. Have to work on that.

[DarkReign]

My take as well, and that includes the bit about me being high-handed. I should be a bit less full of myself. Have to work on that.

Nah, fuck it. Being a know-it-all prick is a fun read.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

inflation is an increase in the money supply, not just an increase in CPI, just like a ruler is a tool to measure length, not length itself.

We are experiencing inflation right now, look at the stock market. Do you think the money flowing in there is from mom and pop and their life savings?

inflation is taxation, but not on your paycheck, but rather on your savings. It allows the first people who get the new money to buy products using tomorrow's money at today's prices. The difficulty is is that prices don't rise until the last person in your economy gets the new dollar.

can it's pros outweigh its cons? Maybe. But that also depends on who is getting the new money, how much inflation you're allowing, and what else your economy has going on.

the money supply can remain static and the CPI can increase and that would result in inflation. Inflation may very well be a system of measurement but ratios are still scalars and thus numbers. We can get more in depth in numbers theory if you would like.

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

An empirical example of this is the inflation in 1978. That was a direct result of OPEC raising oil prices and very little to do with the fed lending money.

Furthermore nobody saves shit in todays economy. While inflation impacts current capital it does the same for current debt. Only really rich people save in any serious amount. Everyone in debt has an easier time of it.

It also does not suddenly kick in once a threshold is met. Each additional dollar added has an incremental effect. Its called integration.

Thats simple supply in demand. One person spending $1 is an increase in demand as are 4 or 6 or 10,000. They are additive.

We already have listed the inflation rates for this year in this thread. You're assertion on stock values is also less than wholisitc. Sure the money dumped in the economy has an effect but its not the total effect.

[Parker2112]

Your incessant handwaving at the putative evidence speaks otherwise.
It isn't worth a bucket of warm spit in the hands of an expositor like you.

RG's high-handedness at least has some kind of take behind it. All you do is dodge and weave behind your sources while castigating the idiocy of anyone who doesn't agree with their conclusions and pretending to know how they arrived at them.

Persuasive.

I dont give a damn about persuading you. Its enough for me to point out that you dont know shit about the area. Then maybe you will inform yourself and teach us something.

[Parker2112]

The Fed has been very successful at keeping inflation within a narrow band.



And keeping us in a boom bust cycle that dips about every ten years.

[Parker2112]

My take as well, and that includes the bit about me being high-handed. I should be a bit less full of myself. Have to work on that.

just respect the process. Give the issues and the views some chance to take form before squashing them, including your own. Let the argument breathe before trying to take the wheel. The holes will shine through soon enough...

[Parker2112]

the money supply can remain static and the CPI can increase and that would result in inflation. Inflation may very well be a system of measurement but ratios are still scalars and thus numbers. We can get more in depth in numbers theory if you would like.

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

An empirical example of this is the inflation in 1978. That was a direct result of OPEC raising oil prices and very little to do with the fed lending money.

Furthermore nobody saves shit in todays economy. While inflation impacts current capital it does the same for current debt. Only really rich people save in any serious amount. Everyone in debt has an easier time of it.

It also does not suddenly kick in once a threshold is met. Each additional dollar added has an incremental effect. Its called integration.

Thats simple supply in demand. One person spending $1 is an increase in demand as are 4 or 6 or 10,000. They are additive.

We already have listed the inflation rates for this year in this thread. You're assertion on stock values is also less than wholisitc. Sure the money dumped in the economy has an effect but its not the total effect.

So where is your rebuttal on the control over the fed issue? If we cant audit, do you now back away from your original criticism on my take?

[Winehole23]

just respect the process. Give the issues and the views some chance to take form before squashing them, including your own. Let the argument breathe before trying to take the wheel. Too bad you can't hold the handlebars straight. Good luck attaching those training wheels.


The holes will shine through soon enough...Sure enough, the holes are already visible. Not that you'll ever acknowledge them...

[RandomGuy]

What we are seeing is beyond inflation. Its hyperinflation.



The additional currency doesnt have an immediate affect on prices. Economic confidence delays the effects.



The dollar is worth about 97% less today than it was when the Fed Reserve act was passed. Do the research



http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_Inflation.asp


So according to the graphic there "inflation since 1913" there has been 1923.23% inflation over the period 1913 to 2006 (93 years).

That is an average of 3.2% inflation per year.

Does that meet your definition of "hyperinflation"?


How tha hell would currency distributed in 2009-2010 be reflected in the inflation rates for each of the last 93 years?

I see you trying to twist shit in a dishonest manner, as usual.




You still didn't answer my question.

Taken all together, what you are trying to say seems a tad vague. I have only asked questions to clarify what exactly it is you think/believe here, and have no coherent response.

You have been complaining that today's dollars are so worthless compared to what they were when we started the Fed.

You have also railed against hyperinflation.

I took one of your own links, and found that 1923% inflation over 93 years is only 3% average inflation over that time. That level of inflation can't really be considered "hyperinflation" by anybody's measurement.

The question remains unanswered.

How do you define hyperinflation?

Is it 1923% over 93 years (3.2%)? or we can call it even at 2000% inflation at 100 years (3% average yearly)

Or was this not the hyperinflation you were talking about?
Is the hyperinflation in the future? far future?
Clarify a bit for us.

[Parker2112]

Tango with this article:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/are-we-heading-hyperinflationary-storm

the point:

I have to be blunt here: if the US Dollar DOES NOT bounce soon, a hyper-inflationary scenario is INCREASINGLY likely in the US.

The fed worries people all over the spectrum

[Parker2112]

Originally Posted by Parker2112 http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4681725#post4681725)

What we are seeing is beyond inflation. Its hyperinflation.

Should have been "what we are going to see."

[Parker2112]

then again, if you trust me for economic advice, you deserve what you get.

[RandomGuy]

Tango with this article:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/are-we-heading-hyperinflationary-storm

the point:


The fed worries people all over the spectrum

So let me get this straight.

The guy selling subscriptions to his quarterly news letter for $250 bucks a pop, and who runs his own website and investment fund based on his theory of coming economic catastrophe, is predicting an economic catastrophy?

Astonishing. :wow

Sorry, but my scam-dar is starting to ping.

Not that what he is saying is wrong, simply because it is in his best interest for people to pile into his investment fund out of naked fear, but given that his prediction is something of an outlier in the spectrum of predictions, I will take a wait and see attitude.

[Parker2112]

wont we all

[RandomGuy]

What we are going to see is beyond inflation. Its hyperinflation.

As I said before, if you truly believe that, then you should be borrowing as much money as you can get your hands on, and buying gold with it.

If you aren't doing that, then stop pissing on my boots and telling me its raining.

The Fed is just fine. It does what it is supposed to do and that is keep the financial system fairly stable. It is allowed to continue to do so, because that is generally perceived to be what is in everybody's best interest.

It's actions are put under a microscope by everybody and their dog, so the notion that it is somehow doing things in secret behind everybody's back strikes me as a tad disingenuous.

[Parker2112]

Maybe it is just the doom-sayers

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31450173

[Parker2112]

As I said before, if you truly believe that, then you should be borrowing as much money as you can get your hands on, and buying gold with it.

If you aren't doing that, then stop pissing on my boots and telling me its raining.

The Fed is just fine.

How the hell would you know? you dont know shit about the fed from what I can recall...

As a matter of fact, please cite to a single intelligent point you made regarding the fed on this thread. Anywhere over the course of this first 4 pages in all your many drivelous posts, just 1 intelligent comment on the fed, and I will begin to take you seriously on this subject.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So where is your rebuttal on the control over the fed issue? If we cant audit, do you now back away from your original criticism on my take?

WE do not audit the fed. The legislative and executive branch of our government can if they choose to. This notion that the fed is some rogue agency unanswerable to anyone like people claim the CIA is really groundless.

Congress chose to not audit the fed much to Ron Paul's chagrin. That does not mean that the fed does whatever it wants, its just means that congress does not intervene.

Now if you want to argue that Congress and the presidency is not representative of we the people then that is completely a different matter.

What you are getting at is Ron Paul's politics.

I said most of this before btw.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FWIW, here is the CPI historical data.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

[Parker2112]

WE do not audit the fed. The legislative and executive branch of our government can if they choose to. This notion that the fed is some rogue agency unanswerable to anyone like people claim the CIA is really groundless.

Congress chose to not audit the fed much to Ron Paul's chagrin. That does not mean that the fed does whatever it wants, its just means that congress does not intervene.

Now if you want to argue that Congress and the presidency is not representative of we the people then that is completely a different matter.

What you are getting at is Ron Paul's politics.

I said most of this before btw.

But if Congress cant do it without additional legislation, I dont agree with your conclusion. They ARE rogue till the people have some transparency, not unlike any corrupt segment of govt (which is not limited to the Fed). And they do answer to one thing, the same thing that our politicians answer to....$. Which may be why we cant get that legislation to pass.

[RandomGuy]

How the hell would you know? you dont know shit about the fed from what I can recall...

As a matter of fact, please cite to a single intelligent point you made regarding the fed on this thread. Anywhere over the course of this first 4 pages in all your many drivelous posts, just 1 intelligent comment on the fed, and I will begin to take you seriously on this subject.

:lmao

You will have to pardon me if I don't really let Sodium-Floride-Boy to define what an "intelligent comment" is.

Everybody who really bothers reading this knows that your definition of "intelligent comment" to be one that agrees with you.

By the by, "drivelous" is not a word. -ous is an adjective suffix, and "drivel" is a noun. Yeah, I went there.

[RandomGuy]

Since we are debating each others knowledge base, perhaps you can double check my math Parker.

I said 1923% inflation over 93 years comes out to 3.2% inflation, on average, per year.

Is that correct? If not, why?

Pop quiz, hotshot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But if Congress cant do it without additional legislation, I dont agree with your conclusion. They ARE rogue till the people have some transparency, not unlike any corrupt segment of govt (which is not limited to the Fed). And they do answer to one thing, the same thing that our politicians answer to....$. Which may be why we cant get that legislation to pass.

They also have to report to the presidency. Congress always has to pass legislation and hold special sessions to do things like that. If you want to get mad then get mad at the Obama administration.

You are just regurgitating Ron Paul's blog.

[Parker2112]

:lmao

You will have to pardon me if I don't really let Sodium-Floride-Boy to define what an "intelligent comment" is.

Everybody who really bothers reading this knows that your definition of "intelligent comment" to be one that agrees with you.

By the by, "drivelous" is not a word. -ous is an adjective suffix, and "drivel" is a noun. Yeah, I went there.

The lack of a quote speaks volumes. The rest equates to beating around the bush. An RG specialty.

[Parker2112]

They also have to report to the presidency. Congress always has to pass legislation and hold special sessions to do things like that. If you want to get mad then get mad at the Obama administration.

You are just regurgitating Ron Paul's blog.


1st: You are more informed in this area than anyone I have seen post here, including myself.

2nd: I think you need to fully account for the power of the Fed to "wag the dog." They can make or break a presidency. I dont think this is anything new. That was the point of this. I would like to get your full take on the video's implications.


55lOhYw8Lxk

3rd: The federal government needs legislation to audit the Fed ANYTIME, not just in special session. That assertion is misleading, and does little to diminish the original point

4th: The other side of the coin here, and probably more important than increasing money supply, is decreasing money supply. I have not been able to find data on retraction of currency, either domestic or global. However, this would be just as critical to create boom/bust cycles, and would necessarily need to be part of the discussion.

5th: You two proponents of the Fed are far from addressing all the issues here. The elephant in the room: Why must we borrow every dollar put in circulation? Why not simply issue currency backed by FF&C of the US? The tax revenue goes straight to interest on debt, and every dollar in circ is borrowed...can you explain this necessity? Why not greenbacks?

6th: Currency retraction. I havent been able to verify these numbers, nor discount. But they were given in on eof the sources on the Fed thread. See what you think:


compare:
1. from 07-08, 40% of the world's wealth was retracted.
2. during the great depression: 33% of the currency was retracted.
The point: these [economic depressions] are engineered.

[RandomGuy]

Why must we borrow every dollar put in circulation?

Because that is one of the mechanisms of our currency. Why should we care about the mechanics, as long as it works?


Why not simply issue currency backed by FF&C of the US?

Treasury bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the US.


The tax revenue goes straight to interest on debt, and every dollar in circ is borrowed...can you explain this necessity?

It is a fiat currency.

Why not greenbacks?

No reason. But then, we could just as easily ask "why not purple unicorns?".

In all of this handwaving, you have yet to point out why all of this is really bad.

Yes, it is debt. Debt is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is simply the tool used.

If you want to replace it, you will end up replacing it with some different tool, with its own drawbacks and advantages.

What would you have us do?

[RandomGuy]

Since we are debating each others knowledge base, perhaps you can double check my math Parker.

I said 1923% inflation over 93 years comes out to 3.2% inflation, on average, per year.

Is that correct? If not, why?

Pop quiz, hotshot.

Still waiting on an answer to this one. I may have been sneaky and put in a mistake just to see if you caught it.

[RandomGuy]

6th: Currency retraction. I havent been able to verify these numbers, nor discount. But they were given in on eof the sources on the Fed thread. See what you think:


compare:
1. from 07-08, 40% of the world's wealth was retracted.
2. during the great depression: 33% of the currency was retracted.
The point: these [economic depressions] are engineered.



Engineered? By whom? Deliberately or accidentally?

Do tell.

[Winehole23]

Obviously, Parker's hoping that Fuzzy will do his homework for him.

[Parker2112]

RG: the largest banking interests in the world. Represented on the Federal Open Market Committee, and appointed by the pres to the federal reserve Board of Governors. And who work closely with international banking interests to make policy, through orgs such as the Bank for International Settlements, World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund).

That alone should disturb every American.


"The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching [plan], nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.

The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.

Each central bank... Sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Carroll Quigley, Professor, Georgetown University

WH: I think data on addition/retraction of currency would be VERY hard to find. I also think that even if you did, the credibility of the info would be a concern.

However, I do know of one printed source that would probably make for a good start, I just dont have time to pick up any new materials at the moment.

[Parker2112]

Ron Paul's question makes Ben Bernake's voice quiver

8pEiLHnjAiw

[Parker2112]

RG, this guy makes the case that you should have. Then he gets obliterated:
fa6X7GCZes0

[RandomGuy]

RG, this guy makes the case that you should have. Then he gets obliterated:


Perhaps you can double check my math Parker.

I said 1923% inflation over 93 years comes out to 3.2% inflation, on average, per year.

Is that correct? If not, why?

[Parker2112]

Yes that is correct. Will inflation perform on par with that average as the currency is expanded at present?

If not, why does this 93 year avg matter? Except to show that since the Federal Reserve Act 93 years ago, our Dollar has done nothing but lose ground? And to show that those in power over currency are sending our currency to shitsville? How has gold done in the same timeframe?

Your on the wrong track. You prove the Fed Reserve is inept. Unless Im missing something.

[Parker2112]

Worldwide Hyperinflation Race (http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2010/10/worldwide-hyperinflation-race.html)In the USA and Europe, there is massive inflation to bail out the banksters. Aiming for stable exchange rates, other countries are also inflating their money.

Politicians in other countries value their exports to the USA. As dollar inflation occurs, prices of non-US goods rise relative to US-produced goods. To keep exports at the same level, the other country must also inflate.

Consider a factory owner in China. The factory exports to the USA, receiving dollars. The factory owner trades his dollars with China's government for newly-printed yuan. China's government merely holds the dollars, rather than buying tangible goods. The net effect is that the USA exports inflation to China. In effect, China's politicians are subsidizing the banksters in the USA.

Why are foreign bureaucrats so eager to export to the USA, in exchange for a piece of paper? That can't continue forever.

Foreign politicians are eager to manipulate exchange rates. When politicians do this, currency speculators say "Woohoo! Free money!" It's like the government is writing currency speculators a check, when politicians try to manipulate currency exchange rates.

How does inflation subsidize the banksters? Suppose the bank owns a $1M mortgage on a house currently worth $400k. That's a $600k loss. If there's 100% inflation, then it's a $1M mortgage on a house currently worth $800k, for a loss of only $200k. If there's 200% inflation, then the bank can sell the foreclosed house with money left over. In this manner, inflation helps bail out insolvent banks. The loans can be repaid with devalued money; the assets backing the loan is worth more.

The foreclosure process takes a year or two. Over time, inflation helps bail out the banksters. The bank is borrowing at the Fed Funds Rate of 0.25%, while inflation helps underwater loans become more solvent.

Banks don't care about the actual inflation rate. They borrow at the Fed Funds Rate and make loans, profiting from leverage and the interest rate spread and the yield curve. Right now, the banksters are borrowing at the Fed Funds Rate and buying Treasury debt. That's the reason the banks are make huge profits while the rest of the country is stuck in a recession/depression.

The current situation is pretty ridiculous. The USA is inflating to bail out the banksters. Other countries are inflating to keep stable exchange rates with the US dollar. It's a worldwide hyperinflation race.

http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/...tion-race.html (http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2010/10/worldwide-hyperinflation-race.html)

[RandomGuy]

Perhaps you can double check my math Parker.

I said 1923% inflation over 93 years comes out to 3.2% inflation, on average, per year.

Is that correct?


Yes that is correct.

Can you show me the math? or are you guessing?

I get 3.2300717...%

It is an important time value of money concept.

[Parker2112]

Perhaps you can double check my math Parker.

I said 1923% inflation over 93 years comes out to 3.2% inflation, on average, per year.

Is that correct?



Can you show me the math? or are you guessing?

I get 3.2300717...%

It is an important time value of money concept.

Im not really interested in your math. Make your point. If you have one. Try to keep it on point.

[Parker2112]

The narrative is not new.

K4cYQwiqpjM

[RandomGuy]

Yes that is correct. Will inflation perform on par with that average as the currency is expanded at present?

If not, why does this 93 year avg matter? Except to show that since the Federal Reserve Act 93 years ago, our Dollar has done nothing but lose ground? And to show that those in power over currency are sending our currency to shitsville? How has gold done in the same timeframe?

Your on the wrong track. You prove the Fed Reserve is inept. Unless Im missing something.

The real price of gold, since it was freed from currency didn't change all that much since 1971.

I took a notional $1,000 and invested it in gold on Jan 1, 1980, then mirrored that investment in Ford stock on the same date.

As of about 2009, the gold would have been worth about 2,400, the Ford stock, assuming dividend reinvestments, would have been worth $57,000. (note: this is from memory of somethign I did a year or two ago, but the amounts are at least in the ball park)

Current factors point to de-flation being more probable than hyper-inflation. We have massively increased the scary money supply and have seen little to no inflation. Give it another few years of little to no inflation, and your "booga booga booga, look at the scary Fed with its magic money making powers, just pushing us to hyperinflation" schtick will be funny. For that reason, I am subscribing to this thread, just like I did with the oil thread, and the "McCain will win big" threads.

If you are still here, and we have not seen the hyperinflation you are promising, we can assume you were full of shit.

If you are right, we will all have a lot more important things to be worrying about. I'll take the time to come up and admit you were right though. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Im not really interested in your math. Make your point. If you have one. Try to keep it on point.

My ultimate point is that you don't understand the underlying concepts well enough to reproduce a simple time value of money equation.

The calculation I am asking you to show is a VERY simple one.

I will give you one last chance to ferret 3.2...% out of 1923% total for 93 years.

If you can't do the math, just say so.

I would assert that much of your concern about this is based on ignorance, and your inability to demonstrate the mastery of the most basic time value of money concepts by doing ONE calculation is fair proof of that assertion.

That does not mean that your claims are invalid, but it does allow us to wonder if there is something you are leaving out in your arguments, out of simple ignorance.

[Parker2112]

I cant promise hyperinflation. You cant promise it wont happen. The immediate forecast calls for deflation, certainly. For those that predict hyperinflation, they claim it will take several years to materialize. I have said myself that the increase in currency doesnt create immediate inflation.

Even if you claim these are all scare tactics, it would serve your civic duty to investigate, and to know the nuts and bolts of the Feds practices, including fractional reserve lending, by which Banks printing currency can make massive profits. It supports the value of the position.

And even if the fed is not sinister in its intent, why would we voluntarily pay this interest when our treasury can do the job INTEREST FREE? No one seems to be knowledgable enough to answer this question.

I dont have expertise in economics. Most of my info comes from Ron Paul's commentary. I am a Libertarian. However, I myself am deeply disturbed by histories warnings on centralized banking which is not controlled by the people. Wait for it...

[Parker2112]

My ultimate point is that you don't understand the underlying concepts well enough to reproduce a simple time value of money equation.

The calculation I am asking you to show is a VERY simple one.

I will give you one last chance to ferret 3.2...% out of 1923% total for 93 years.

If you can't do the math, just say so.

I would assert that much of your concern about this is based on ignorance, and your inability to demonstrate the mastery of the most basic time value of money concepts by doing ONE calculation is fair proof of that assertion.

That does not mean that your claims are invalid, but it does allow us to wonder if there is something you are leaving out in your arguments, out of simple ignorance.

You assume too much. I dont give a fuck about making your point for you. Im not interested in your aside, because generally thats all you serve up is asides...

[Wild Cobra]

When is Parker not full of shit?

I wasn't following this thread, but is that 1913 Ford being compared to cars of today, saying that they should cost so much?

Ridiculous. No pollution standards then, far less taxes, less worker benefits, etc. Today's cars would be more affordable than back then. because of technology if it wasn't for costs built in that were not then.

Also...

I agree with the 3.23%, and the long term stock market does beat inflation and gold.

[Wild Cobra]

You assume too much. I dont give a fuck about making your point for you. Im not interested in your aside, because generally thats all you serve up is asides...
So what is your point?

[Parker2112]

Why must we borrow every dollar put in circulation?

Because that is one of the mechanisms of our currency. Why should we care about the mechanics, as long as it works?

IT WORKS TO PRODUCE MASSIVE DEBT DUMBASS!


Why not simply issue currency backed by FF&C of the US?

Treasury bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the US.

ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHY DONT YOU.

The tax revenue goes straight to interest on debt, and every dollar in circ is borrowed...can you explain this necessity?

It is a fiat currency.

WRONG. THE DEBT MONEY SYSTEM EXPLAINS THE PRACTICE, BUT IT IS NOT A NECESSITY.

Why not greenbacks?

No reason. But then, we could just as easily ask "why not purple unicorns?".

In all of this handwaving, you have yet to point out why all of this is really bad.

Yes, it is debt. Debt is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is simply the tool used.

If you want to replace it, you will end up replacing it with some different tool, with its own drawbacks and advantages.

What would you have us do?

HOW ABOUT GREENBACKS CAN BE MANAGED BY OUR GOVT, IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE, AND WITHOUT PUTTING FUTURE GENERATIONS UNDER SUCH A MASSIVE DEBT LOAD TO BIG BANKS?

THE FACT THAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE EFFECT OF THE DEBT MONEY SYSTEM SAYS SO MUCH. MAYBE YOU CAN FIGURE THE TIME VALUE ON OUR TOTAL EXPORTS TO TUNISIA IN 1997 NEXT, TO DEFLECT FROM WHAT YOU DONT KNOW....

[Parker2112]

You lose.


Originally Posted by RandomGuy http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4684875#post4684875)

Why must we borrow every dollar put in circulation?

Because that is one of the mechanisms of our currency. Why should we care about the mechanics, as long as it works?

IT WORKS TO PRODUCE MASSIVE DEBT DUMBASS!

[Parker2112]

1 more time: You lose.


Originally Posted by RandomGuy http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4684875#post4684875)

Why must we borrow every dollar put in circulation?

Because that is one of the mechanisms of our currency. Why should we care about the mechanics, as long as it works?

IT WORKS TO PRODUCE MASSIVE DEBT DUMBASS!

[Parker2112]

uno mas:
You lose.


Originally Posted by RandomGuy http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4684875#post4684875)

Why must we borrow every dollar put in circulation?

Because that is one of the mechanisms of our currency. Why should we care about the mechanics, as long as it works?

IT WORKS TO PRODUCE MASSIVE DEBT DUMBASS!

[Parker2112]

Please let me finish:
You lose.


Originally Posted by RandomGuy http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4684875#post4684875)

Why must we borrow every dollar put in circulation?

Because that is one of the mechanisms of our currency. Why should we care about the mechanics, as long as it works?

IT WORKS TO PRODUCE MASSIVE DEBT DUMBASS!

[Parker2112]

calculate the time value of your annihilation here today. Check my math on your dumbassery.

[RandomGuy]

I cant promise hyperinflation. You cant promise it wont happen. The immediate forecast calls for deflation, certainly. For those that predict hyperinflation, they claim it will take several years to materialize. I have said myself that the increase in currency doesnt create immediate inflation.

Even if you claim these are all scare tactics, it would serve your civic duty to investigate, and to know the nuts and bolts of the Feds practices, including fractional reserve lending, by which Banks printing currency can make massive profits. It supports the value of the position.

And even if the fed is not sinister in its intent, why would we voluntarily pay this interest when our treasury can do the job INTEREST FREE? No one seems to be knowledgable enough to answer this question.

I dont have expertise in economics. Most of my info comes from Ron Paul's commentary. I am a Libertarian. However, I myself am deeply disturbed by histories warnings on centralized banking which is not controlled by the people. Wait for it...

I will take that as an admission that you can't calculate the number. Fair enough.

It is:

19.23 ^1/93

We voluntarily pay the interest, because it provides a "risk-free" return, and forms the basis of a financial system.

Hyper-inflation is a mild possibility, but remote. It is actually easier for the Fed to reign that in than it is to curb de-flation.

As I have said before the Fed operates under a microscope. The second that anyone even got a whiff of some conspiracy to milk people out of money for the benefit of the people running the thing, the US government would step in and break its neck. That Sword of Damocles has hung, and will continue to hang over it.

Could it be used for evil purposes? I guess.

But that would not jive with everything I have read from people who have actually worked there.

[Parker2112]

Because maybe you missed it:
You lose.


Originally Posted by RandomGuy http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4684875#post4684875)

Why must we borrow every dollar put in circulation?

Because that is one of the mechanisms of our currency. Why should we care about the mechanics, as long as it works?

IT WORKS TO PRODUCE MASSIVE DEBT DUMBASS!

[Parker2112]

Truth is, we borrow our currency because banking interests bought their way into the loop.

Many claim it is unconstitutional, and only resulted from bribes to congress.

We could have the treasury print greenbacks all day, every day, debt free. This might rid us of boom/bust cycles.

And the fact that no one even understands the system leads me to believe the narrative is right on the money.

[RandomGuy]

1 more time: You lose.


uno mas:
You lose.


Please let me finish:
You lose.

:rolleyes

One of the first Rules of the Internet is that declaring victory in your own thread is a full admission of loss, not to mention apallingly lame.

:toast

[Winehole23]

We could have the treasury print greenbacks all day, every day, debt free. This might rid us of boom/bust cycles.And you call us naive.:rollin

[RandomGuy]

I dont have expertise in economics. Most of my info comes from Ron Paul's commentary.

Sigworthy. WIN.

[Parker2112]

:rolleyes

One of the first Rules of the Internet is that declaring victory in your own thread is a full admission of loss, not to mention apallingly lame.

:toast

You could have easily said: "youre right, I didnt know that there is a debt free alternative to borrowing to produce currency! Thanks Parker!" And then you would have been admitting that you are just like 90+% of folks: in the dark.

[RandomGuy]

We could have the treasury print greenbacks all day, every day, debt free. This might rid us of boom/bust cycles.

Why don't you ask Mr. Mugabe how that worked for him?

[Parker2112]

And you call us naive.:rollin

How do you think we operated before the fed? And many say that the banking interests worked against the economy prior to the Fed Res Act to create panics, just so they could step in and seize control through paid politicians.

When were greenbacks used, WH? And what did our pres say at the time?

[RandomGuy]

And you call us naive.:rollin

Hell, that's going in my siggy too. :lol

[Parker2112]

Why don't you ask Mr. Mugabe how that worked for him?

So US currency is on par with Zimbabwe? Faith in our currency is on par with that of a third world nation?

Dont bother answering that. Just quit. Just stop.

[Parker2112]

Hell, that's going in my siggy too. :lol

Just be sure to add this, then people will think you have a fucking clue:

Abe Lincoln
The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity. The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity.

... the privilege of creating and issuing money... is the government's greatest creative opportunity... [saving] the taxpayers immense sums of money

[Parker2112]

Thomas Jefferson
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

- I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.

[RandomGuy]

So US currency is on par with Zimbabwe? Faith in our currency is on par with that of a third world nation?

Dont bother answering that. Just quit. Just stop.

The fail is that Mr. Mugabe did exactly as you proposed. He printed and printed and printed, and didn't issue any scary "Fed debt".

The US isn't on par with Zimbabwe, precisely because we didn't do as you suggested, dumbass. :rolleyes

[Winehole23]

So then, issuing greenbacks didn't prevent the boom/bust cycle or significantly reduce the power of the money interest.

[Parker2112]

The fail is that Mr. Mugabe did exactly as you proposed. He printed and printed and printed, and didn't issue any scary "Fed debt".

The US isn't on par with Zimbabwe, precisely because we didn't do as you suggested, dumbass. :rolleyes

So the only difference in the US dollar and zimbabwe currency is the mechanism by which it issues? History, wealth, power, influence dont have any affect on currency then?

OMG. OMG. MAke it stop. hay-soos.
sweet jesus.

[Parker2112]

Edison
If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People.

[Wild Cobra]

And you call us naive.:rollin
Isn't that what happened in Germany?

This is only was in essence, only worth the paper it was printed on within 5 years after it's printing:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/Reichsbanknote1000front150dpi.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/Reichsbanknote1000back150dpi.jpg

stills looks cool in the frame on my wall though.

[Parker2112]

So then, issuing greenbacks didn't prevent the boom/bust cycle or significantly reduce the power of the money interest.

dont take my word for it. But anytime the power to create currency is in the power of the people, it is going to be under siege. It is much too valuable to not be. The interest earned from loaning the govt many is exponential.

By analogy, would you hand over the nation because it will always be subject to attack?

[Parker2112]

And so the debate ends for now. I still like this one the most

Edison
If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People.

[Winehole23]

The interest earned from loaning the govt many is exponential.Can you quantify it? How much does our currency cost us in principal and interest?

[Parker2112]

Can you quantify it? How much does our currency cost us in principal and interest?

We arent talking costs. We are talking bank earnings, reulting from the debt money system. Banks who loan to the govt can continue to loan based on the fractional reserve lending scheme, and in the "Fed is selling us out" thread I cited 1000%+ interest, not paid by the govt, but by the govt interest paid (bond rate)+all the other loans that they then can legally make. That is the basis for me saying that the currency is much too valuable to leave in the hands of the people.

So bond rate on the initially loan, then they print/digitize money, and under the fractional reserve lending system they must keep only a certain percentage on hand, the rest of which they can lend to whoever at whatever interest rate they choose (based on risk), then again they can loan any loan proceeds which come in as deposits, etc...that is why the process results in exponential interest for big banks.

This is why only big banks benefit, because this loop only includes the banks which loan to the fed govt

It is the grandest money making operation that I have ever begun to understand.

[Winehole23]

Too bad you can't even begin to explain it. That was clear as mud.

[Parker2112]

Too bad you can't even begin to explain it. That was clear as mud.


Not really. That is exactly what happens.

By loaning to the govt, big banks get to 1. print currency (in the amt loaned to the govt)[interest at bond rate], which they can then 2. make loans[more interest earned], and when loaned money is deposited by debtors they get to 3. loan part of that money again[more interest earned].

Interest stacking up at every level.

And keep in mind that this money is pulled out of thin air. So they make astronomical profits...from their own asses.

[Parker2112]

complete pyramid scheme.

[Parker2112]

Too bad you can't even begin to explain it. That was clear as mud.


Henry Ford
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

Also, see above in red.

[Winehole23]

Not really. That is exactly what happens.

By loaning to the govt, big banks get to 1. print currency (in the amt loaned to the govt)[interest at bond rate], which they can then 2. make loans[more interest earned], and when loaned money is deposited by debtors they get to 3. loan part of that money again[more interest earned].

Interest stacking up at every level.

And keep in mind that this money is pulled out of thin air. So they make astronomical profits...from their own asses.Federal Reserve banks, you mean. How many of those are there? And please, show us the astronomical profits.

[Parker2112]

the important part (fractional reserve system): they only have to keep a fraction of loaned money on reserve, so the more they keep on deposit the more they make.

[Parker2112]

Federal Reserve banks, you mean. How many of those are there? And please, show us the astronomical profits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011103892.html

also consider that the reserve is sending that printed money to bailout banks and wall st., and you see the whole picture: the Fed ensuring that the richest banks get the benefit of bailout money (influencing policy from top) over the citizens
(who will pay for those transactions through inflation/indirect taxation).

[Winehole23]

I understand what fractional reserve banking is. So does RG.

[Winehole23]

BTW, Fed profits are returned to the US treasury. b

[Parker2112]

I understand what fractional reserve banking is. So does RG.

If you truly understand it, then why are you in disbelief over the profit potential?

[Parker2112]

BTW, Fed profits are returned to the US treasury. b

And yet Congress cant see the books.

[Winehole23]

I'm not in disbelief. It's you I'm skeptical of.

[Parker2112]

I'm not in disbelief. It's you I'm skeptical of.

you are waiting for me to stumble. Its all good.

[Parker2112]

If you care to impart some knowledge on the topic, I would be delighted. I am still waiting on Fuzzy to come back, because so far that is the only poster to have any credible input.

[Winehole23]

And yet Congress cant see the books.I don't like it either, but that was a feature of the design. The Fed was designed to be resistant to political pressures.

[Parker2112]

I don't like it either, but that was a feature of the design. The Fed was designed to be resistant to political pressures.

thats something I didnt know. Wish you would speak up more often.

[Winehole23]

you are waiting for me to stumble. Its all good.Not at all. I'm still waiting for your argument to get off the floor.

[Parker2112]

and yet it certainly sounds like a stated excuse to keep underhanded dealings in the dark.

[Winehole23]

^^^More handwaving.

[Parker2112]

I understand what fractional reserve banking is. So does RG.

Uh, actually, you misspoke...


Originally Posted by RandomGuy http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4684875#post4684875)

Why must we borrow every dollar put in circulation?

Because that is one of the mechanisms of our currency. Why should we care about the mechanics, as long as it works?

[Parker2112]

Maybe he understands the details, but not the implications.

[Winehole23]

Invidious. It's overreading to take RG's rhetorical question as an admission of ignorance.

[Parker2112]

And while you guys heckle the notion of greenbacks, North Dakota has implemented its own currency to the tune of:


Unemployment rate, North Dakota (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.google.com/publicdata%3Fds%3Dusunemployment%26met%3Dunemploym ent_rate%26idim%3Dstate:ST380000%26dl%3Den%26hl%3D en%26q%3Dnorth%2Bdakota%2Bunemployment%2Brate&rct=j&sa=X&ei=GVy_TP2oJIL68AaK-MW7Bg&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQ4wEwAA&q=north+dakota+unemployment+rate&usg=AFQjCNGmpi0_5nRdTxx9BGtNsUX0DkSzlA)

http://www.google.com/chart?cht=lxy&chd=s:ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabceeghijklmnopqrs tuvwxyz012345679,cZehnonicjfeYYefnmmicjddZXZgljlec jggbYdj011tpvopjilrxvxmgojj&chds=0.0,1.0&chs=160x101&chco=287bf5ff&chls=2.0,1.0,0.0&chxt=x,r,x,r&chxs=0,333333,0,0,tl,333333|1,333333,0,-1,tl,333333|2,000000,11.5,-1,tl,333333|3,000000,11.5,-1,tl,333333&chxtc=0,2|1,2|2,0|3,0&chm=h,cccccc,0,1,1,1|h,cccccc,0,0.5,1,-1&chxp=2,0,82|3,5,50,95&chxl=0:|2005|2010|1:|0%25|3%25|6%25|2:|2005|2010|3 :|0%25|3%25|6%25 (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.google.com/publicdata%3Fds%3Dusunemployment%26met%3Dunemploym ent_rate%26idim%3Dstate:ST380000%26dl%3Den%26hl%3D en%26q%3Dnorth%2Bdakota%2Bunemployment%2Brate&rct=j&sa=X&ei=GVy_TP2oJIL68AaK-MW7Bg&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQswIwAA&q=north+dakota+unemployment+rate&usg=AFQjCNGmpi0_5nRdTxx9BGtNsUX0DkSzlA) 3.5% of the labor force - Not seasonally adjusted - Aug 2010
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Disclaimer (http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/public_data_disclaimer.html)

www.google.com/publicdata

[Parker2112]

Invidious. It's overreading to take RG's rhetorical question as an admission of ignorance.

That was my question, his answer showed all I could ever hope for it to

[Winehole23]

I heckled your suggestion that greenbacks are some kind of magic panacea for the boom/bust cycle.

[Parker2112]

we still havent tackled the bust/currency retraction issue, so we havent fully shown the nature of banking influence over the economic cycles. That is the next info I would like to find.

Greenbacks are not a panacea, but they would preserve the republic for future generations if they could be defended.

[Parker2112]

goforit WH
nNumEm2NzQA

[Winehole23]

we still havent tackled the bust/currency retraction issue, so we havent fully shown the nature of banking influence over the economic cycles. That is the next info I would like to find.Maybe banks don't control bank runs. Irving Fisher's essay on the debt-deflation theory of depressions (http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf) might be a good place for you to start.

[RandomGuy]

Federal Reserve banks, you mean. How many of those are there? And please, show us the astronomical profits.

They're kept in the same place that Toyota keeps its sodium floride.

DUN DUN DUN!

[Winehole23]

Astronomical profits, returned to the US Treasury.


DUN DUN DUN!

[RandomGuy]

I don't like it either, but that was a feature of the design. The Fed was designed to be resistant to political pressures.

Exactly.

Implicit in the design of the Fed is also the fact that it CAN be dissolved if it ever really got too far out of line.

Jackson abolished one of the earlier incarnations of the central because it didn't kowtow to him, and it was just this kind of political pressure that the people who formed the Fed had in mind.

If we were to completely open the books, that would crack open the door for the Fed to really become the kind of piggybank that every politician dreams of.

The Fed is, essentially, run by technocrats with a LOT of topical expertise, and access to a lot of data. Not exactly a secret cabal.

[Parker2112]

They're kept in the same place that Toyota keeps its sodium floride.

DUN DUN DUN!

Says one of the biggest idiots on this board. Again, Fuck you dude. You cant win on the points so you resort to the name calling. You are in the same league as DarrinS. I still challenge you to point to one valid, credible take you have had all thread long. Just one. Otherwise gtfo. Youre a fucking joke.

[RandomGuy]

This is why only big banks benefit, because this loop only includes the banks which loan to the fed govt

Smaller banks use fractional reserves as well.

You know this right?

[Parker2112]

Astronomical profits, returned to the US Treasury.


DUN DUN DUN!

And you just try to piece back together your own asshole as I handed it to you weeks back. How else could you explain the unrelenting attacks, no matter the issue, no matter the take, even when you dont disagree?

Small. Very small. Thats ok, because my nuts are big enough for both of you mamacitas to ride. :toast

[Parker2112]

Smaller banks use fractional reserves as well.

You know this right?

Fuck you again. Smaller banks dont create money out of thin air. Youre a buffoon. Fuck off. Go to your professors and complain. Or maybe just mourn the fact that you didnt have enough upstairs to apply what they taught to real life fucker.

[Parker2112]

Smaller banks use fractional reserves as well.

You know this right?

Stop worrying about what I know and start worrying about how you can post something of value till then do yourself a service and study.

[RandomGuy]

Says one of the biggest idiots on this board. Again, Fuck you dude. You cant win on the points so you resort to the name calling. You are in the same league as DarrinS. I still challenge you to point to one valid, credible take you have had all thread long. Just one. Otherwise gtfo. Youre a fucking joke.

(shrugs)

Your defintion of "credible" means one that agrees with you.

I do not agree with your conclusions, therefore, by defintion, I cannot post something "credible".

Unless of course I can calculate the ninety-third root of nineteen point two three.

That seemed pretty credible.

[Winehole23]

And you just try to piece back together your own asshole as I handed it to you weeks back. How else could you explain the unrelenting attacks, no matter the issue, no matter the take, even when you dont disagree?It's not resentment. Your takes really suck that much.

Thats ok, because my nuts are big enough for both of you mamacitas to ride. :toastMore balls than brains, that's for sure.

[Parker2112]

Astronomical profits, returned to the US Treasury.


DUN DUN DUN!

And WH you ride with a fuggin dog on this argument, and you know it. You havent even bothered to step in and defend the trash this clown has littered this thread with, because you know what his take amounts to: shit. That shows you to be completely biased...again with the ass rape butthurt from weeks back. Either youre a bitter drunk or simply a sore loser...i havent figured out which.

[Parker2112]

It's not resentment. Your takes really suck that much.
More balls than brains, that's for sure.

But the difference between the two of us: my take made it out onto the thread. youre too cowardly to express anything, for fear that youll show your bloomers. I had the balls to state mine.

[RandomGuy]

You are in the same league as DarrinS. I still challenge you to point to one valid, credible take you have had all thread long. Just one.

If labor's earning power is unaffected, then why should someone who works care if inflation is present?

Productivity gains that more than outstrip inflation mean that buying power actually goes up.

If your contention is that we are all so much worse off than we were in 1920 when the dollar was "worth more", then why does it take so much less time for the average person to earn enough money to buy a loaf of bread in 2010, than in 1910?

Doesn't that mean that we are generally better off, despite this inflation?

[RandomGuy]

Nominally, banks will pay interest on deposits (you are loaning them money, btw).

This interest is generally a bit more than the risk-free rate, i.e. inflation, if you get a certificate of deposit.

This means that it is quite possible to shield ones cash from inflation. If the risk-free rate, i.e. overall inflation rate, spikes, then so does the return on your savings.

[Winehole23]

But the difference between the two of us: my take made it out onto the thread.You jump to conclusions, then hide behind sources you can barely summarize in your own words. Strong.

youre too cowardly to express anything, for fear that youll show your bloomers. I had the balls to state mine.You left your big balls on the floor where anyone can step on them. It goes with the territory. Don't break your wrist patting yourself on the back for your own courageousness. :lol

[angrydude]

If labor's earning power is unaffected, then why should someone who works care if inflation is present?


because someday that worker would like to retire and not be a slave to someone stealing the fruits of their labor.

end . of. discussion .

[RandomGuy]

Quite honestly, anybody who has any debt outstanding now would LOVE hyper-inflation.

Banks would hate it.

Assuming you had, say a car loan at 7%. Your payments on that car are $200.

Your net monthly pay is say, $5,000k, and after all your bills before the car loan, you have $1,200 left.

1,200-200=1,000 or 20% of your paycheck.

BAM!

Hyperinflation hits. Your paycheck, and the price of everything except that payment goes up.

Your net monthly pay is now $10,000 per month. Remember everything else except the car loan has gone up at the same rate.

You now have $2400 after all is said and done. Time to pay the car loan.

$2,400 - 200 = $2200 or 22%

You have now managed to keep a larger percentage of your money.

This is the reason farmers in the past have fully welcomed hyper-inflation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

because someday that worker would like to retire and not be a slave to someone stealing the fruits of their labor.

end . of. discussion .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)

[Parker2112]

Quite honestly, anybody who has any debt outstanding now would LOVE hyper-inflation.

Banks would hate it.

Assuming you had, say a car loan at 7%. Your payments on that car are $200.

Your net monthly pay is say, $5,000k, and after all your bills before the car loan, you have $1,200 left.

1,200-200=1,000 or 20% of your paycheck.

BAM!

Hyperinflation hits. Your paycheck, and the price of everything except that payment goes up.

Your net monthly pay is now $10,000 per month. Remember everything else except the car loan has gone up at the same rate.

You now have $2400 after all is said and done. Time to pay the car loan.

$2,400 - 200 = $2200 or 22%

You have now managed to keep a larger percentage of your money.

This is the reason farmers in the past have fully welcomed hyper-inflation.

Now that youve been called out for the personal attacks, its back to the issues eh? Well, thats a little better than Darrin, I suppose, if thats what your shooting for.

[angrydude]

Productivity gains that more than outstrip inflation mean that buying power actually goes up.


Can't be a lot of inflation for that to work otherwise that is one hell of an assumption. Obviously the closer to zero it is the more sustainable it is.

[RandomGuy]

Now that youve been called out for the personal attacks, its back to the issues eh? Well, thats a little better than Darrin, I suppose, if thats what your shooting for.

Banks would also hate hyper-inflation. It would erase their profit margins.

I can explain why if you wish.

[RandomGuy]

because someday that worker would like to retire and not be a slave to someone stealing the fruits of their labor.

end . of. discussion .

Most people are forced to contribute to retirement funds.

The rates of return on those funds tend to be based on

Inflation + %

If you have any savings at all, you are not affected by inflation.

Unless, of course, you hold stock in banks.

[Parker2112]

Banks would also hate hyper-inflation. It would erase their profit margins.

I can explain why if you wish.

Eh, if you had posted anything of value in the first 6 pages, i might give a fuck. no thanks.

Dont forget to add in the Abe Lincoln quote, trick. Or would that diminish youre bullshit too much :lol

[Parker2112]

Come to think of it, I cited Abe Lincoln on that statement. And neither of you have touched North Dakota's state currency which operates based on FFC of the state. You are clowning me for something I took directly from Abe Lincoln. You must get tired of being called a joke, but here it is again: RG your a fucking joke.

[RandomGuy]

Eh, if you had posted anything of value in the first 6 pages, i might give a fuck. no thanks.


If you had posted anything of value in the first *9 *pages...

As it is, this thread will be another albatross around your neck.

One of my main points in the entire thread is that fear of the Fed seems to be inversely proportional to one's general knowledge of finance.

A point that you have very aptly demonstrated.

Could I have been nicer about it? Sure. Mea Culpa.

My other main point is that all of this debt is not, in and of itself, bad. It is a tool, like any other, to be used with a modicum of wisdom and restraint.

Generally, from what I have read and seen, the people using that tool are exercising both. I have seen no evidence of duplicity or malice, as you have suggested.

As usual, you have ascribed all sorts of motive with no proof. That is your intellectual achilles heel. It leads you to all sorts of illogical ideas.

[Parker2112]

If you had posted anything of value in the first *9 *pages...

As it is, this thread will be another albatross around your neck.

One of my main points in the entire thread is that fear of the Fed seems to be inversely proportional to one's general knowledge of finance.

A point that you have very aptly demonstrated.

Could I have been nicer about it? Sure. Mea Culpa.

My other main point is that all of this debt is not, in and of itself, bad. It is a tool, like any other, to be used with a modicum of wisdom and restraint.

Generally, from what I have read and seen, the people using that tool are exercising both. I have seen no evidence of duplicity or malice, as you have suggested.

As usual, you have ascribed all sorts of motive with no proof. That is your intellectual achilles heel. It leads you to all sorts of illogical ideas.

Between the two of us, I was the only one who spoke on the operation of the fed. A few days ago, you couldnt even see the correlation between inflation and indirect taxation. You had me and others explaining it to you. And you have spent most of your time on this thread trying to calculate the time value of whatever the fuck. And when challenged to show any knowledge on the fed, you continually resort to name calling.

YOU ARE A FUCKING JOKE.

[Parker2112]

You werent mean about it. You were clueless the entire time. Dont even kid yourself. The namecalling wasnt wrapped up in facts, it was your only approach to discourse. Your a fucking joke.

[RandomGuy]

Come to think of it, I cited Abe Lincoln on that statement. And neither of you have touched North Dakota's state currency which operates based on FFC of the state. You are clowning me for something I took directly from Abe Lincoln. You must get tired of being called a joke, but here it is again: RG your a fucking joke.

:sleep

Whatever you say, Floride Boy.

[Parker2112]

If it was so easily dismissed I would think that you would be able to easily dispatch the theory with facts. And the only thing you could try and do was easily dismiss it by saying it was easily dismissable. Then add name calling. Youre a fucking joke.

[Parker2112]

If it was so easily dismissed I would think that you would be able to easily dispatch the theory with facts. And the only thing you could try and do was easily dismiss it by saying it was easily dismissable. Then add name calling. Youre a fucking joke.


:sleep

Whatever you say, Floride Boy.

As if on cue. Your a fucking joke.

[RandomGuy]

Your a fucking joke.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

This will be my last post in this thread. It is obvious to everyone but you who the joke is.

[Parker2112]

Take your elementary tactics back to middle school, trick. Youve been swamped by your own fail.

[Parker2112]

This will be my last post in this thread. It is obvious to everyone that I cant debate the issue, and I have confused name calling for valuable discourse. My vagina is showing.

Very well then

[Parker2112]

Official core inflation for the US is only 1.14%, but that excludes such crucial day-to-day goods such as food and energy. Real inflation certainly is higher, maybe much higher. John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics calculates true inflation at a whopping 8.48%! But manipulated inflation statistics give the government cover when they again deny seniors a cost of living increase in their social security checks.

[Winehole23]

Official core inflation for the US is only 1.14%, but that excludes such crucial day-to-day goods such as food and energy. Real inflation certainly is higher, maybe much higher. John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics calculates true inflation at a whopping 8.48%! But manipulated inflation statistics give the government cover when they again deny seniors a cost of living increase in their social security checks. I don't know who you swiped this from (yet,) but actually this is the strongest point you've made in favor of the banner equation. The slicing and dicing of inflation statistics is undeniably more geared to propaganda than understanding.

[Winehole23]

Same goes for unemployment.

[Winehole23]

@Parker:

Did you read the Irving Fisher essay yet? It's not that long.

[Winehole23]

And neither of you have touched North Dakota's state currency which operates based on FFC of the state. .Are they still using the US Dollar in North Dakota?



(Yes or no, please.)

[Parker2112]

I don't know who you swiped this from (yet,) but actually this is the strongest point you've made in favor of the banner equation. The slicing and dicing of inflation statistics is undeniably more geared to propaganda than understanding.

That was a given, simply never stated, because we had other issues on the plate. I couldnt get that out till the anti-conspiracy clamour died down

[Parker2112]

Are they still using the US Dollar in North Dakota?



(Yes or no, please.)

yes.

But the state dollars, from what I understand, step in and fund state projects to put people to work. If nothing else this show that FF&C is enough to pay creditors. Hell every state in the country issues bonds, and those are backed only by FF&C.

[Winehole23]

That was a given, simply never stated, because we had other issues on the plate. I couldnt get that out till the anti-conspiracy clamour died downBullshit. You recycled it from the other thread you posted. You're a crummy liar.