Reply With Quote
wont we all
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.
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 at ude.
wont we all
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.
Maybe it is just the doom-sayers
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31450173
How the would you know? you dont know 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.
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.
FWIW, here is the CPI historical data.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
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.
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.
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.
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.
The lack of a quote speaks volumes. The rest equates to beating around the bush. An RG specialty.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Engineered? By whom? Deliberately or accidentally?
Do tell.
Obviously, Parker's hoping that Fuzzy will do his homework for him.
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.
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."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
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.
Ron Paul's question makes Ben Bernake's voice quiver
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?
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 sville? How has gold done in the same timeframe?
Your on the wrong track. You prove the Fed Reserve is inept. Unless Im missing something.
Worldwide Hyperinflation RaceIn 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
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
