|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/14/2007 : 09:14:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Yez, Cune I did read the link and I am aware of other factors contributing to inflation. This fact has little to do with the long term inflation caused by the Fed. |
I guess we'll have to find some real economists to give an informed position, because that's not the impression I get.
|
Look at the data from before and after the "blips".
Look at the long term averages over long periods before and after the Fed.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 09:17:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Money is created by the issuing of loans. Banks can legally loan a multiple of their deposits. Banks gain deposits from the loans issued by other banks.
Inflation has a natural cycle, ups , and downs. Looking at the 100 years prior to the creation of the Fed the data shows a balance over time. Looking at the data after the Fed the data shows a 3.33% inflation rate yearly average.
The control and manipulation of the money supply and thus inflation allows those in the know to garner others labor without their knowledge. |
None of this makes sense, and still doesn't get to the crux of your argument (surprise!). You do a poor job at explaining things (I admittedly have poor reading comprehension skills, so things have to be spelled out in a concise and lucid way for me to understand; your writing is too concise and hardly lucid), and still haven't answered basic questions.
|
The control and manipulation of the money supply and thus inflation allows those in the know to garner others labor without their knowledge. This is the conspiracy.
Money is nothing more than proof of labor. If my past labor is progressively worth less, I am always needing to produce more to gain less.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 10:04:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The control and manipulation of the money supply and thus inflation allows those in the know to garner others labor without their knowledge. This is the conspiracy.
Money is nothing more than proof of labor. If my past labor is progressively worth less, I am always needing to produce more to gain less. |
Money is a unit of exchange, not proof of labor. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 11:13:59 [Permalink]
|
| The control and manipulation of the money supply and thus inflation allows those in the know to garner others labor without their knowledge. |
My, how simplistic. It is hard to believe that the exact causes of inflation are such a huge topic of debate among economists when you have revealed the answer in one sentence!
And you are a consipiracy nut.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 14:22:19 [Permalink]
|
I just read an interesting history of banking-- in particular, the Federal Reserve here. Of course, it's written at the high school level, so it's going to be somewhat simplified and gloss over things.
Nevertheless, when put into a larger historical context, it seems that the Fed was needed to address some key problems. Moreover, the historical outline it lays out is in complete disagreement with most of Jerome's arguments regarding a giant conspiracy designed to, uh, steal our future labor. Or whatever. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 18:18:26 [Permalink]
|
Furshur, it is well know in economics that an increase of the money supply causes inflation; there is no debate.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 18:38:10 [Permalink]
|
Cune, interesting link.
Lets look at some key points.
1.The Fed was needed because banks issued notes without the backing of gold or silver.
---What is currently backing our money.(hint:not gold or silver)
2.First central bank we are told was a success,yet not renewed?
Second central bank we are told was a success,yet not renewed?
---Such great successes that were not renewed; does this make sense or is it a falsehood.
3.Jackson won the presidency running against central banking.
---If central banking was so great why would the public vote for the guy doing away with central banking.
4. My personal favorite quote in the article "decentralized central bank".
---Looks like the politicians knew that the people did not want a central bank, so they called the central bank decentralized. HAA,HAA.
5.The treatment of the depression is full of hidden facts.
---Places no roll of the Fed in relation to the depression; only tells us about the greater roll government took after the depression.
6. Mentions that one of the Feds rolls is to control inflation.
---Before the Fed average inflation was almost nil over 100 years. After the Fed inflation has been 3.33% average per year. Looks like they are doing a poor job of controlling inflation.
7. As a side point, the fact of increased money supply causes inflation is admitted in context of greenbacks being printed by the treasury during the war.
The article is propaganda for American high school students that is easily shown as propaganda when one looks at the realities.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 18:59:47 [Permalink]
|
| Furshur, it is well know in economics that an increase of the money supply causes inflation; there is no debate. |
Actually, my dear boy there is quite a bit of debate - just not from the 60,000 foot level where your over simplified conclusions come from.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 19:05:31 [Permalink]
|
Fursur, could you provide evidence that there is debate as to whether an increase of money supply causes inflation.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 21:30:51 [Permalink]
|
Every dollar in circulation was created by the Fed. Each dollar is loaned at interest.
Is it possible to ever pay back the loan? No
If you can understand this you can understand the conspiracy.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 06:11:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
1.The Fed was needed because banks issued notes without the backing of gold or silver.
---What is currently backing our money.(hint:not gold or silver) |
You'd fail high school social studies, I think. The relevant paragraphs state quite clearly:The 1907 Knickerbocker disaster was the final straw that broke the camel's back. Both state and national banks, along with mushrooming financial trusts, were caught up in a whirlwind of speculative loans. In October, frightened depositors looked in horror at the collapse of the Knickerbocker Trust Company, a highly reputable and seemingly sound financial institution. The thought in everyone's mind-as it would have been in yours-was, Who's next? Panic spread. People ran to their banks to withdraw their deposits, and hard-pressed banks in turn scrambled for liquidity by calling in outstanding loans. Investment projects, in various stages of incompletion, were all-at-once suspended. Sound businesses, drained dry of credit, were forced into bankruptcy. The result was almost instant recession.
Once again, Congress was forced to intervene. This time, with Knickerbocker still fresh in mind, Congress broadened its concerns from simply coping with the chronic problems of overissue of bank notes and inadequate collateral to include a newly perceived menace, the overreach of powerful financial trusts. The response came in the form of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. |
So the Fed was created to directly address other problems.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
2.First central bank we are told was a success,yet not renewed?
Second central bank we are told was a success,yet not renewed?
---Such great successes that were not renewed; does this make sense or is it a falsehood. |
Again, you didn't read through very carefully. For instance, while the First Bank of the US was a success, "[in 1811, when the time came to renew its charter, Congress declined to do so. The advocates of states' rights won out." In other words, despite its success, certain ideologies (i.e. states' rights) trumped it. No one ever said that governments are perfect.
In the case of the Second Bank of the US, they note that| Like the First Bank, the Second Bank was a success, unfortunately, like the First, it was abandoned. When Andrew Jackson, an opponent of central banking, was reelected to the Presidency in 1832, the Second Bank's existence was an election issue and Jackson promised to destroy the Bank. Unable to convince Congress to terminate the Banks charter, Jackson withdrew Treasury funds from the Second Bank and deposited it in state banks. This undermined the Second Bank's ability to control the issuance of notes by state banks. By 1836 it had become just another bank in Pennsylvania. |
Here, even though Congress saw the value of it, the President-- still with a states' rights bent, undermine what the Second Bank could do. Your simplistic dichotomy is patently false.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
3.Jackson won the presidency running against central banking.
---If central banking was so great why would the public vote for the guy doing away with central banking. |
You are under the assumption that voters are always perfectly informed on issues and always vote with the national interests at heart. I think the last two Presidential elections should demonstrate that this is false, no?
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
4. My personal favorite quote in the article "decentralized central bank".
---Looks like the politicians knew that the people did not want a central bank, so they called the central bank decentralized. HAA,HAA. |
This again shows that you have a poor grasp of what you're reading. Re-read the description of how the Federal Reserve is organized.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
5.The treatment of the depression is full of hidden facts.
---Places no roll of the Fed in relation to the depression; only tells us about the greater roll government took after the depression. |
Again, you'd fail in a basic reading comprehension exam. Re-read the relevant paragraph:| Despite the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1914 American banking policy was not fully developed. The reality is that many banks that had been only marginally sound during the 1920's and had lent more in risky speculative investments then they had in reserve. This was due to several reasons. One, federal law allowed banks to invest in real estate financial services. Banks were not just savings institutions, they were investment oriented. Two, only a small number of banks were members of the Fed and were not subject to the Fed's reserve requirements. Three, Federal Reserve policy was typically laissez faire in this period and did not take the policy steps needed to intervene in a potential collapse. Fourth, and last, deposits were not insured. |
This clearly notes that the Fed had a role in not mitigating the Great Depression. To be sure, it does not go into detail, but since this is written for a high school social studies class, we shouldn't expect that.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
6. Mentions that one of the Feds rolls is to control inflation.
---Before the Fed average inflation was almost nil over 100 years. After the Fed inflation has been 3.33% average per year. Looks like they are doing a poor job of controlling inflation. |
This is confusing, and I admit that I am having trouble understanding the issues here. However, the picture painted before this was that things were quite unstable. For instance, it notes that | From the demise of the Second Bank as a central bank until Congress passed the National Banking Act in 1864, the economy's money supply was once again left in the hands of the state banks. Once again, unsound loans and overissuing of notes led to an unhealthy climate of unreliable money. |
Perhaps the inflation figures you cite are only part of the picture? I'm willing to wager that your presentation of the data is simplistic.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
The article is propaganda for American high school students that is easily shown as propaganda when one looks at the realities. |
This is rich. I think all it shows is that you don't really understand what you're reading. Or rather, you've deluded yourself into think that your conspiracies are true that even when presented with data that shows otherwise, you somehow ignore it through some type of cognitive dissonance. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/15/2007 06:23:55 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:01:25 [Permalink]
|
Every dollar in circulation was created by the Fed. Each dollar is loaned at interest.
Is it possible to ever pay back the loan? No
If you can understand this you can understand the conspiracy. |
Your grasp of economics is truly indepth and complete, not.
Look at this. Where exactly is the conspiracy? It seems that this is pretty much out in the open. Is there some insidious plot that only a fucking genius like you can detect?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 10:28:44 [Permalink]
|
i am most admittedly ignorant on this topic, but do see that there is no shortage of google videos about it now or quotes from many in the past against the fed, despite that the woodrow wilson one above was not one of them.
what is the advantage to having a privately owned central bank? |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 11:17:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sickmint79
i am most admittedly ignorant on this topic, but do see that there is no shortage of google videos about it now or quotes from many in the past against the fed, despite that the woodrow wilson one above was not one of them.
what is the advantage to having a privately owned central bank?
|
It's true, sickmint79-- I did some searches on Google and found myriad sites arguing that the Fed is a bad idea. Most are rather conspiratorial and argue along the same sorts of lines as Jerome here. Others seem more level-headed, but none seem to put forward any alternative to what the see as the evils of the Fed.
The current arrangement seems to be working well in that the Fed managers don't answer directly to elected politicians (who may wish to manipulate markets for short-term gain [e.g. like a rosy-looking economy right before an election] at the expense of long-term security), but who also must act openly. Moreover, the regional character means that markets in Texas and Oklahoma don't have to act in exactly the same way as those in New York or California. |
|
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 11:55:17 [Permalink]
|
i would say i was somewhat suckered into these videos, however i am finding it difficult to determine context of some quotes, and some things are outright incorrect (wilson quote) or presented as fact when it has not been proven (us involvement in sinking lusitania, for instance). however some of the claims certainly seen plausible, it is not as if similar situations have not occurred in the past, correct? regardless, whether created by conspiracy or not, i am interested in evaluating the current state.
1. are those points mentioned not regarding simply a central bank? my question is as to what the advantages are by having this central bank be private.
2. by whatever method, is it correct to say that each $1 i spend on federal income taxes is not a dollar given to the government, but ultimately arrives as a dollar with some debt/interest that must be paid, which goes to profit the private corporations who own the federal reserve?
3. if the bank is able to lend out more money than it has assets, will it not force inflation (fractional reserve banking)?
my understanding is that #3 is an economic discussion of a practice in place today, regardless of whether a central bank is congress or privately owned. it is what is done at the fed however correct? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Federal Reserve Act in 1913
