rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
- Thread starter
- #81
Amen.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. The Fed isn't necessary for the government to act as a lender of last resort (just read the Aldrich-Vreeland Act), it's just infinitely more effective.
2. If you think inflation is a problem, why the hell would you trust Congress to control the money supply?
Congress is more transparent than the Fed! Besides, I advocate commodity money, so the money supply doesn't actually change.
Yeah that worked real well in the 19th century.
Tool.
1. The Fed isn't necessary for the government to act as a lender of last resort (just read the Aldrich-Vreeland Act), it's just infinitely more effective.
2. If you think inflation is a problem, why the hell would you trust Congress to control the money supply?
THey don't.
They want a return to an archaic gold standard that starves businesses of capital when they need it most. Why was the free silver movement so big?
But you are dealing with the dullest of the dull in this thread. Rubberdickhead and his sidekick are totally at sea here. If Wikipedia ever goes down they'll have nothing to add to the discussion.
1. The Fed isn't necessary for the government to act as a lender of last resort (just read the Aldrich-Vreeland Act), it's just infinitely more effective.
2. If you think inflation is a problem, why the hell would you trust Congress to control the money supply?
Congress is more transparent than the Fed! Besides, I advocate commodity money, so the money supply doesn't actually change.
Congress is more transparent than the Fed! Besides, I advocate commodity money, so the money supply doesn't actually change.
Yeah that worked real well in the 19th century.
Tool.
We didn't allow it to normalize. We had some downturns (market corrections) and the uninformed masses were panicked into allowing the unconstitutional formation of a central bank. Then the worst financial crisis we have ever faced in US history occurred 16 years later. In the century that followed the USD lost 96% of its value. Hmm... I don't think central banking really worked out all that well either. Do you? Tell me what's good about this picture.
1. The Fed isn't necessary for the government to act as a lender of last resort (just read the Aldrich-Vreeland Act), it's just infinitely more effective.
2. If you think inflation is a problem, why the hell would you trust Congress to control the money supply?
Congress is more transparent than the Fed! Besides, I advocate commodity money, so the money supply doesn't actually change.
Is transparency really that important? I would argue that while more transparency is ideal, it's not ideal if the result in bad policy. After all, we could make the CIA more transparent, but that wouldn't result in better intelligence gathering.
Yeah that worked real well in the 19th century.
Tool.
We didn't allow it to normalize. We had some downturns (market corrections) and the uninformed masses were panicked into allowing the unconstitutional formation of a central bank. Then the worst financial crisis we have ever faced in US history occurred 16 years later. In the century that followed the USD lost 96% of its value. Hmm... I don't think central banking really worked out all that well either. Do you? Tell me what's good about this picture.
The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.
Congress is more transparent than the Fed! Besides, I advocate commodity money, so the money supply doesn't actually change.
Is transparency really that important? I would argue that while more transparency is ideal, it's not ideal if the result in bad policy. After all, we could make the CIA more transparent, but that wouldn't result in better intelligence gathering.
Are you saying that the Fed is torturing people and overthrowing governments? Obviously, the CIA is very different in nature from the Fed. Come on, that's not an argument.
We didn't allow it to normalize. We had some downturns (market corrections) and the uninformed masses were panicked into allowing the unconstitutional formation of a central bank. Then the worst financial crisis we have ever faced in US history occurred 16 years later. In the century that followed the USD lost 96% of its value. Hmm... I don't think central banking really worked out all that well either. Do you? Tell me what's good about this picture.
The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.
Wrong. Since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, the authority to do so is delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. Check again.
Is transparency really that important? I would argue that while more transparency is ideal, it's not ideal if the result in bad policy. After all, we could make the CIA more transparent, but that wouldn't result in better intelligence gathering.
Are you saying that the Fed is torturing people and overthrowing governments? Obviously, the CIA is very different in nature from the Fed. Come on, that's not an argument.
Of course it's an argument. Transparent policy does not necessarily mean good policy.
The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.
Wrong. Since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, the authority to do so is delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. Check again.
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to coin money and also gives them the power to take reasonable steps to exercise that authority.
The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.
Wrong. Since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, the authority to do so is delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. Check again.
The Constitution gives Congress the authority to coin money and also gives them the power to take reasonable steps to exercise that authority.
"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; "
Doesn't say anything about the currency needing to be backed by gold or silver.
You do realize the federal government and the individual states are the not the same thing, right?
You do realize the federal government and the individual states are the not the same thing, right?
Yeah, but you're avoiding the question. How can the federal government force the states to act against the constitution? Is that in there somewhere? Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution.
You do realize the federal government and the individual states are the not the same thing, right?
Yeah, but you're avoiding the question. How can the federal government force the states to act against the constitution? Is that in there somewhere? Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution.
How is the federal government forcing states to act against the Constitution?