How is austerity doing in Europe

[oldfart]

Damn. Had not thought of Ricardian equivalence for YEARS. And hearing and seeing the definition just made me go to my calender looking to see if I could (hopefully) find a forgotten appointment for a root canal. Yeah, I get it, but the concept is so far from eligent imho that it is a pain to discuss. But, as usual, nice job, oldfart.

Thanks. What's really elegant is a proof that some coefficient of "crowding-out" times the multiplier must equal one. How's that for Grand Unification Theory?

 

[AmazonTania]

A meaningful economic discussion is always possibly, so long as you can take the children and the cheerleaders out of the room.

Pathetic to see how far people can take online discussions.

Well, that didn't last long...

 

[Kimura]

A meaningful economic discussion is always possibly, so long as you can take the children and the cheerleaders out of the room.

Pathetic to see how far people can take online discussions.

Well, that didn't last long...

I enjoy a good debate. But yeah, hurling insults really doesn't add any meaningful insight.

 

[AmazonTania]

A meaningful economic discussion is always possibly, so long as you can take the children and the cheerleaders out of the room.

Pathetic to see how far people can take online discussions.

Well, that didn't last long...

I enjoy a good debate. But yeah, hurling insults really doesn't add any meaningful insight.

Yeah. Well, I'm tired. I guess I'll get back to my responses tomorrow afternoon. Wanna devout the rest of my night to something enjoyable. Maybe check my positions before bedtime.

 

[Rshermr]

A meaningful economic discussion is always possibly, so long as you can take the children and the cheerleaders out of the room.

Pathetic to see how far people can take online discussions.

Well, that didn't last long...

I enjoy a good debate. But yeah, hurling insults really doesn't add any meaningful insight.

Kimura, perhaps you can explain what is being discussed in this last post of yours. I had seen no disrespectful posts, but mine was close to the time of this post of yours when you were responding to Amazon. If you thought that my post was disrespectful, let me know. It was meant to be light of heart, and perhaps a bit of a shot at the subject when it has come up in the past. In my experience, mostly in regard to the subject of revenue generation relative to borrowing or taxing. No disrespect to anyone was meant AT ALL.

 

[whynot]

Back on topic
How is austerity doing in Europe?

Its working but very slowly and very painfully in my view.
We are not out of the woods yet and I personally fear it will get much worse before things really improve.
From an Irish point of view we had a lovely boom for over a decade with low unemployment rates high GDP growth figures, a very high export surplus and virtually 0% government debt to GDP ratio. Most did not see the crash coming and to be fair it all happen so fast it was just unbelievable to most.

It turned out that a large portion of the GDP growth was from the accumulation of debt by the public at large. Money via banks had been flooding into the country and had the net result of increasing the number of jobs and also tax revenue. When this flow of money finally stopped we found out the hard way the real cost of it. The unemployment rate skyrocketed and the tax revenue plummeted.
Overnight we went form country with budget surplus to a double digit deficit. Each year since 2008 this deficit figure has been reduced as a result of austerity, by 2015 it should finally be back under control provided there is not a global economic collapse

 

[Rshermr]

Back on topic
How is austerity doing in Europe?

Its working but very slowly and very painfully in my view.
We are not out of the woods yet and I personally fear it will get much worse before things really improve.
From an Irish point of view we had a lovely boom for over a decade with low unemployment rates high GDP growth figures, a very high export surplus and virtually 0% government debt to GDP ratio. Most did not see the crash coming and to be fair it all happen so fast it was just unbelievable to most.

It turned out that a large portion of the GDP growth was from the accumulation of debt by the public at large. Money via banks had been flooding into the country and had the net result of increasing the number of jobs and also tax revenue. When this flow of money finally stopped we found out the hard way the real cost of it. The unemployment rate skyrocketed and the tax revenue plummeted.
Overnight we went form country with budget surplus to a double digit deficit. Each year since 2008 this deficit figure has been reduced as a result of austerity, by 2015 it should finally be back under control provided there is not a global economic collapse

How do the people of Ireland feel about the austerity measures there??
What does the population believe was the cause of the economic downturn?
From what I have seen, the austerity measures seem not to have done well there. Perhaps you can comment on what you feel that austerity has accomplished.

What I have seen are articles saying the austerity has not been successful at all. Here is a sample:
"A former senior IMF official has warned that austerity must end for the economy to grow while a Labour Party paper has said more welfare cuts “may not be politically deliverable”.
Austerity was a “potentially self-defeating policy” because of the lack of growth and no reduction in debt levels it had resulted in, said former IMF chief of mission to Ireland Ashoka Mody.
“We have to ask ourselves why Ireland is not growing . . . It’s hard for me to believe that austerity is not contributing to this,” he told RTÉ’s This Week."
Former IMF official warns austerity could be ?self-defeating? for Ireland - Business News | Latest News Stories | The Irish Times - Sun, Jul 21, 2013

But it is true that unemployment has dropped, by about 1.4% over the past year or so. Still a couple of points higher that the eu average ue rate.
So, in my estimation, pretty much a mixed bag. Not terrible, but far from good. And with predictions that austerity is likely at close to an end there.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Congress regulates the FED by statute. The FED is subject to oversight by Congress and they can alter their responsibilities through legislation and statute.

Also, the POTUS, through the Secretary of the Treasury, regulates fiscal policy related to the FED. The FED is "independent within government" as opposed to "independent of government".

I never said the FED and Treasury were one in the same. I said monetary operations should be viewed through the consolidated government model.

Congress does not regulate anything. That's not their job. Frankly, nobody regulates the Fed and that's the f'ing problem at the end of the day. The FED is a group of banks who have effectively paid the politicians big bucks to leave them the f alone; and yes that includes the president.

 

[whynot]

Back on topic
How is austerity doing in Europe?

Its working but very slowly and very painfully in my view.
We are not out of the woods yet and I personally fear it will get much worse before things really improve.
From an Irish point of view we had a lovely boom for over a decade with low unemployment rates high GDP growth figures, a very high export surplus and virtually 0% government debt to GDP ratio. Most did not see the crash coming and to be fair it all happen so fast it was just unbelievable to most.

It turned out that a large portion of the GDP growth was from the accumulation of debt by the public at large. Money via banks had been flooding into the country and had the net result of increasing the number of jobs and also tax revenue. When this flow of money finally stopped we found out the hard way the real cost of it. The unemployment rate skyrocketed and the tax revenue plummeted.
Overnight we went form country with budget surplus to a double digit deficit. Each year since 2008 this deficit figure has been reduced as a result of austerity, by 2015 it should finally be back under control provided there is not a global economic collapse

How do the people of Ireland feel about the austerity measures there??
What does the population believe was the cause of the economic downturn?
From what I have seen, the austerity measures seem not to have done well there. Perhaps you can comment on what you feel that austerity has accomplished.

What I have seen are articles saying the austerity has not been successful at all. Here is a sample:
"A former senior IMF official has warned that austerity must end for the economy to grow while a Labour Party paper has said more welfare cuts “may not be politically deliverable”.
Austerity was a “potentially self-defeating policy” because of the lack of growth and no reduction in debt levels it had resulted in, said former IMF chief of mission to Ireland Ashoka Mody.
“We have to ask ourselves why Ireland is not growing . . . It’s hard for me to believe that austerity is not contributing to this,” he told RTɒs This Week."


But it is true that unemployment has dropped, by about 1.4% over the past year or so. Still a couple of points higher that the eu average ue rate.
So, in my estimation, pretty much a mixed bag. Not terrible, but far from good. And with predictions that austerity is likely at close to an end there.

How do the people of Ireland feel about the austerity measures there??

There is a general acceptance of the situation. There have been no real protests over the whole thing. The main focus of the debates has been on how the austerity should be implemented e.g. who should be taxed more than the other.

What does the population believe was the cause of the economic downturn?

The majority blame the banks and developers. The banks were deregulated and allowed to do whatever they wanted which they did.
Because of the euro we in Ireland had access to cheap credit for the first time and this devalued money for most people and let house prices going mad. When we had our own currency interest rates of 15% or more on mortgages were not unheard of so interest rates 3-4% was new. The government of the day should have controlled the housing market more. They did all the wrong things for personal gain.

From what I have seen, the austerity measures seem not to have done well there. Perhaps you can comment on what you feel that austerity has accomplished.

Austerity has significantly reduced our budget deficit and I believe it is now at 7.5%. Apparently anything below 3% is sustainable so not too far off now. So with some more cuts and hopefully a good bit of growth by 2015 Ireland will be in the sustainable zone.
Austerity does have major drawbacks please don’t get me wrong it feels like every other day my taxes are going up. I have not gone on a holiday in 2 years as I just can’t afford it. But thankfully I still have a job and there is an end in sight. On the plus side it forces the government to make the harder choices that should leave the country more competitive in the long run. With the route of printing more money it’s hard to keep the political wiliness to make changes which means the fundamental issues that created the problem don’t get fixed.
I’m looking at the UK which has not gone down the austerity road and I can’t see that any progress has been made over there. (I am open to correction on that)

But it is true that unemployment has dropped, by about 1.4% over the past year or so.

Yes I think that’s sounds about right but it is hard to tell if its from job creation or people emigrating. There are new jobs being created all the time but also some been lost so it’s hard to call.

 

[Kimura]

Well, that didn't last long...

I enjoy a good debate. But yeah, hurling insults really doesn't add any meaningful insight.

Kimura, perhaps you can explain what is being discussed in this last post of yours. I had seen no disrespectful posts, but mine was close to the time of this post of yours when you were responding to Amazon. If you thought that my post was disrespectful, let me know. It was meant to be light of heart, and perhaps a bit of a shot at the subject when it has come up in the past. In my experience, mostly in regard to the subject of revenue generation relative to borrowing or taxing. No disrespect to anyone was meant AT ALL.

Neither did I. Everyone was generally being cordial. Now I'm confused, lol.

 

[RKMBrown]

Congress regulates the FED by statute. The FED is subject to oversight by Congress and they can alter their responsibilities through legislation and statute.

Also, the POTUS, through the Secretary of the Treasury, regulates fiscal policy related to the FED. The FED is "independent within government" as opposed to "independent of government".

I never said the FED and Treasury were one in the same. I said monetary operations should be viewed through the consolidated government model.

Yes, Congress is supposed to provide for regulation management and oversight of the fed and they can alter their responsibilities through legislation and statute.

However, as with most of their useful jobs they refuse to do it. As such the operations of the FED are kept almost entirely secret.

The POTUS, through the Secretary of the Treasury, is supposed to regulate fiscal policy related to the FED. However, as with most of their useful jobs they refuse to do it.

>>> The FED is "independent within government" as opposed to "independent of government".

No, the fed for all intents and purposes is completely and entirely independent from government. The FED board is selected by the POTUS and approved by congress and provides annual reports to the secretary and congress. However, the cartel of banks that is the fed is entirely independent of almost all government control. They do have to act like banks and thus are regulated as any other bank would be. But that does not mean the fed cartel operates "within" government. Nor does it mean the FED board operates within government. I could see the argument that the fed board "should" operate as an independent agency within government and that the chairman should be in the POTUS' cabinet or report directly to the Dept of the Treasury, but that is not the case. It's more like the fed operates as an independent group much like the SCOTUS operates only it has no group auditing it or watching what it does. They get to operate in secret, and Congress is just dandy with that.

>>> I said monetary operations should be viewed through the consolidated government model.

Like I said. You are intentionally "mixing" the Treasury's system of taxing and spending, with the fed system for managing the monetary policy. Your justification, apparently, to view both together through a consolidated model that you call your government model.

 

[Kimura]

However, as with most of their useful jobs they refuse to do it. As such the operations of the FED are kept almost entirely secret.

No, the fed for all intents and purposes is completely and entirely independent from government. The FED board is selected by the POTUS and approved by congress and provides annual reports to the secretary and congress. However, the cartel of banks that is the fed is entirely independent of almost all government control. They do have to act like banks and thus are regulated as any other bank would be. But that does not mean the fed cartel operates "within" government. Nor does it mean the FED board operates within government. I could see the argument that the fed board "should" operate as an independent agency within government and that the chairman should be in the POTUS' cabinet or report directly to the Dept of the Treasury, but that is not the case. It's more like the fed operates as an independent group much like the SCOTUS operates only it has no group auditing it or watching what it does. They get to operate in secret, and Congress is just dandy with that.

I should have reworded it better. The Board of Governors are independent within the government. This includes the Board of Governors and their staff. Congress can remove executives of the FED if need be.

The regional FED banks are indeed owned by stockholders (the banks), but their classification is that of instrumentalities of the federal government, which means they must do what Congress and the Board of Governors dictates to them. They have zero input in regards to monetary policy. None. Zip. Nada. Monetary policy is executed by the Board.

They must also submit a percentage of their capital to the bank in return for stock in a regional FED banks. They can also elect members to the regional bank boards. If I’m not mistaken, they also receive a dividend of six percent on their capital investment in the bank.

They don’t get to keep any of the Federal Reserve’s profits, since dividends aren’t classified as profits. All profits must be remitted to the Treasury every year. They are part of the FED system to serve and support the financial system.

Here’s a report by the FED freely available to the public:

Click Here

In all honestly, as someone who works in finance, these myths drive me up a wall, especially with morons like Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and every other conspiracy theorist and hard money nut spouting this nonsense. Again, for the umpteenth time, the FED hands over virtually all of its profits to the US government. Maybe you can enlighten me, but I’m not aware of any business that is forced to do this. There’s also the fact the FED board members are nominated by POTUS and must be confirmed by Congress. Lastly, the FED was created by an act of Congress!

You’re entitled to your beliefs so if you’re into Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, and Chupacabras, please feel free to add the private FED to your list.

Like I said. You are intentionally "mixing" the Treasury's system of taxing and spending, with the fed system for managing the monetary policy. Your justification, apparently, to view both together through a consolidated model that you call your government model.

The consolidated government sector is used for analysis. The FEDs jurisdiction falls under the control of the Treasury.

We’re talking accepted accounting practices called group accounting. It’s how we create consolidated financial statements, such as balances, cash, income, etc. among related entities . If we look at these government relationships, consolidated financial statements make complete sense and show us the actual transactions.

 

[RKMBrown]

Corrections in blue.

However, as with most of their useful jobs they refuse to do it. As such the operations of the FED are kept almost entirely secret.

No, the fed for all intents and purposes is completely and entirely independent from government. The FED board is selected by the POTUS and approved by congress and provides annual reports to the secretary and congress. However, the cartel of banks that is the fed is entirely independent of almost all government control. They do have to act like banks and thus are regulated as any other bank would be. But that does not mean the fed cartel operates "within" government. Nor does it mean the FED board operates within government. I could see the argument that the fed board "should" operate as an independent agency within government and that the chairman should be in the POTUS' cabinet or report directly to the Dept of the Treasury, but that is not the case. It's more like the fed operates as an independent group much like the SCOTUS operates only it has no group auditing it or watching what it does. They get to operate in secret, and Congress is just dandy with that.

I should have reworded it better. The Board of Governors are independent[. And are supposed to be an agency] within the government. This includes the Board of Governors and their staff. Congress can remove executives of the FED if need be.

The regional FED banks are indeed owned by stockholders (the banks)[. In regard to executing fed financial instruments [[, but]] their classification [regarding those instruments] is that of instrumentalities of the federal government, which means they [[must]][are supposed to] do what Congress and the Board of Governors dictates to them. They have zero input in regards to monetary policy. None. Zip. Nada. Monetary policy is[, in theory,] executed by the Board. [However, due to the lack of auditing by Congress there is absolutely no proof that this is happening. The old adage, trust, but verify has been thrown out the window.]

They must also submit a percentage of their capital to the bank in return for sock in a regional FED banks. They can also elect members to the regional bank boards. If I’m not mistaken, they also receive a dividend of six percent on their capital investment in the bank.

They don’t get to keep any of the Federal Reserve’s profits, since dividends aren’t classified as profits. All profits must be remitted to the Treasury every year. They are part of the FED system to serve and support the financial system.

Here’s a report by the FED freely available to the public:

Click Here

In all honestly, as someone who works in finance, these myths drive me up a wall, especially with morons like Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and every other conspiracy theorist and hard money nut spouting this nonsense. Again, for the umpteenth time, the FED is hands over virtually all of its profits to the US government. Maybe you can enlighten me, but I’m not aware of any business that is forced to do this. There’s also the fact the FED board members are nominated by POTUS and must be confirmed by Congress. Lastly, the FED was created by an act of Congress!

You’re entitled to your beliefs so if you’re into Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, and Chupacabras, please feel free to add the private FED to your list.

[You are being rude.] One point is that we don't audit the FED at all. True or False?

Like I said. You are intentionally "mixing" the Treasury's system of taxing and spending, with the fed system for managing the monetary policy. Your justification, apparently, to view both together through a consolidated model that you call your government model.

The consolidated government sector is used for analysis. The FEDs jurisdiction falls under the control of the Treasury. [This is false. The FEDs jurisdiction does not fall under the control of the Treasury. The FED banks operate independently from the Treasury. Again, you are purposefully mixing the accounts of the cartel banks with the accounts of the Treasury for the purpose of supporting your incorrect circular logic based theory that we have to have debt to have assets because the government is intertwined with private assets. It is a circular (straw-man) argument that has been shown to be incorrect numerous times. ]

We’re talking accepted accounting practice called group accounting. It’s how we create consolidated financial statements, such as balances, cash, income, etc. among related entities . If we look at these government relationships, consolidated financial statements make complete sense and show us the actual transactions.

Just as you can't group a customer's account with the company the customer purchases an item from, unless the customer is buying from himself. Your argument that you can group the governments accounts with the accounts of the private citizens of this country is fallacious. It assumes the incorrect socialist / marxist view that the government owns all assets, therefore all assets can be grouped in one accounting.

 

[Kimura]

Corrections in blue.

However, as with most of their useful jobs they refuse to do it. As such the operations of the FED are kept almost entirely secret.

I should have reworded it better. The Board of Governors are independent[. And are supposed to be an agency] within the government. This includes the Board of Governors and their staff. Congress can remove executives of the FED if need be.

The regional FED banks are indeed owned by stockholders (the banks)[. In regard to executing fed financial instruments [[, but]] their classification [regarding those instruments] is that of instrumentalities of the federal government, which means they [[must]][are supposed to] do what Congress and the Board of Governors dictates to them. They have zero input in regards to monetary policy. None. Zip. Nada. Monetary policy is[, in theory,] executed by the Board. [However, due to the lack of auditing by Congress there is absolutely no proof that this is happening. The old adage, trust, but verify has been thrown out the window.]

They must also submit a percentage of their capital to the bank in return for sock in a regional FED banks. They can also elect members to the regional bank boards. If I’m not mistaken, they also receive a dividend of six percent on their capital investment in the bank.

They don’t get to keep any of the Federal Reserve’s profits, since dividends aren’t classified as profits. All profits must be remitted to the Treasury every year. They are part of the FED system to serve and support the financial system.

Here’s a report by the FED freely available to the public:

Click Here

In all honestly, as someone who works in finance, these myths drive me up a wall, especially with morons like Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and every other conspiracy theorist and hard money nut spouting this nonsense. Again, for the umpteenth time, the FED is hands over virtually all of its profits to the US government. Maybe you can enlighten me, but I’m not aware of any business that is forced to do this. There’s also the fact the FED board members are nominated by POTUS and must be confirmed by Congress. Lastly, the FED was created by an act of Congress!

You’re entitled to your beliefs so if you’re into Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, and Chupacabras, please feel free to add the private FED to your list.

[You are being rude.] One point is that we don't audit the FED at all. True or False?

Like I said. You are intentionally "mixing" the Treasury's system of taxing and spending, with the fed system for managing the monetary policy. Your justification, apparently, to view both together through a consolidated model that you call your government model.

The consolidated government sector is used for analysis. The FEDs jurisdiction falls under the control of the Treasury. [This is false. The FEDs jurisdiction does not fall under the control of the Treasury. The FED banks operate independently from the Treasury. Again, you are purposefully mixing the accounts of the cartel banks with the accounts of the Treasury for the purpose of supporting your incorrect circular logic based theory that we have to have debt to have assets because the government is intertwined with private assets. It is a circular (straw-man) argument that has been shown to be incorrect numerous times. ]

We’re talking accepted accounting practice called group accounting. It’s how we create consolidated financial statements, such as balances, cash, income, etc. among related entities . If we look at these government relationships, consolidated financial statements make complete sense and show us the actual transactions.

Just as you can't group a customer's account with the company the customer purchases an item from, unless the customer is buying from himself. Your argument that you can group the governments accounts with the accounts of the private citizens of this country is fallacious. It assumes the incorrect socialist / marxist view that the government owns all assets, therefore all assets can be grouped in one accounting.

I’m not trying to be rude, but you’re legitimately misinformed. There are many problems with the FED which are open to criticism, such as obvious cronyism, a certain level of incompetence, etc. Most of the anti-FED conspiracies come from a general misunderstanding about monetary operations or just subscribing to a John Birch Society worldview.

The FED doesn&#8217;t lend money to the government in any capacity, so there&#8217;s no debt slavery or some other conspiracy to take over the world being led by Jews or <insert> nebulous, shadowy group</insert>. As I&#8217;ve tried to explain to you many times, this works a little different than your ordinary commercial bank. The interest on &#8220;debt&#8221; held by the Federal Reserve ends up in two places. They pay themselves out of the interest to cover operating expenses and the remainder of the interest is rebated to the US Treasury. So, for the umpteenth time, despite the Ron Paul and John Birch Kool Aid, the Federal Reserve doesn&#8217;t sell us into debt slavery, nor does it own or control the government in any capacity.

I&#8217;m legitimately trying to clear up any confusion you have.

Many of the FED critics obsess over the fact that the FED is a private corporation that&#8217;s partially governed by private banks as opposed to an alphabet soup agency of sorts. Who cares? This isn&#8217;t any different than the US Postal Service or fucking Amtrak. Sure, they can be run by a bunch of schmucks at certain times, but this is hardly a global conspiracy.

There&#8217;s also the erroneous belief that the FED is literally independent or private. It&#8217;s actually a partially public entity. The Federal Reserve, like every other central bank in the industrialized world, is independent within government, which means its daily operations aren&#8217;t overseen by Uncle Sam. The Chairman of the Board of Governors is appointed by POTUS and subject to oversight by Congress. Its mandate is also determined by Congress. It&#8217;s also audited by the GAO which is available to the public online.

The way the banks control the FED system is that they are technically in an ownership role, but not the same way that shareholders own Cisco or Google. The FED was created by Congress, so it&#8217;s organizationally different than a regular corporation. These shareholder banks have zero voting power, and ALL decisions are made by the publicly appointed Board of Governors. These banks have zero say about monetary policy. This power resides with the Board of Governors. Actually, compared to most other government agencies, the FED runs like a well-oiled machine.

All of this information could have been covered by an Intro to Money and Banking course at your local community college.

Lastly, I never said the government owns ALL assets. I simply stated the obvious: deficit spending by the government creates net financial assets for the non-government sector.

 

[Rshermr]

Corrections in blue.

I should have reworded it better. The Board of Governors are independent[. And are supposed to be an agency] within the government. This includes the Board of Governors and their staff. Congress can remove executives of the FED if need be.

The regional FED banks are indeed owned by stockholders (the banks)[. In regard to executing fed financial instruments [[, but]] their classification [regarding those instruments] is that of instrumentalities of the federal government, which means they [[must]][are supposed to] do what Congress and the Board of Governors dictates to them. They have zero input in regards to monetary policy. None. Zip. Nada. Monetary policy is[, in theory,] executed by the Board. [However, due to the lack of auditing by Congress there is absolutely no proof that this is happening. The old adage, trust, but verify has been thrown out the window.]

They must also submit a percentage of their capital to the bank in return for sock in a regional FED banks. They can also elect members to the regional bank boards. If I&#8217;m not mistaken, they also receive a dividend of six percent on their capital investment in the bank.

They don&#8217;t get to keep any of the Federal Reserve&#8217;s profits, since dividends aren&#8217;t classified as profits. All profits must be remitted to the Treasury every year. They are part of the FED system to serve and support the financial system.

Here&#8217;s a report by the FED freely available to the public:

Click Here

In all honestly, as someone who works in finance, these myths drive me up a wall, especially with morons like Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and every other conspiracy theorist and hard money nut spouting this nonsense. Again, for the umpteenth time, the FED is hands over virtually all of its profits to the US government. Maybe you can enlighten me, but I&#8217;m not aware of any business that is forced to do this. There&#8217;s also the fact the FED board members are nominated by POTUS and must be confirmed by Congress. Lastly, the FED was created by an act of Congress!

You&#8217;re entitled to your beliefs so if you&#8217;re into Sasquatch, the Loch Ness monster, and Chupacabras, please feel free to add the private FED to your list.

[You are being rude.] One point is that we don't audit the FED at all. True or False?



The consolidated government sector is used for analysis. The FEDs jurisdiction falls under the control of the Treasury. [This is false. The FEDs jurisdiction does not fall under the control of the Treasury. The FED banks operate independently from the Treasury. Again, you are purposefully mixing the accounts of the cartel banks with the accounts of the Treasury for the purpose of supporting your incorrect circular logic based theory that we have to have debt to have assets because the government is intertwined with private assets. It is a circular (straw-man) argument that has been shown to be incorrect numerous times. ]

We&#8217;re talking accepted accounting practice called group accounting. It&#8217;s how we create consolidated financial statements, such as balances, cash, income, etc. among related entities . If we look at these government relationships, consolidated financial statements make complete sense and show us the actual transactions.

Just as you can't group a customer's account with the company the customer purchases an item from, unless the customer is buying from himself. Your argument that you can group the governments accounts with the accounts of the private citizens of this country is fallacious. It assumes the incorrect socialist / marxist view that the government owns all assets, therefore all assets can be grouped in one accounting.

I&#8217;m not trying to be rude, but you&#8217;re legitimately misinformed. There are many problems with the FED which are open to criticism, such as obvious cronyism, a certain level of incompetence, etc. Most of the anti-FED conspiracies come from a general misunderstanding about monetary operations or just subscribing to a John Birch Society worldview.

The FED doesn&#8217;t lend money to the government in any capacity, so there&#8217;s no debt slavery or some other conspiracy to take over the world being led by Jews or <insert> nebulous, shadowy group</insert>. As I&#8217;ve tried to explain too you many times, this works a little different than your ordinary commercial bank. The interest on &#8220;debt&#8221; held by the Federal Reserve ends up in two places. They pay themselves out of the interest to cover operating expenses and the remainder of the interest is rebated to the US Treasury. So, for the umpteenth time, despite the Ron Paul and John Birch Kool Aid, the Federal Reserve doesn&#8217;t sell us into debt slavery, nor does it own or control the government in any capacity.

I&#8217;m legitimately trying to clear up any confusion you have.

Many of the FED critics obsess over the fact that the FED is a private corporation that&#8217;s partially governed by private banks as opposed to an alphabet soup agency of sorts. Who cares? This isn&#8217;t any different than the US Postal Service or fucking Amtrak. Sure, they can be run by a bunch of schmucks at certain times, but this is hardly a global conspiracy.

There&#8217;s also the erroneous belief that the FED is literally independent or private. It&#8217;s actually a partially public entity. The Federal Reserve, like every other central bank in the industrialized world, is independent within government, which means its daily operations aren&#8217;t overseen by Uncle Sam. The Chairman of the Board of Governors is appointed by POTUS and subject to oversight by Congress. Its mandate is also determined by Congress. It&#8217;s also audited by the GAO which is available to the public online.

The way the banks control the FED system is that they are technically in an ownership role, but not the same way that shareholders own Cisco or Google. The FED was created by Congress, so it&#8217;s organizationally different than a regular corporation. These shareholder banks have zero voting power, and ALL decisions are made by the publicly appointed Board of Governors. These banks have zero say about monetary policy. This power resides with the Board of Governors. Actually, compared to most other government agencies, the FED runs like a well-oiled machine.

All of this information could have been covered by an Intro to Money and Banking course at your local community college.

Lastly, I never said the government owns ALL assets. I simply stated the obvious: deficit spending by the government creates net financial assets for the non-government sector.

Nice job. But you did not get anything into RKM's head. I see him now pounding his ears with both hands while saying NO, NO, NO, NO, NO....... Along with all of the others who want to believe what RKM believes.
But, your information is clear, and correct. Again, nice job.

 

[AmazonTania]

I enjoy a good debate. But yeah, hurling insults really doesn't add any meaningful insight.

Kimura, perhaps you can explain what is being discussed in this last post of yours. I had seen no disrespectful posts, but mine was close to the time of this post of yours when you were responding to Amazon. If you thought that my post was disrespectful, let me know. It was meant to be light of heart, and perhaps a bit of a shot at the subject when it has come up in the past. In my experience, mostly in regard to the subject of revenue generation relative to borrowing or taxing. No disrespect to anyone was meant AT ALL.

Neither did I. Everyone was generally being cordial. Now I'm confused, lol.

I was referring to the consistent brown nosing and constant ass kissing quite apparent. Makes debating pointless if people are going to treat this as a rigged 2nd grade mini football league where only the parents are allowed to keep score. .

 

[Rshermr]

Kimura, perhaps you can explain what is being discussed in this last post of yours. I had seen no disrespectful posts, but mine was close to the time of this post of yours when you were responding to Amazon. If you thought that my post was disrespectful, let me know. It was meant to be light of heart, and perhaps a bit of a shot at the subject when it has come up in the past. In my experience, mostly in regard to the subject of revenue generation relative to borrowing or taxing. No disrespect to anyone was meant AT ALL.

Neither did I. Everyone was generally being cordial. Now I'm confused, lol.

I was referring to the consistent brown nosing and constant ass kissing quite apparent. Makes debating pointless if people are going to treat this as a rigged 2nd grade mini football league where only the parents are allowed to keep score. .

Then for christ sakes, stop it.

 

[Rshermr]

Kimura, perhaps you can explain what is being discussed in this last post of yours. I had seen no disrespectful posts, but mine was close to the time of this post of yours when you were responding to Amazon. If you thought that my post was disrespectful, let me know. It was meant to be light of heart, and perhaps a bit of a shot at the subject when it has come up in the past. In my experience, mostly in regard to the subject of revenue generation relative to borrowing or taxing. No disrespect to anyone was meant AT ALL.

Neither did I. Everyone was generally being cordial. Now I'm confused, lol.

I was referring to the consistent brown nosing and constant ass kissing quite apparent. Makes debating pointless if people are going to treat this as a rigged 2nd grade mini football league where only the parents are allowed to keep score. .

Then for christ sakes, stop it.

 

[AmazonTania]

Neither did I. Everyone was generally being cordial. Now I'm confused, lol.

I was referring to the consistent brown nosing and constant ass kissing quite apparent. Makes debating pointless if people are going to treat this as a rigged 2nd grade mini football league where only the parents are allowed to keep score. .

Then for christ sakes, stop it.

I don't need to stop anything. I'm not talking about me. I'm referring to the ones debating from the backseat. Its bad enough if people are going to throw ad homineims, but they do it in debates which do not involve this person, at the same time offering zero substance to the discussion.

These people need to grow up, and by these people, I mean you.

 

[Rshermr]

I was referring to the consistent brown nosing and constant ass kissing quite apparent. Makes debating pointless if people are going to treat this as a rigged 2nd grade mini football league where only the parents are allowed to keep score. .

Then for christ sakes, stop it.

I don't need to stop anything. I'm not talking about me. I'm referring to the ones debating from the backseat. Its bad enough if people are going to throw ad homineims, but they do it in debates which do not involve this person, at the same time offering zero substance to the discussion.

These people need to grow up, and by these people, I mean you.

I see. Well, that would be your opinion. And you know how much I appreciate your opinion. But the attack was by you against me. Get the problem there, me girl. I am trying to ignore you, not respond to things you say. And then, you toss an ad hominem attack my way and tell me to stop making ad hominem attacks. Funny.