Stable Economy

[akelch]

Forget about returning to a gold standard. You have to own gold to back your currency, which we do not have.

you mean except for the 8390 tonnes in Ft Knox???????????????????

The Federal Reserve has most of the worlds gold so if you hear politicians like Ron Paul (which I like) talk about the gold standard set them strait.

so we don't have it but the Fed does??????????????????????????????

Remember the golden rule ....he who has the gold makes the rules.

would you like to rethink that????

Nope .... There is no gold in Fort Knox. Only some coin melt. And the Federal Reserve is not owned by the government. It's own by private bankers...some foreign.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nope .... There is no gold in Fort Knox. Only some coin melt. And the Federal Reserve is not owned by the government. It's own by private bankers...some foreign.

Fort Knox - The United States Mint
The United States Bullion Depository Fort Knox, Kentucky. Amount of present
gold holdings: 147.3 million ounces. The only gold removed has been very small ...
The United States Mint · About The Mint

care to rethink??????????

 

[akelch]

Nope .... There is no gold in Fort Knox. Only some coin melt. And the Federal Reserve is not owned by the government. It's own by private bankers...some foreign.

Fort Knox - The United States Mint
The United States Bullion Depository Fort Knox, Kentucky. Amount of present
gold holdings: 147.3 million ounces. The only gold removed has been very small ...
The United States Mint · About The Mint

care to rethink??????????

Show me a audit from the last 20 years.

 

[akelch]

Nope .... There is no gold in Fort Knox. Only some coin melt. And the Federal Reserve is not owned by the government. It's own by private bankers...some foreign.

Fort Knox - The United States Mint
The United States Bullion Depository Fort Knox, Kentucky. Amount of present
gold holdings: 147.3 million ounces. The only gold removed has been very small ...
The United States Mint · About The Mint

care to rethink??????????

Show me a audit from the last 20 years.

If Fort Knox has gold then why don't we sell it and help pay off our deficit? We could stamp it into coins and selling them off. Plus, shut down Fort Knox which is sucking up resources and costing too much to protect something we are not going to use.

Why don't we?....because there is no gold and in order to hide that fact we need to keep up the act of guarding it.

 

[georgephillip]

"Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s"

The Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, apparently.

Who Owns The Federal Reserve? | Global Research

 

[BillSPrestonEsq]

True capatalism is free trade between two consenting parties one transaction at a time. How can this be any more fair? It is when government gets involved that the playing field becomes one sided. When you give government the ability to affect business you give a reason for businessmen to become politicians and that is what we have today. That is the problem.

very very good an accurate!! But no context unless you point out that libturds want the crony capitalist fascism. They support Obamacare and Fan/Fred, for example, and they don't sign the pledge. Republicans are the saints!

One rule: The money supply remains tied to population. If there is just one golden rule I think that government can handle it.

you are dead wrong there. If money supply rises in proportion to population that is good of course but it must also rise in proportion to GDP growth!! If you have more goods and the same money/population (too little money chasing to many goods) you will have deflation( falling prices) and depression because it will always make more sense to buy in the future.

Hope that helps?

First I want to say that republicans are not saints, nor are they going to help this country (most of them anyways). Neither are the democrats, I want to make that really clear. That kind of party allegiance and such faith in politicians is why instead of solving any real problems dems and republicans fight over the same media talking points to absurdity.

I will say that if we changed over to the type of economic system I described, we would have deflation at first, maybe ten years or so I would imagine. I would be tough at first since we are addicted in a sense to credit. Our economy is based on this credit and a fast growing money
supply.
After the initial deflationary period (given that we also get government out of business and trade) we will see real growth instead of the artificial growth we have seen since our central bank. I define real growth and real creation of wealth as an improvement in efficiency in the creation of goods that lead to higher profits or lower prices. The enviroment ideal for that kind of growth is one with a stable money supply and a free market.

GDP is in my opinion not an accurate measurement of anything other than what it describes. It is not a accurate measurement of true growth or of a higher standard of living or lack therof. How would you adjust the money supply to GDP?

 

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Jesus. Take a cource in economics. The question is not whether a market is free or not, but whether a market system, as in capitalism, is a market system if it is filled with companies that have a great deal of monopoly power.
Hell, me boy, even Adam Smith wrote in Wealth of Nations that monopoly power needs to be regulated.

"Take a course in economics.." he says. I'm so sick of people saying that. It honestly doesn't matter since economics taught in most schools is bullshit.

Monopolies in a free market are regulated by the market itself. If a monopoly exists that everyone is happy with there is no problem. It's when a monopoly abuses it's power does it become a problem. In a free market government does not suffocate the small businesses with red tape that are trying to wrestle the beast. In a free market you do not have to get over a mound of fees and paperwork to get in business. In a market where government regulates business instead of the consumers you have monopolies because big business will get into government in order to hold on to their power.

 

[akelch]

"Take a course in economics.." he says. I'm so sick of people saying that. It honestly doesn't matter since economics taught in most schools is bullshit.

Monopolies in a free market are regulated by the market itself. If a monopoly exists that everyone is happy with there is no problem. It's when a monopoly abuses it's power does it become a problem. In a free market government does not suffocate the small businesses with red tape that are trying to wrestle the beast. In a free market you do not have to get over a mound of fees and paperwork to get in business. In a market where government regulates business instead of the consumers you have monopolies because big business will get into government in order to hold on to their power.

I couldn't agree more!!! Economics is a complex subject. But the Universities and other institutes skew most of their teachings toward their personal point of view. Economics is history, math, scientific theory, and human studies all in one. You are not going to get all your answers in one place. Nor should you try.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

First I want to say that republicans are not saints, nor are they going to help this country (most of them anyways). Neither are the democrats, I want to make that really clear.

dear, to make it clear you would have to present your reason for saying Republicans are not saints. Jefferson was the first Republican;he stood for(as do modern Republicans) and gifted to us the concept of limited government and individual freedom. If that is not the most saintly act in human history please explain why or admit you lack the IQ to do so.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I will say that if we changed over to the type of economic system I described, we would have deflation at first,

no dear we would have constant depression and stagnation!! Any increase in GDP, with a constant money supply, would mean deflation and so a huge incentive to put off all purchases until tomorrow when prices will be lower. Is this really over your head??????????????? Its Econ 101, class one day one. Sorry.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The enviroment ideal for that kind of growth is one with a stable money supply and a free market.

that is correct, Democrats oppose stable money and free markets, stable money means prices stay constant, not inflate or deflate as you want.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

GDP is in my opinion not an accurate measurement of anything other than what it describes. It is not a accurate measurement of true growth or of a higher standard of living or lack therof.

dear, china just switched to Republican capitalism from liberal communism. People are getting rich rather than starving to death. What do you think happened to GDP??????????????? You must think before you write!!

How would you adjust the money supply to GDP?

just as all central banks do, by adjusting interest rates to control the amount of money and so the price level. What you want is basic commodities like a loaf of bread to have the same price over time so that price comparisons can be made to show when one manufacturer is getting sloppy or inefficient and must raise prices to cover up his mistakes. In this way the economy becomes more and more efficient and our standard of living rises. When you have deflation as you want meaningful price comparisions are impossible because the price changes reflect monetary policy errors rather than manufacturer errors. This is Econ 101, class one day one!! Sorry.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why don't we?....because there is no gold and in order to hide that fact we need to keep up the act of guarding it.

idiotic liberal conspiracy theory that would have fallen apart long ago if only so Woodward and Bernstein could get there 5 minutes of fame!! Keep you tinfoil hat on to protect you from space rays!

 

[akelch]

I will say that if we changed over to the type of economic system I described, we would have deflation at first,

no dear we would have constant depression and stagnation!! Any increase in GDP, with a constant money supply, would mean deflation and so a huge incentive to put off all purchases until tomorrow when prices will be lower. Is this really over your head??????????????? Its Econ 101, class one day one. Sorry.

I agree will Bill. The money supply would be adjusted using a formula like the one Milton Friedman created.
Yes, spending will slow and savings would increase. But we would have real growth through investing in production.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I will say that if we changed over to the type of economic system I described, we would have deflation at first,

no dear we would have constant depression and stagnation!! Any increase in GDP, with a constant money supply, would mean deflation and so a huge incentive to put off all purchases until tomorrow when prices will be lower. Is this really over your head??????????????? Its Econ 101, class one day one. Sorry.

I agree will Bill. The money supply would be adjusted using a formula like the one Milton Friedman created.
Yes, spending will slow and savings would increase. But we would have real growth through investing in production.

dear, Milton Friedman was 100% for stable prices, not deflation or inflation!!!!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I will say that if we changed over to the type of economic system I described, we would have deflation at first,

no dear we would have constant depression and stagnation!! Any increase in GDP, with a constant money supply, would mean deflation and so a huge incentive to put off all purchases until tomorrow when prices will be lower. Is this really over your head??????????????? Its Econ 101, class one day one. Sorry.

I agree will Bill. The money supply would be adjusted using a formula like the one Milton Friedman created.
Yes, spending will slow and savings would increase. But we would have real growth through investing in production.

You can not trust humans to not abuse power. And monetarist formulas have hidden consequences. Economics is NOT a hard science. The only way it works is to allow markets to control money supplies and have free banking.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Hell, me boy, even Adam Smith wrote in Wealth of Nations that monopoly power needs to be regulated.

2000% stupid and liberal as usual. 60 million corporations worldwide all competing to survive by improving our standard of living is the opposite of a monopoly!!

"Indeed, Smith was almost fanatical in his opposition to any kind of monopoly power, which he defined as the power of a seller to maintain a price for an indefinite time above its natural price."

Walmart is the best example, it maintains maximum control by keeping its prices well "below" the natural level thanks to the competitive forces of Republican capitalism!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!

And how stupid is it to worry about the monopoly power of 60 million corporations when the perfect idiot liberal wants to transfer ever more power to a real monopoly: government, which is the exclusive force for monopolistic evil in human history!! Stupid stupid stupid beyond words! A liberal thinks as well as Nazi and has the same confidence in his rectitude.

 

[akelch]

no dear we would have constant depression and stagnation!! Any increase in GDP, with a constant money supply, would mean deflation and so a huge incentive to put off all purchases until tomorrow when prices will be lower. Is this really over your head??????????????? Its Econ 101, class one day one. Sorry.

I agree will Bill. The money supply would be adjusted using a formula like the one Milton Friedman created.
Yes, spending will slow and savings would increase. But we would have real growth through investing in production.

You can not trust humans to not abuse power. And monetarist formulas have hidden consequences. Economics is NOT a hard science. The only way it works is to allow markets to control money supplies and have free banking.

If you would be so kind as to define how markets can control money supplies and what is free banking?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I agree will Bill. The money supply would be adjusted using a formula like the one Milton Friedman created.
Yes, spending will slow and savings would increase. But we would have real growth through investing in production.

You can not trust humans to not abuse power. And monetarist formulas have hidden consequences. Economics is NOT a hard science. The only way it works is to allow markets to control money supplies and have free banking.

If you would be so kind as to define how markets can control money supplies and what is free banking?

simple, just like in the 1860's. Each bank prints its own money. That means is very hard to use nationally or internationally when you have 1600 currencies each with a different value as we had then. Its a bad idea.

It would be much like having private roads or railroad tracks all over the country that were not coordinated to work together.

On the positive side its decentralized so might be more less run or depression prone. Interest rates would be competitive and so based on the risk and quality of investments the bank makes, rather than on central government guessing.

Of course if its truly a free market there is little to limit the quanity of money, ( except consumer IQ) which could have grave consequences.

 

[BillSPrestonEsq]

First I want to say that republicans are not saints, nor are they going to help this country (most of them anyways). Neither are the democrats, I want to make that really clear.

dear, to make it clear you would have to present your reason for saying Republicans are not saints. Jefferson was the first Republican;he stood for(as do modern Republicans) and gifted to us the concept of limited government and individual freedom. If that is not the most saintly act in human history please explain why or admit you lack the IQ to do so.

Wow, you are a completely useless troll and I don't see why you feel the need to be such a condescending douchebag. First of all in Jefferson's time the meaning of the word republican or democrat is much different then it is today. Republicans today as the mainstream media represents them, including FOX, have a cut and dry opinion on "the issues". They are socially conservative, want limited government (so they say), and support the wars in the middle east. The way I see it republicans today are way too left leaning for me. I would consider myself a true liberal much like Jefferson. I don't think that the republicans are going to create a smaller government in the sense that the current oligarchy would lose any power. The power would be shifted from government to corporate monopoly. Republicans don't want to shrink the government by handing it over to the market, they want to give a piece to their brother in law, their buddy from Yale or whoever. It's croney capatalism they want.