The Fed is a criminal organization that steals from the American people

[kaz]

For example, loans for mortgages based on money added to the money supply through Fed money provided to banks

I've heard sound arguments that restricting the supply of liquidity to just gold in the economy might hinder growth, so that is sort of a trick question. I think Todd is trying to trip us up, he knows quite a bit about what he is talking about here. Gold bugs can be a bit unrealistic. (OTH, maybe hindering growth, i.e., placing limits on growth is fates/divinity's way of saying, that is all the planet can take? That's my spiritual and philosophical side.)

The US economy is much larger than the gold supply of the entire planet by now. That said, I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough.

"The reverse of the notes were printed with green ink, and were thus called "greenbacks" by the public, being considered equivalent to the Demand Notes already known as such. These Notes were issued by the United States to pay for labor and goods.[3][6]

Earlier Secretary Chase had the slogan, "In God We Trust" engraved on U. S. coins. During a cabinet meeting there was some discussion of adding it to the U. S. Notes as well. Lincoln, however, humorously remarked, "If you are going to put a legend on the greenbacks, I would suggest that of Peter and Paul, 'Silver and gold I have none, but such as I have I give to thee.'"[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money)

When they eventually replace the dollar, it will either be with a new debt based fiat currency, or, if things go against them and the other side gets it's way, a free floating exchange basket of currencies based on commodities. Who knows? Maybe global civilization will collapse in a nuke exchange and make the whole thing pointless and academic, these maniacs are playing with fire.

1) Just because I advocate going back to the gold standard doesn't mean I want to go back to the dollar value that was then. It would in fact not work, you have to set the dollar value at the total US dollar money supply / the amount of gold held by the US government. The trick then is you freeze it there

2) You actually just made the same argument that Todd's making that you're correctly refuting. How would restricting the nominal amount of money available make people not achieve pro-growth strategies? How do decreasing real values of nominal currency spur growth? It doesn't make sense

All the gold standard does is prevent the Fed from what it's doing, printing money and stealing from the American people.

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything. That's what the Fed does.

As for "I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough." Bad idea. That's what we have now. It's what allows the Fed to do what it does

I'm not sure how I argued Todd's argument about restricting the nominal values. I guess my mid-morning migraine is interfering with my ability to communicate effectively.


However, as I see it, one of two things will happen.

If you restrict the money supply as the economy grows, the requirements for liquidity will necessarily increase. If you do not expand the supply of money as the needs of the economy require, you will see inflationary pressure on the currency.

I suppose your scenario would work, but that inflationary pressure on the currency would seem to me to result in a corresponding pressure that would hamper growth. Haven't we always seen inflation hamper growth?

I am NOT however for decreasing nominal values of the currency. That is why I tried to make clear, and others have been trying to tell you, that using gold as the backer of currency might not work. Unless you are fine with a slowly decreasing nominal value, or introducing a basket of commodities like silver, platinum, or other financial wizardry to back each dollar. Gold is relatively finite. If you are willing to have your growth as finite as your ability to mine or find more of it, or decrease the nominal value of the currency by introducing more, the only logical answer is inflation and artificially slowing growth.

I have even heard a unique proposal that each unit of currency should be backed by units of energy. If you have ever looked at the growth of a nation versus it's use of energy, you will see they are intricately linked. Money is after all, in it's purest form, energy. In the modern age, few could quibble with trading their currency in for . . . .

This, in the end, is what we are really talking about. Man hours of labor. Industrial production of robots. Trucks and ships hauling freight. Sunshine growing crops. When ever you trade your currency, it reflects a trade of energy.


So why not instead of having a debt based currency, have a commodity based currency that reflects the reality of the world? I realize of course, this would give energy companies tremendously much more power. I think this is where things are headed now. This is why I have always liked the idea of energy co-operatives better than profit based energy corporations.

Inflation will increase if you don't increase the money supply? I don't mean this insulting, I really don't, but you should read more about the gold standard. It supports everything you've been arguing in this discussion so far. I think you just need to understand it better. I was the same, I was in another discussion on another board about the Fed and the gold standard came up. I realized I didn't understand the points being made well enough, so I went off and read about it. Lightbulbs went off that was the solution to the problem of the Fed stealing from us.

As for the money supply, Investors aren't fooled by gimmicks. Growing or shrinking the money supply doesn't change the real value in the economy. The value of a dollar is the real value in the economy divided by the number of nominal dollars in the economy. All raising the money supply does is change the nominal value of the money in the economy proportionally. It doesn't create value

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't. Your argument was that restricting growth of nominal dollars harms the economy or I misunderstood it. It doesn't. That's what I was saying

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't.

If the price level increases at the same rate that the Fed creates money, no value is created.
If the price level increases at a lower rate, value is created.
If the price level increases at a higher rate, value is destroyed.

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

You're just making false cause and effect fallacies that other things happening in the economy that do affect economic value have to do with the issuance of nominal dollars

 

[kaz]

I guess that is easier than giving specifics for me to pick apart.

That's what we've been discussing, you just went back to the beginning and asked me to repeat it all. If you forgot what I've been arguing, just go back and re-read it, don't ask me to repeat it. That is the exact point we've been discussing

I don't remember you claiming someone stole from you.

Do you feel the Fed has stolen from you?
If so, how'd they do it? Be specific.

So when I said how the Fed steals from the American people, that doesn't include me? Explain

How does the Fed steal from you, or anyone?

Read my OP post and start over if you like, but I'm not repeating the thread for you

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've heard sound arguments that restricting the supply of liquidity to just gold in the economy might hinder growth, so that is sort of a trick question. I think Todd is trying to trip us up, he knows quite a bit about what he is talking about here. Gold bugs can be a bit unrealistic. (OTH, maybe hindering growth, i.e., placing limits on growth is fates/divinity's way of saying, that is all the planet can take? That's my spiritual and philosophical side.)

The US economy is much larger than the gold supply of the entire planet by now. That said, I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough.

"The reverse of the notes were printed with green ink, and were thus called "greenbacks" by the public, being considered equivalent to the Demand Notes already known as such. These Notes were issued by the United States to pay for labor and goods.[3][6]

Earlier Secretary Chase had the slogan, "In God We Trust" engraved on U. S. coins. During a cabinet meeting there was some discussion of adding it to the U. S. Notes as well. Lincoln, however, humorously remarked, "If you are going to put a legend on the greenbacks, I would suggest that of Peter and Paul, 'Silver and gold I have none, but such as I have I give to thee.'"[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money)

When they eventually replace the dollar, it will either be with a new debt based fiat currency, or, if things go against them and the other side gets it's way, a free floating exchange basket of currencies based on commodities. Who knows? Maybe global civilization will collapse in a nuke exchange and make the whole thing pointless and academic, these maniacs are playing with fire.

1) Just because I advocate going back to the gold standard doesn't mean I want to go back to the dollar value that was then. It would in fact not work, you have to set the dollar value at the total US dollar money supply / the amount of gold held by the US government. The trick then is you freeze it there

2) You actually just made the same argument that Todd's making that you're correctly refuting. How would restricting the nominal amount of money available make people not achieve pro-growth strategies? How do decreasing real values of nominal currency spur growth? It doesn't make sense

All the gold standard does is prevent the Fed from what it's doing, printing money and stealing from the American people.

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything. That's what the Fed does.

As for "I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough." Bad idea. That's what we have now. It's what allows the Fed to do what it does

I'm not sure how I argued Todd's argument about restricting the nominal values. I guess my mid-morning migraine is interfering with my ability to communicate effectively.


However, as I see it, one of two things will happen.

If you restrict the money supply as the economy grows, the requirements for liquidity will necessarily increase. If you do not expand the supply of money as the needs of the economy require, you will see inflationary pressure on the currency.

I suppose your scenario would work, but that inflationary pressure on the currency would seem to me to result in a corresponding pressure that would hamper growth. Haven't we always seen inflation hamper growth?

I am NOT however for decreasing nominal values of the currency. That is why I tried to make clear, and others have been trying to tell you, that using gold as the backer of currency might not work. Unless you are fine with a slowly decreasing nominal value, or introducing a basket of commodities like silver, platinum, or other financial wizardry to back each dollar. Gold is relatively finite. If you are willing to have your growth as finite as your ability to mine or find more of it, or decrease the nominal value of the currency by introducing more, the only logical answer is inflation and artificially slowing growth.

I have even heard a unique proposal that each unit of currency should be backed by units of energy. If you have ever looked at the growth of a nation versus it's use of energy, you will see they are intricately linked. Money is after all, in it's purest form, energy. In the modern age, few could quibble with trading their currency in for . . . .

This, in the end, is what we are really talking about. Man hours of labor. Industrial production of robots. Trucks and ships hauling freight. Sunshine growing crops. When ever you trade your currency, it reflects a trade of energy.


So why not instead of having a debt based currency, have a commodity based currency that reflects the reality of the world? I realize of course, this would give energy companies tremendously much more power. I think this is where things are headed now. This is why I have always liked the idea of energy co-operatives better than profit based energy corporations.

Inflation will increase if you don't increase the money supply? I don't mean this insulting, I really don't, but you should read more about the gold standard. It supports everything you've been arguing in this discussion so far. I think you just need to understand it better. I was the same, I was in another discussion on another board about the Fed and the gold standard came up. I realized I didn't understand the points being made well enough, so I went off and read about it. Lightbulbs went off that was the solution to the problem of the Fed stealing from us.

As for the money supply, Investors aren't fooled by gimmicks. Growing or shrinking the money supply doesn't change the real value in the economy. The value of a dollar is the real value in the economy divided by the number of nominal dollars in the economy. All raising the money supply does is change the nominal value of the money in the economy proportionally. It doesn't create value

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't. Your argument was that restricting growth of nominal dollars harms the economy or I misunderstood it. It doesn't. That's what I was saying

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't.

If the price level increases at the same rate that the Fed creates money, no value is created.
If the price level increases at a lower rate, value is created.
If the price level increases at a higher rate, value is destroyed.

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

You're just making false cause and effect fallacies that other things happening in the economy that do affect economic value have to do with the issuance of nominal dollars

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

If nothing else ever changed in the economy, you'd have a point.
That's never the case.

No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

Currency is a good. It's impacted by supply and demand, just like any other.
During and after the crisis, demand for currency increased dramatically.
Just as with any other good, meeting that demand adds value.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm not getting a point out of this. Never mind that they stole from us for a century because they aren't going to do it anymore? All I can say to that is bull

Who stole from you? How?

I guess that is easier than giving specifics for me to pick apart.

Here's how they stole from us. Pick it apart wise ass.

Looks like it was picked apart on the YouTube thread.

Well, they tried, I'll give them that.

He has great resources in the comments and always responds. If you don't agree, give the video a thumbs down, please. I think the community should know that you find this analysis unreliable, because the overwhelming amount of comments and likes clearly shows your POV is in the minority. Sorry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess that is easier than giving specifics for me to pick apart.

That's what we've been discussing, you just went back to the beginning and asked me to repeat it all. If you forgot what I've been arguing, just go back and re-read it, don't ask me to repeat it. That is the exact point we've been discussing

I don't remember you claiming someone stole from you.

Do you feel the Fed has stolen from you?
If so, how'd they do it? Be specific.

So when I said how the Fed steals from the American people, that doesn't include me? Explain

How does the Fed steal from you, or anyone?

Read my OP post and start over if you like, but I'm not repeating the thread for you

Your OP didn't claim it stole and fell far short of proving it stole.

None of your other posts here have either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who stole from you? How?

I guess that is easier than giving specifics for me to pick apart.

Here's how they stole from us. Pick it apart wise ass.

Looks like it was picked apart on the YouTube thread.

Well, they tried, I'll give them that.

He has great resources in the comments and always responds. If you don't agree, give the video a thumbs down, please. I think the community should know that you find this analysis unreliable, because the overwhelming amount of comments and likes clearly shows your POV is in the minority. Sorry.

His confusion between excess reserves and reserves was funny.
So was his claim that reserves in the banking system could be reduced by loans.

His understanding is partial, at best. It leads to his many errors.

the overwhelming amount of comments and likes clearly shows your POV is in the minority

Absolutely. The majority of people don't understand banking or money supply issues.

 

[kaz]

1) Just because I advocate going back to the gold standard doesn't mean I want to go back to the dollar value that was then. It would in fact not work, you have to set the dollar value at the total US dollar money supply / the amount of gold held by the US government. The trick then is you freeze it there

2) You actually just made the same argument that Todd's making that you're correctly refuting. How would restricting the nominal amount of money available make people not achieve pro-growth strategies? How do decreasing real values of nominal currency spur growth? It doesn't make sense

All the gold standard does is prevent the Fed from what it's doing, printing money and stealing from the American people.

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything. That's what the Fed does.

As for "I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough." Bad idea. That's what we have now. It's what allows the Fed to do what it does

I'm not sure how I argued Todd's argument about restricting the nominal values. I guess my mid-morning migraine is interfering with my ability to communicate effectively.


However, as I see it, one of two things will happen.

If you restrict the money supply as the economy grows, the requirements for liquidity will necessarily increase. If you do not expand the supply of money as the needs of the economy require, you will see inflationary pressure on the currency.

I suppose your scenario would work, but that inflationary pressure on the currency would seem to me to result in a corresponding pressure that would hamper growth. Haven't we always seen inflation hamper growth?

I am NOT however for decreasing nominal values of the currency. That is why I tried to make clear, and others have been trying to tell you, that using gold as the backer of currency might not work. Unless you are fine with a slowly decreasing nominal value, or introducing a basket of commodities like silver, platinum, or other financial wizardry to back each dollar. Gold is relatively finite. If you are willing to have your growth as finite as your ability to mine or find more of it, or decrease the nominal value of the currency by introducing more, the only logical answer is inflation and artificially slowing growth.

I have even heard a unique proposal that each unit of currency should be backed by units of energy. If you have ever looked at the growth of a nation versus it's use of energy, you will see they are intricately linked. Money is after all, in it's purest form, energy. In the modern age, few could quibble with trading their currency in for . . . .

This, in the end, is what we are really talking about. Man hours of labor. Industrial production of robots. Trucks and ships hauling freight. Sunshine growing crops. When ever you trade your currency, it reflects a trade of energy.


So why not instead of having a debt based currency, have a commodity based currency that reflects the reality of the world? I realize of course, this would give energy companies tremendously much more power. I think this is where things are headed now. This is why I have always liked the idea of energy co-operatives better than profit based energy corporations.

Inflation will increase if you don't increase the money supply? I don't mean this insulting, I really don't, but you should read more about the gold standard. It supports everything you've been arguing in this discussion so far. I think you just need to understand it better. I was the same, I was in another discussion on another board about the Fed and the gold standard came up. I realized I didn't understand the points being made well enough, so I went off and read about it. Lightbulbs went off that was the solution to the problem of the Fed stealing from us.

As for the money supply, Investors aren't fooled by gimmicks. Growing or shrinking the money supply doesn't change the real value in the economy. The value of a dollar is the real value in the economy divided by the number of nominal dollars in the economy. All raising the money supply does is change the nominal value of the money in the economy proportionally. It doesn't create value

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't. Your argument was that restricting growth of nominal dollars harms the economy or I misunderstood it. It doesn't. That's what I was saying

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't.

If the price level increases at the same rate that the Fed creates money, no value is created.
If the price level increases at a lower rate, value is created.
If the price level increases at a higher rate, value is destroyed.

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

You're just making false cause and effect fallacies that other things happening in the economy that do affect economic value have to do with the issuance of nominal dollars

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

If nothing else ever changed in the economy, you'd have a point.
That's never the case.

No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

Currency is a good. It's impacted by supply and demand, just like any other.
During and after the crisis, demand for currency increased dramatically.
Just as with any other good, meeting that demand adds value.

I said the value of a dollar is the nominal money supply of dollars divided by the value in the economy. Nothing you said contradicts that. Money changes in purchasing power, and it's explained by the forumula. But issuing more currency doesn't change the economic value in the economy

 

[kaz]

That's what we've been discussing, you just went back to the beginning and asked me to repeat it all. If you forgot what I've been arguing, just go back and re-read it, don't ask me to repeat it. That is the exact point we've been discussing

I don't remember you claiming someone stole from you.

Do you feel the Fed has stolen from you?
If so, how'd they do it? Be specific.

So when I said how the Fed steals from the American people, that doesn't include me? Explain

How does the Fed steal from you, or anyone?

Read my OP post and start over if you like, but I'm not repeating the thread for you

Your OP didn't claim it stole and fell far short of proving it stole.

None of your other posts here have either.

The monopoly example was as simple as I can make it for you. If you don't get that one, you aren't going to get it

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm not getting a point out of this. Never mind that they stole from us for a century because they aren't going to do it anymore? All I can say to that is bull

Who stole from you? How?

I guess that is easier than giving specifics for me to pick apart.

That's what we've been discussing, you just went back to the beginning and asked me to repeat it all. If you forgot what I've been arguing, just go back and re-read it, don't ask me to repeat it. That is the exact point we've been discussing

I don't remember you claiming someone stole from you.

Do you feel the Fed has stolen from you?
If so, how'd they do it? Be specific.

Re-read the thread, it's been pretty specific.

 

[MisterBeale]

So do drug dealers. Is that a good thing?

Saving the banking system is a good thing. Drug dealers, not so much.

Why? It just gets more corrupt, bloated, entrenched, and it corrupts the politics in D.C.

If every other business in every other industry is allowed to fail, what makes banks so special? Is it because Americans are too dumb and lazy to keep watch over the financial health of where they place their savings and they want to keep all their eggs in one basket?

If parasites and criminals know that profit is guaranteed, but risk is covered, then everyone in the nation will become bankers and lawyers. Don't you see where that is leading? Or are you just too self-centered to give a shit?

If every other business in every other industry is allowed to fail, what makes banks so special?

One third of US banks failed during the Great Depression, did that help the common people?

If parasites and criminals know that profit is guaranteed

Guaranteed? LOL! The banks lost hundreds of billions during the crisis.

Yes, independent banks were hit hard, and the elites sacrificed some pawns, you're very clever. I get that.

Here I thought we were talking about Central banking and the big boys.

The big banks lost hundreds of billions during the crisis.
Their profits were not guaranteed, obviously.

If banks lost hundreds of billions during the crisis, they have only the FED and the government to blame.

Profits at big U.S. banks soar since crisis: New York Fed

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not sure how I argued Todd's argument about restricting the nominal values. I guess my mid-morning migraine is interfering with my ability to communicate effectively.


However, as I see it, one of two things will happen.

If you restrict the money supply as the economy grows, the requirements for liquidity will necessarily increase. If you do not expand the supply of money as the needs of the economy require, you will see inflationary pressure on the currency.

I suppose your scenario would work, but that inflationary pressure on the currency would seem to me to result in a corresponding pressure that would hamper growth. Haven't we always seen inflation hamper growth?

I am NOT however for decreasing nominal values of the currency. That is why I tried to make clear, and others have been trying to tell you, that using gold as the backer of currency might not work. Unless you are fine with a slowly decreasing nominal value, or introducing a basket of commodities like silver, platinum, or other financial wizardry to back each dollar. Gold is relatively finite. If you are willing to have your growth as finite as your ability to mine or find more of it, or decrease the nominal value of the currency by introducing more, the only logical answer is inflation and artificially slowing growth.

I have even heard a unique proposal that each unit of currency should be backed by units of energy. If you have ever looked at the growth of a nation versus it's use of energy, you will see they are intricately linked. Money is after all, in it's purest form, energy. In the modern age, few could quibble with trading their currency in for . . . .

This, in the end, is what we are really talking about. Man hours of labor. Industrial production of robots. Trucks and ships hauling freight. Sunshine growing crops. When ever you trade your currency, it reflects a trade of energy.


So why not instead of having a debt based currency, have a commodity based currency that reflects the reality of the world? I realize of course, this would give energy companies tremendously much more power. I think this is where things are headed now. This is why I have always liked the idea of energy co-operatives better than profit based energy corporations.

Inflation will increase if you don't increase the money supply? I don't mean this insulting, I really don't, but you should read more about the gold standard. It supports everything you've been arguing in this discussion so far. I think you just need to understand it better. I was the same, I was in another discussion on another board about the Fed and the gold standard came up. I realized I didn't understand the points being made well enough, so I went off and read about it. Lightbulbs went off that was the solution to the problem of the Fed stealing from us.

As for the money supply, Investors aren't fooled by gimmicks. Growing or shrinking the money supply doesn't change the real value in the economy. The value of a dollar is the real value in the economy divided by the number of nominal dollars in the economy. All raising the money supply does is change the nominal value of the money in the economy proportionally. It doesn't create value

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't. Your argument was that restricting growth of nominal dollars harms the economy or I misunderstood it. It doesn't. That's what I was saying

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't.

If the price level increases at the same rate that the Fed creates money, no value is created.
If the price level increases at a lower rate, value is created.
If the price level increases at a higher rate, value is destroyed.

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

You're just making false cause and effect fallacies that other things happening in the economy that do affect economic value have to do with the issuance of nominal dollars

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

If nothing else ever changed in the economy, you'd have a point.
That's never the case.

No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

Currency is a good. It's impacted by supply and demand, just like any other.
During and after the crisis, demand for currency increased dramatically.
Just as with any other good, meeting that demand adds value.

I said the value of a dollar is the nominal money supply of dollars divided by the value in the economy. Nothing you said contradicts that. Money changes in purchasing power, and it's explained by the forumula. But issuing more currency doesn't change the economic value in the economy

I said the value of a dollar is the nominal money supply of dollars divided by the value in the economy

Jan 2008, US GDP was $14.7 trillion. In Jan 2015, $17.95 trillion. An increase of 22%.
Over the same period, the Fed's balance sheet went from $930 billion to $4.543 trillion.

The ratio in 2008 was 15.8, in 2015 the ratio was 3.95.
Does that line up with your claim in the OP, "Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10."?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Saving the banking system is a good thing. Drug dealers, not so much.

Why? It just gets more corrupt, bloated, entrenched, and it corrupts the politics in D.C.

If every other business in every other industry is allowed to fail, what makes banks so special? Is it because Americans are too dumb and lazy to keep watch over the financial health of where they place their savings and they want to keep all their eggs in one basket?

If parasites and criminals know that profit is guaranteed, but risk is covered, then everyone in the nation will become bankers and lawyers. Don't you see where that is leading? Or are you just too self-centered to give a shit?

If every other business in every other industry is allowed to fail, what makes banks so special?

One third of US banks failed during the Great Depression, did that help the common people?

If parasites and criminals know that profit is guaranteed

Guaranteed? LOL! The banks lost hundreds of billions during the crisis.

Yes, independent banks were hit hard, and the elites sacrificed some pawns, you're very clever. I get that.

Here I thought we were talking about Central banking and the big boys.

The big banks lost hundreds of billions during the crisis.
Their profits were not guaranteed, obviously.

If banks lost hundreds of billions during the crisis, they have only the FED and the government to blame.

Profits at big U.S. banks soar since crisis: New York Fed

The government deserves blame to the extent they pushed mortgages to unqualified borrowers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you got nothing, huh?

This is a very good point. See, this is the sort of poster that just doesn't get how the economy is structured.

We would see this same member post in so many threads supporting a government enforced raise in the minimum wage. However, the thing is, how many raises in the minimum wage have we seen?

Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many. Too many. And what has it solved? Nothing.

It just keeps going up and up and up as the FED devalues the worth of the currency, stealing the value of the goods, products, land, wealth and LABOR of the American people. Raising the minimum wage is a temporary fix. The wealthy of the nation, the elites in the end don't give two shits about this issue, not really. It is a band-aid. They can afford it. The middle class and poor tend to be the one's that suffer when it distorts the price signals that ripple through the economy.

If the poor and middle class really wanted their dollars to purchase goods and services at a steady rate, they would demand that the FED quit robbing the value of the currency.

Want to help the working poor? End the Fed
Want to help the working poor? End the Fed - Campaign for Liberty

"Raising minimum wages by government decree appeals to those who do not understand economics. This appeal is especially strong during times of stagnant wages and increased economic inequality. But raising the minimum wage actually harms those at the bottom of the income ladder. Basic economic theory teaches that when the price of a good increases, demand for that good decreases. Raising the minimum wage increases the price of labor, thus decreasing the demand for labor. So an increased minimum wage will lead to hiring freezes and layoffs. Unskilled and inexperienced workers are the ones most often deprived of employment opportunities by increases in the minimum wage.


Minimum wage laws are not the only example of government policies that hurt those at the bottom of the income scale. Many regulations that are promoted as necessary to “rein in” large corporations actually hurt small businesses. Because these small businesses operate on a much narrower profit margin, they cannot as easily absorb the costs of complying with the regulations as large corporations. These regulations can also inhibit lower income individuals from starting their own businesses. Thus, government regulations can reduce the demand for wage-labor, while increasing the supply of labor, which further reduces wages.


Perhaps the most significant harm to low-wage earners is caused by the inflationist polices of the Federal Reserve. Since its creation one hundred years ago this month, the Federal Reserve’s policies have caused the dollar to lose over 95 percent of its purchasing power—that’s right, today you need $23.70 to buy what one dollar bought in 1913! Who do you think suffers the most from this loss of purchasing power—Warren Buffet or his secretary?


It is not just that higher incomes can afford the higher prices caused by Federal Reserve. The system is set up in a way that disadvantages those at the bottom of the income scale. When the Federal Reserve creates money, those well-connected with the political and financial elites receive the newly-created money first, before general price increases have spread through the economy. And most fast-food employees do not number among the well-connected."


If anything, what this chart shows is that the minimum wage requires a hair cut so more teenagers can get a job and so our economy would be more competitive with the rest of the world.

You want to know how to discourage illegal immigration? Decrease minimum wage to 4 or 5 dollars (as per the purchasing power between 1940 and 1950) and tighten the controls on who is eligible for social services. I guarantee you that your average sixteen year old will still want to work, but those illegals will stay put.

When the Federal Reserve creates money, those well-connected with the political and financial elites receive the newly-created money first,

Those bastards! How do the elites "receive the newly-created money first"?

For example, loans for mortgages based on money added to the money supply through Fed money provided to banks

I've heard sound arguments that restricting the supply of liquidity to just gold in the economy might hinder growth, so that is sort of a trick question. I think Todd is trying to trip us up, he knows quite a bit about what he is talking about here. Gold bugs can be a bit unrealistic. (OTH, maybe hindering growth, i.e., placing limits on growth is fates/divinity's way of saying, that is all the planet can take? That's my spiritual and philosophical side.)

The US economy is much larger than the gold supply of the entire planet by now. That said, I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough.

"The reverse of the notes were printed with green ink, and were thus called "greenbacks" by the public, being considered equivalent to the Demand Notes already known as such. These Notes were issued by the United States to pay for labor and goods.[3][6]

Earlier Secretary Chase had the slogan, "In God We Trust" engraved on U. S. coins. During a cabinet meeting there was some discussion of adding it to the U. S. Notes as well. Lincoln, however, humorously remarked, "If you are going to put a legend on the greenbacks, I would suggest that of Peter and Paul, 'Silver and gold I have none, but such as I have I give to thee.'"[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money)

When they eventually replace the dollar, it will either be with a new debt based fiat currency, or, if things go against them and the other side gets it's way, a free floating exchange basket of currencies based on commodities. Who knows? Maybe global civilization will collapse in a nuke exchange and make the whole thing pointless and academic, these maniacs are playing with fire.

1) Just because I advocate going back to the gold standard doesn't mean I want to go back to the dollar value that was then. It would in fact not work, you have to set the dollar value at the total US dollar money supply / the amount of gold held by the US government. The trick then is you freeze it there

2) You actually just made the same argument that Todd's making that you're correctly refuting. How would restricting the nominal amount of money available make people not achieve pro-growth strategies? How do decreasing real values of nominal currency spur growth? It doesn't make sense

All the gold standard does is prevent the Fed from what it's doing, printing money and stealing from the American people.

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything. That's what the Fed does.

As for "I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough." Bad idea. That's what we have now. It's what allows the Fed to do what it does

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything.

Wow, what a confusing mess.
If someone drops a new pile of cash into the game and buys up all the property, that isn't devaluing everyone's property, that's inflating the price of everyone's property.

That's what the Fed does.

The Fed doesn't hand out cash. Just look at QE. They bought bonds with it.
The Monopoly equivalent would be the Fed coming in and buying some Red properties (Treasuries)
and some Railroads (MBS) to add cash to the game.

 

[kaz]

Inflation will increase if you don't increase the money supply? I don't mean this insulting, I really don't, but you should read more about the gold standard. It supports everything you've been arguing in this discussion so far. I think you just need to understand it better. I was the same, I was in another discussion on another board about the Fed and the gold standard came up. I realized I didn't understand the points being made well enough, so I went off and read about it. Lightbulbs went off that was the solution to the problem of the Fed stealing from us.

As for the money supply, Investors aren't fooled by gimmicks. Growing or shrinking the money supply doesn't change the real value in the economy. The value of a dollar is the real value in the economy divided by the number of nominal dollars in the economy. All raising the money supply does is change the nominal value of the money in the economy proportionally. It doesn't create value

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't. Your argument was that restricting growth of nominal dollars harms the economy or I misunderstood it. It doesn't. That's what I was saying

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't.

If the price level increases at the same rate that the Fed creates money, no value is created.
If the price level increases at a lower rate, value is created.
If the price level increases at a higher rate, value is destroyed.

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

You're just making false cause and effect fallacies that other things happening in the economy that do affect economic value have to do with the issuance of nominal dollars

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

If nothing else ever changed in the economy, you'd have a point.
That's never the case.

No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

Currency is a good. It's impacted by supply and demand, just like any other.
During and after the crisis, demand for currency increased dramatically.
Just as with any other good, meeting that demand adds value.

I said the value of a dollar is the nominal money supply of dollars divided by the value in the economy. Nothing you said contradicts that. Money changes in purchasing power, and it's explained by the forumula. But issuing more currency doesn't change the economic value in the economy

I said the value of a dollar is the nominal money supply of dollars divided by the value in the economy

Jan 2008, US GDP was $14.7 trillion. In Jan 2015, $17.95 trillion. An increase of 22%.
Over the same period, the Fed's balance sheet went from $930 billion to $4.543 trillion.

The ratio in 2008 was 15.8, in 2015 the ratio was 3.95.
Does that line up with your claim in the OP, "Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10."?

You actually don't know what "all else held equal" means, do you?

 

[kaz]

This is a very good point. See, this is the sort of poster that just doesn't get how the economy is structured.

We would see this same member post in so many threads supporting a government enforced raise in the minimum wage. However, the thing is, how many raises in the minimum wage have we seen?

Minimum wage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many. Too many. And what has it solved? Nothing.

It just keeps going up and up and up as the FED devalues the worth of the currency, stealing the value of the goods, products, land, wealth and LABOR of the American people. Raising the minimum wage is a temporary fix. The wealthy of the nation, the elites in the end don't give two shits about this issue, not really. It is a band-aid. They can afford it. The middle class and poor tend to be the one's that suffer when it distorts the price signals that ripple through the economy.

If the poor and middle class really wanted their dollars to purchase goods and services at a steady rate, they would demand that the FED quit robbing the value of the currency.

Want to help the working poor? End the Fed
Want to help the working poor? End the Fed - Campaign for Liberty

"Raising minimum wages by government decree appeals to those who do not understand economics. This appeal is especially strong during times of stagnant wages and increased economic inequality. But raising the minimum wage actually harms those at the bottom of the income ladder. Basic economic theory teaches that when the price of a good increases, demand for that good decreases. Raising the minimum wage increases the price of labor, thus decreasing the demand for labor. So an increased minimum wage will lead to hiring freezes and layoffs. Unskilled and inexperienced workers are the ones most often deprived of employment opportunities by increases in the minimum wage.


Minimum wage laws are not the only example of government policies that hurt those at the bottom of the income scale. Many regulations that are promoted as necessary to “rein in” large corporations actually hurt small businesses. Because these small businesses operate on a much narrower profit margin, they cannot as easily absorb the costs of complying with the regulations as large corporations. These regulations can also inhibit lower income individuals from starting their own businesses. Thus, government regulations can reduce the demand for wage-labor, while increasing the supply of labor, which further reduces wages.


Perhaps the most significant harm to low-wage earners is caused by the inflationist polices of the Federal Reserve. Since its creation one hundred years ago this month, the Federal Reserve’s policies have caused the dollar to lose over 95 percent of its purchasing power—that’s right, today you need $23.70 to buy what one dollar bought in 1913! Who do you think suffers the most from this loss of purchasing power—Warren Buffet or his secretary?


It is not just that higher incomes can afford the higher prices caused by Federal Reserve. The system is set up in a way that disadvantages those at the bottom of the income scale. When the Federal Reserve creates money, those well-connected with the political and financial elites receive the newly-created money first, before general price increases have spread through the economy. And most fast-food employees do not number among the well-connected."


If anything, what this chart shows is that the minimum wage requires a hair cut so more teenagers can get a job and so our economy would be more competitive with the rest of the world.

You want to know how to discourage illegal immigration? Decrease minimum wage to 4 or 5 dollars (as per the purchasing power between 1940 and 1950) and tighten the controls on who is eligible for social services. I guarantee you that your average sixteen year old will still want to work, but those illegals will stay put.

When the Federal Reserve creates money, those well-connected with the political and financial elites receive the newly-created money first,

Those bastards! How do the elites "receive the newly-created money first"?

For example, loans for mortgages based on money added to the money supply through Fed money provided to banks

I've heard sound arguments that restricting the supply of liquidity to just gold in the economy might hinder growth, so that is sort of a trick question. I think Todd is trying to trip us up, he knows quite a bit about what he is talking about here. Gold bugs can be a bit unrealistic. (OTH, maybe hindering growth, i.e., placing limits on growth is fates/divinity's way of saying, that is all the planet can take? That's my spiritual and philosophical side.)

The US economy is much larger than the gold supply of the entire planet by now. That said, I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough.

"The reverse of the notes were printed with green ink, and were thus called "greenbacks" by the public, being considered equivalent to the Demand Notes already known as such. These Notes were issued by the United States to pay for labor and goods.[3][6]

Earlier Secretary Chase had the slogan, "In God We Trust" engraved on U. S. coins. During a cabinet meeting there was some discussion of adding it to the U. S. Notes as well. Lincoln, however, humorously remarked, "If you are going to put a legend on the greenbacks, I would suggest that of Peter and Paul, 'Silver and gold I have none, but such as I have I give to thee.'"[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money)

When they eventually replace the dollar, it will either be with a new debt based fiat currency, or, if things go against them and the other side gets it's way, a free floating exchange basket of currencies based on commodities. Who knows? Maybe global civilization will collapse in a nuke exchange and make the whole thing pointless and academic, these maniacs are playing with fire.

1) Just because I advocate going back to the gold standard doesn't mean I want to go back to the dollar value that was then. It would in fact not work, you have to set the dollar value at the total US dollar money supply / the amount of gold held by the US government. The trick then is you freeze it there

2) You actually just made the same argument that Todd's making that you're correctly refuting. How would restricting the nominal amount of money available make people not achieve pro-growth strategies? How do decreasing real values of nominal currency spur growth? It doesn't make sense

All the gold standard does is prevent the Fed from what it's doing, printing money and stealing from the American people.

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything. That's what the Fed does.

As for "I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough." Bad idea. That's what we have now. It's what allows the Fed to do what it does

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything.

Wow, what a confusing mess.
If someone drops a new pile of cash into the game and buys up all the property, that isn't devaluing everyone's property, that's inflating the price of everyone's property.

That's what the Fed does.

The Fed doesn't hand out cash. Just look at QE. They bought bonds with it.
The Monopoly equivalent would be the Fed coming in and buying some Red properties (Treasuries)
and some Railroads (MBS) to add cash to the game.

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?" It's as mentally simplistic as you get. What doesn't confuse you at this point? Look, that grass is green! Todd: What? What does that mean? it's fucking green!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd is arguing that adding nominal dollars somehow leads to the creation of value. It doesn't.

If the price level increases at the same rate that the Fed creates money, no value is created.
If the price level increases at a lower rate, value is created.
If the price level increases at a higher rate, value is destroyed.

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

You're just making false cause and effect fallacies that other things happening in the economy that do affect economic value have to do with the issuance of nominal dollars

The price level increases at the same rate all else held equal, the second and third never change. No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

If nothing else ever changed in the economy, you'd have a point.
That's never the case.

No one is fooled by the addition of currency without the addition of value.

Currency is a good. It's impacted by supply and demand, just like any other.
During and after the crisis, demand for currency increased dramatically.
Just as with any other good, meeting that demand adds value.

I said the value of a dollar is the nominal money supply of dollars divided by the value in the economy. Nothing you said contradicts that. Money changes in purchasing power, and it's explained by the forumula. But issuing more currency doesn't change the economic value in the economy

I said the value of a dollar is the nominal money supply of dollars divided by the value in the economy

Jan 2008, US GDP was $14.7 trillion. In Jan 2015, $17.95 trillion. An increase of 22%.
Over the same period, the Fed's balance sheet went from $930 billion to $4.543 trillion.

The ratio in 2008 was 15.8, in 2015 the ratio was 3.95.
Does that line up with your claim in the OP, "Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10."?

You actually don't know what "all else held equal" means, do you?

Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10.

So the Fed can add a lot more to the money supply, but if not "all else is held equal",
the price might not go up at all.

That's weird, because you didn't leave any wiggle room in the OP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When the Federal Reserve creates money, those well-connected with the political and financial elites receive the newly-created money first,

Those bastards! How do the elites "receive the newly-created money first"?

For example, loans for mortgages based on money added to the money supply through Fed money provided to banks

I've heard sound arguments that restricting the supply of liquidity to just gold in the economy might hinder growth, so that is sort of a trick question. I think Todd is trying to trip us up, he knows quite a bit about what he is talking about here. Gold bugs can be a bit unrealistic. (OTH, maybe hindering growth, i.e., placing limits on growth is fates/divinity's way of saying, that is all the planet can take? That's my spiritual and philosophical side.)

The US economy is much larger than the gold supply of the entire planet by now. That said, I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough.

"The reverse of the notes were printed with green ink, and were thus called "greenbacks" by the public, being considered equivalent to the Demand Notes already known as such. These Notes were issued by the United States to pay for labor and goods.[3][6]

Earlier Secretary Chase had the slogan, "In God We Trust" engraved on U. S. coins. During a cabinet meeting there was some discussion of adding it to the U. S. Notes as well. Lincoln, however, humorously remarked, "If you are going to put a legend on the greenbacks, I would suggest that of Peter and Paul, 'Silver and gold I have none, but such as I have I give to thee.'"[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money)

When they eventually replace the dollar, it will either be with a new debt based fiat currency, or, if things go against them and the other side gets it's way, a free floating exchange basket of currencies based on commodities. Who knows? Maybe global civilization will collapse in a nuke exchange and make the whole thing pointless and academic, these maniacs are playing with fire.

1) Just because I advocate going back to the gold standard doesn't mean I want to go back to the dollar value that was then. It would in fact not work, you have to set the dollar value at the total US dollar money supply / the amount of gold held by the US government. The trick then is you freeze it there

2) You actually just made the same argument that Todd's making that you're correctly refuting. How would restricting the nominal amount of money available make people not achieve pro-growth strategies? How do decreasing real values of nominal currency spur growth? It doesn't make sense

All the gold standard does is prevent the Fed from what it's doing, printing money and stealing from the American people.

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything. That's what the Fed does.

As for "I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough." Bad idea. That's what we have now. It's what allows the Fed to do what it does

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything.

Wow, what a confusing mess.
If someone drops a new pile of cash into the game and buys up all the property, that isn't devaluing everyone's property, that's inflating the price of everyone's property.

That's what the Fed does.

The Fed doesn't hand out cash. Just look at QE. They bought bonds with it.
The Monopoly equivalent would be the Fed coming in and buying some Red properties (Treasuries)
and some Railroads (MBS) to add cash to the game.

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?" It's as mentally simplistic as you get. What doesn't confuse you at this point? Look, that grass is green! Todd: What? What does that mean? it's fucking green!

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?"

In the way you reversed inflation and deflation.
In the way you think the Fed gives away money.

It's as mentally simplistic as you get.

And you still screwed it up.

 

[kaz]

For example, loans for mortgages based on money added to the money supply through Fed money provided to banks

I've heard sound arguments that restricting the supply of liquidity to just gold in the economy might hinder growth, so that is sort of a trick question. I think Todd is trying to trip us up, he knows quite a bit about what he is talking about here. Gold bugs can be a bit unrealistic. (OTH, maybe hindering growth, i.e., placing limits on growth is fates/divinity's way of saying, that is all the planet can take? That's my spiritual and philosophical side.)

The US economy is much larger than the gold supply of the entire planet by now. That said, I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough.

"The reverse of the notes were printed with green ink, and were thus called "greenbacks" by the public, being considered equivalent to the Demand Notes already known as such. These Notes were issued by the United States to pay for labor and goods.[3][6]

Earlier Secretary Chase had the slogan, "In God We Trust" engraved on U. S. coins. During a cabinet meeting there was some discussion of adding it to the U. S. Notes as well. Lincoln, however, humorously remarked, "If you are going to put a legend on the greenbacks, I would suggest that of Peter and Paul, 'Silver and gold I have none, but such as I have I give to thee.'"[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money)

When they eventually replace the dollar, it will either be with a new debt based fiat currency, or, if things go against them and the other side gets it's way, a free floating exchange basket of currencies based on commodities. Who knows? Maybe global civilization will collapse in a nuke exchange and make the whole thing pointless and academic, these maniacs are playing with fire.

1) Just because I advocate going back to the gold standard doesn't mean I want to go back to the dollar value that was then. It would in fact not work, you have to set the dollar value at the total US dollar money supply / the amount of gold held by the US government. The trick then is you freeze it there

2) You actually just made the same argument that Todd's making that you're correctly refuting. How would restricting the nominal amount of money available make people not achieve pro-growth strategies? How do decreasing real values of nominal currency spur growth? It doesn't make sense

All the gold standard does is prevent the Fed from what it's doing, printing money and stealing from the American people.

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything. That's what the Fed does.

As for "I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough." Bad idea. That's what we have now. It's what allows the Fed to do what it does

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything.

Wow, what a confusing mess.
If someone drops a new pile of cash into the game and buys up all the property, that isn't devaluing everyone's property, that's inflating the price of everyone's property.

That's what the Fed does.

The Fed doesn't hand out cash. Just look at QE. They bought bonds with it.
The Monopoly equivalent would be the Fed coming in and buying some Red properties (Treasuries)
and some Railroads (MBS) to add cash to the game.

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?" It's as mentally simplistic as you get. What doesn't confuse you at this point? Look, that grass is green! Todd: What? What does that mean? it's fucking green!

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?"

In the way you reversed inflation and deflation.
In the way you think the Fed gives away money.

It's as mentally simplistic as you get.

And you still screwed it up.

still don't grasp "all else held equal," huh sparky?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've heard sound arguments that restricting the supply of liquidity to just gold in the economy might hinder growth, so that is sort of a trick question. I think Todd is trying to trip us up, he knows quite a bit about what he is talking about here. Gold bugs can be a bit unrealistic. (OTH, maybe hindering growth, i.e., placing limits on growth is fates/divinity's way of saying, that is all the planet can take? That's my spiritual and philosophical side.)

The US economy is much larger than the gold supply of the entire planet by now. That said, I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough.

"The reverse of the notes were printed with green ink, and were thus called "greenbacks" by the public, being considered equivalent to the Demand Notes already known as such. These Notes were issued by the United States to pay for labor and goods.[3][6]

Earlier Secretary Chase had the slogan, "In God We Trust" engraved on U. S. coins. During a cabinet meeting there was some discussion of adding it to the U. S. Notes as well. Lincoln, however, humorously remarked, "If you are going to put a legend on the greenbacks, I would suggest that of Peter and Paul, 'Silver and gold I have none, but such as I have I give to thee.'"[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(1860s_money)

When they eventually replace the dollar, it will either be with a new debt based fiat currency, or, if things go against them and the other side gets it's way, a free floating exchange basket of currencies based on commodities. Who knows? Maybe global civilization will collapse in a nuke exchange and make the whole thing pointless and academic, these maniacs are playing with fire.

1) Just because I advocate going back to the gold standard doesn't mean I want to go back to the dollar value that was then. It would in fact not work, you have to set the dollar value at the total US dollar money supply / the amount of gold held by the US government. The trick then is you freeze it there

2) You actually just made the same argument that Todd's making that you're correctly refuting. How would restricting the nominal amount of money available make people not achieve pro-growth strategies? How do decreasing real values of nominal currency spur growth? It doesn't make sense

All the gold standard does is prevent the Fed from what it's doing, printing money and stealing from the American people.

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything. That's what the Fed does.

As for "I'm not opposed to a commodity based currency however. Even one based on the labor and goods, which is the full faith and credit of the American people, would be good enough." Bad idea. That's what we have now. It's what allows the Fed to do what it does

Suppose you're in a game of monopoly. Someone just gets all the money from another game of monopoly and starts buying up your and other player's property with that money. They devalued everyone's property and they took property without creating anything.

Wow, what a confusing mess.
If someone drops a new pile of cash into the game and buys up all the property, that isn't devaluing everyone's property, that's inflating the price of everyone's property.

That's what the Fed does.

The Fed doesn't hand out cash. Just look at QE. They bought bonds with it.
The Monopoly equivalent would be the Fed coming in and buying some Red properties (Treasuries)
and some Railroads (MBS) to add cash to the game.

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?" It's as mentally simplistic as you get. What doesn't confuse you at this point? Look, that grass is green! Todd: What? What does that mean? it's fucking green!

In what possible way is my monopoly example "confusing?"

In the way you reversed inflation and deflation.
In the way you think the Fed gives away money.

It's as mentally simplistic as you get.

And you still screwed it up.

still don't grasp "all else held equal," huh sparky?

You mean the demand for money must remain unchanged for your simplistic claim to be true. Durr.

 

[Dovahkiin]

It's what conservatives seem to love these days.. Ignore demand.

Liberals are still more clueless. Not even close.

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand . Actually, they're both pretty stupid, but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand.

Well, at least liberals recognize the need to boost demand .

And completely ignore anything that would boost supply.
In fact, they actively work to reduce supply.

but at least liberals supported the stimulus/continue to support ventures that boost aggregate demand

Yes, liberals push to increase demand in the worst possible ways.

Huh? We have plenty of supply. Demand tends to lead to an increase in supply by the way, producers increase production due to new demand.
How do you propose increasing demand as of now? Low interest rates, excess reserves, what is left?

Boosting demand without boosting supply leads to higher prices, basic on the supply and demand curve

You assume that supply doesn't increase in relation to new demand. You also assume that we're lacking excess supply.