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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

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.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

why would demand for money go up if no economic value is created?

why would demand for money go up

Why do you feel demand for money remains constant?

 

[kaz]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

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.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

that made no sense

 

[kaz]

We certainly don't want to stop American currency from going to China or India.
By the way, I can still charge $1.00 for a pencil if that extra currency doesn't get to the region where my business is located.

OK. And?

Your OP was filled with presumptions that are divorced from reality.

What? how are you "independent," you're just another left wing dependency whore

 

[kaz]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

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.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

You're confusing nominal value with real value. Adding nominal dollars to the money supply has nothing to do with what you're arguing

 

[kaz]

We certainly don't want to stop American currency from going to China or India.
By the way, I can still charge $1.00 for a pencil if that extra currency doesn't get to the region where my business is located.

why? do you live in a cave?

Perhaps the community can't support an increase in price.

has zero to do with my post. but if you're saying you live in an alternate reality, that's probably true

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

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.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

that made no sense

Before the crisis, banks made loans for mortgages, even to people with bad credit.
During the crisis, banks scrambled to raise cash. The interbank loan market froze up.
Banks were afraid to loan to each other, because the other bank could fail.
Mortgage bonds were sinking in value, so no one wanted to take them as collateral for a loan.

So, you see, the demand for money increased. Banks would rather hold safe cash than mortgages, even though the mortgages earned a much higher rate of return.

Do you understand now that the demand for money can change?

 

[kaz]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

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.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

why would demand for money go up if no economic value is created?

why would demand for money go up

Why do you feel demand for money remains constant?

That comment had nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about an all else held equal nominal addition to the money supply. No idea what you're talking about, maybe you could make a little more sense

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

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.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

You're confusing nominal value with real value. Adding nominal dollars to the money supply has nothing to do with what you're arguing

You're confusing nominal value with real value.

You're looking at supply, while ignoring demand.

 

[kaz]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

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.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

that made no sense

Before the crisis, banks made loans for mortgages, even to people with bad credit.
During the crisis, banks scrambled to raise cash. The interbank loan market froze up.
Banks were afraid to loan to each other, because the other bank could fail.
Mortgage bonds were sinking in value, so no one wanted to take them as collateral for a loan.

So, you see, the demand for money increased. Banks would rather hold safe cash than mortgages, even though the mortgages earned a much higher rate of return.

Do you understand now that the demand for money can change?

I never didn't see that. What I also never saw is what that had to do with what I said

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

why would demand for money go up if no economic value is created?

why would demand for money go up

Why do you feel demand for money remains constant?

That comment had nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about an all else held equal nominal addition to the money supply. No idea what you're talking about, maybe you could make a little more sense

I was talking about an all else held equal

I agree, you were assuming demand stays constant, it doesn't.

 

[kaz]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

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.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

You're confusing nominal value with real value. Adding nominal dollars to the money supply has nothing to do with what you're arguing

You're confusing nominal value with real value.

You're looking at supply, while ignoring demand.

I'm talking about the NOMINAL value of money. The rest is a figment of your imagination. Maybe if you could make a well formed question I'd have a fucking clue what you are talking about. But so far what I have from you is a bunch of butt obvious statements that while I agree with you I have no fucking clue what it has to do with anything I said

 

[kaz]

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

why would demand for money go up if no economic value is created?

why would demand for money go up

Why do you feel demand for money remains constant?

That comment had nothing to do with what I said. I was talking about an all else held equal nominal addition to the money supply. No idea what you're talking about, maybe you could make a little more sense

I was talking about an all else held equal

I agree, you were assuming demand stays constant, it doesn't.

No fucking shit Dick Tracey, but that has nothing to do with the point. "all else held equal" means focus on the point I'm making, it doesn't mean nothing varies in the real world

Can I have a hit of that? You're smoking some great shit, obviously

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

 

[kaz]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

that makes no sense. no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy, it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

 

[Indeependent]

We certainly don't want to stop American currency from going to China or India.
By the way, I can still charge $1.00 for a pencil if that extra currency doesn't get to the region where my business is located.

OK. And?

Your OP was filled with presumptions that are divorced from reality.

What? how are you "independent," you're just another left wing dependency whore

You live in a theoretical world.

 

[kaz]

We certainly don't want to stop American currency from going to China or India.
By the way, I can still charge $1.00 for a pencil if that extra currency doesn't get to the region where my business is located.

OK. And?

Your OP was filled with presumptions that are divorced from reality.

What? how are you "independent," you're just another left wing dependency whore

You live in a theoretical world.

So when I say the government issuing currency with no economic value created that reduces the nominal value of the economic assets that make up the economy, that's just a "theoretical world." Gotcha

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

that makes no sense. no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy, it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy

So you claim.

it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices only increase 5%, they've added value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 20%, they've added no value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 50%, they've destroyed value.

 

[MisterBeale]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

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.

That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.

I don't know what that means

You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.

If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.

why would demand for money go up if no economic value is created?

Because of shenanigans that folks like Toddster and Indeependent support. That is why they won't explain it to you.

When the leeches of society are allowed to gain wealth off the backs of the producers, corruption sets in.

Why do you think the Christ threw the money changers out of the temple? It is the only time he was every reported to have gotten angry. The is why Rome colluded with the French State to do away with the fee based banking of the Templars and replace it with Fractional Reserve Banking. It's much easier to manipulate and corrupt.

We don't know when the next Fri. 13 (Bust) will come, but they are always guaranteed. The system ALWAYS has to correct itself. When it does, people will suffer and die.

Who cares if the powerful and rich stay in control though, right?

When the wealth disappears, the demand for the creation of new money and new debt is always there.

Here's a good example.

Where did all the money go?
As Cypriots are discovering, wealth can prove to be illusory
http://www.economist.com/news/finan...ng-wealth-can-prove-be-illusory-where-did-all
"High house or share prices, relative to personal incomes or profits, represent a bet that the good times will continue, and that incomes and profits (and cashflows in the form of dividends or rents) will rise significantly in future. When that bet proves wrong, the wealth disappears.


Now to the banks. When a customer deposits money, a bank must do something with it: buy assets or lend it to businesses. That is the banking system’s economic function; it transforms short-term liabilities (deposits that can be instantly withdrawn) into longer-term loans. Banks have always been at risk of two things: that the loans will not be repaid, and that customers will want to withdraw their deposits faster than the bank can turn its assets into cash. Until the 1930s bank failures, and the resulting losses to depositors, were a recurring problem.


Depositing money in a bank therefore amounts to a bet that the bank will lend its money wisely, or that the economy will be strong enough for bank loans to be repaid, and that confidence in the banking system will be maintained. In the modern era bank customers have tended to regard this risk as negligible, thanks to a combination of deposit insurance and governments’ willingness to rescue failing banks. But in many countries the banking sector has grown so large, relative to the economy, that few governments could plausibly guarantee all their system’s deposits. In such circumstances bank customers, particularly uninsured depositors, are in effect relying on the governments of other countries to bail them out in times of trouble—a risky proposition."


I'm already dreading the collapse of the big four big banks. There is no conceivable way to bail them out. I think Trump is already planning on ways to try to save the system. . .

I'm more than sure it involved some jack-booted thugs on the streets. But then, I'm not sure Hillary's will be much different, but her scheme will probably involve replacing it with a globalist scheme that they have been planning since day one.


The REAL solution, which I think Ron Paul, and a few others were maybe hinting at, is because the world economy has grow so large, and so complex, a better way needs to be found. Unfortunately, there are too many powerful interests that benefit from the way things are set up now that are resistant to change.

 

[MisterBeale]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

That's because the entire system is corrupt.

The way they have it set up like a casino, they wiped out the value of the REAL assets held by the little folks, then indentured those same tax payers through debt, created new QE1, QE2, QE2, etc. once again re-expanded the money supply, and gave it all to their criminal banking friends and the people on Wall Street.

It's a bullshit game and a bullshit system that screws the poor and the folks creating real wealth and only enriches the parasites.

Nice.

 

[MisterBeale]

Adding money to the money supply does not add value. 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. No value was created.

No one but the left should hate the Fed more. When the government adds taxes, every time, they disproportionately tax the rich. The Fed printing money is a regressive tax because the "rich" have investments which compensate for the reduction in the buying power of a dollar.

The "poor" take the full hit because they spend what they earn, and every new dollar created by the Fed hits them in proportion to spending, which is higher for them.

If leftists actually believe what you say, and you grasped what the Fed does, you'd be the first to demand it's abolished. The reality though is you don't give a shit about the poor, you care about government power. Which is why you are the Fed's biggest advocate.

Once again you support what you say you oppose and fuck the people you claim to defend

Adding money to the money supply does not add value.

Adding money to the money supply during and after the crisis did add value.

that makes no sense. no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy, it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

no economic value is created by adding currency to an economy

So you claim.

it just reduces the nominal value of everything in the economy

If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices only increase 5%, they've added value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 20%, they've added no value.
If the Fed adds 20% to money supply and prices increase 50%, they've destroyed value.

You don't add value by printing money.

You don't add value by tapping some digits into a computer.

An idiot knows this.