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

[kaz]

I know. Look how well things went when ANYBODY could get a loan.

Left alone, do you think banks would make housing loans to just anybody today?

Now I'm confused. You just said you actually meant that only "elites" are getting the money. Now you're agreeing with my point you just said you disagree with? What?

You just said you actually meant that only "elites" are getting the money

I'm saying we don't need new regulations to stop banks from making loans to unqualified buyers.
Banks learned their lessons. Now they're being forced too far in the other direction.
That's one reason for our current slow growth.

Government is what pushed banks to make loans to unqualified buyers and the Fed funded it with free money

Pushed yes, free money, no.

Absolutely it was free money, virtually zero interest

 

[MisterBeale]

As far as the bank bailout, it made money.

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?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only elites can get mortgages?
How is the Fed providing this money to the banks? Is it a gift?

I didn't take it as narrowly as you apparently intended it. But by saying you did mean it that narrowly, you became wrong. Lots of money is distributed through loans funded by the Fed. Since you apparently think only the super rich get Fed money, you're going to need to explain how you come to that conclusion, which is clearly wrong then anyway

Lots of money is distributed through loans funded by the Fed.

The Fed hasn't lent any serious money for a long time.
Current Discount Window loans are $57 million.

Since you apparently think only the super rich get Fed money,

I'm mocking that claim.

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it. I don't see how they steal sometimes is a defense of that.

On the mocking elites, it would have made more sense since I obviously agreed with that point by pointing out it's not just the super rich if you haven't followed up by disagreeing with me but had said exactly, it's not just the elites

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it

Banks have no reason to borrow from the Fed. Haven't for a long time.

I still want to know how elites get new money from the Fed first and why you think that would matter?

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?

 

[kaz]

As far as the bank bailout, it made money.

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?

It's what makes capitalism work. And the last one you want making the decision of which businesses shouldn't fail is government

 

[kaz]

I didn't take it as narrowly as you apparently intended it. But by saying you did mean it that narrowly, you became wrong. Lots of money is distributed through loans funded by the Fed. Since you apparently think only the super rich get Fed money, you're going to need to explain how you come to that conclusion, which is clearly wrong then anyway

Lots of money is distributed through loans funded by the Fed.

The Fed hasn't lent any serious money for a long time.
Current Discount Window loans are $57 million.

Since you apparently think only the super rich get Fed money,

I'm mocking that claim.

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it. I don't see how they steal sometimes is a defense of that.

On the mocking elites, it would have made more sense since I obviously agreed with that point by pointing out it's not just the super rich if you haven't followed up by disagreeing with me but had said exactly, it's not just the elites

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it

Banks have no reason to borrow from the Fed. Haven't for a long time.

I still want to know how elites get new money from the Fed first and why you think that would matter?

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?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Left alone, do you think banks would make housing loans to just anybody today?

Now I'm confused. You just said you actually meant that only "elites" are getting the money. Now you're agreeing with my point you just said you disagree with? What?

You just said you actually meant that only "elites" are getting the money

I'm saying we don't need new regulations to stop banks from making loans to unqualified buyers.
Banks learned their lessons. Now they're being forced too far in the other direction.
That's one reason for our current slow growth.

Government is what pushed banks to make loans to unqualified buyers and the Fed funded it with free money

Pushed yes, free money, no.

Absolutely it was free money, virtually zero interest

When were banks getting this free money from the Fed?
How much?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As far as the bank bailout, it made money.

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lots of money is distributed through loans funded by the Fed.

The Fed hasn't lent any serious money for a long time.
Current Discount Window loans are $57 million.

Since you apparently think only the super rich get Fed money,

I'm mocking that claim.

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it. I don't see how they steal sometimes is a defense of that.

On the mocking elites, it would have made more sense since I obviously agreed with that point by pointing out it's not just the super rich if you haven't followed up by disagreeing with me but had said exactly, it's not just the elites

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it

Banks have no reason to borrow from the Fed. Haven't for a long time.

I still want to know how elites get new money from the Fed first and why you think that would matter?

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.

 

[MisterBeale]

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

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.

 

[kaz]

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it. I don't see how they steal sometimes is a defense of that.

On the mocking elites, it would have made more sense since I obviously agreed with that point by pointing out it's not just the super rich if you haven't followed up by disagreeing with me but had said exactly, it's not just the elites

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it

Banks have no reason to borrow from the Fed. Haven't for a long time.

I still want to know how elites get new money from the Fed first and why you think that would matter?

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

 

[MisterBeale]

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it. I don't see how they steal sometimes is a defense of that.

On the mocking elites, it would have made more sense since I obviously agreed with that point by pointing out it's not just the super rich if you haven't followed up by disagreeing with me but had said exactly, it's not just the elites

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it

Banks have no reason to borrow from the Fed. Haven't for a long time.

I still want to know how elites get new money from the Fed first and why you think that would matter?

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.

 

[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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it

Banks have no reason to borrow from the Fed. Haven't for a long time.

I still want to know how elites get new money from the Fed first and why you think that would matter?

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it

Banks have no reason to borrow from the Fed. Haven't for a long time.

I still want to know how elites get new money from the Fed first and why you think that would matter?

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.

That guy's funny. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

On the first point, "a long time" is only a few years and they will continue to do it

Banks have no reason to borrow from the Fed. Haven't for a long time.

I still want to know how elites get new money from the Fed first and why you think that would matter?

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.

 

[MisterBeale]

As far as the bank bailout, it made money.

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.

 

[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

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As far as the bank bailout, it made money.

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.

 

[kaz]

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.

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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?