PDA

View Full Version : Economics Do you support another Bernanke term? Consensus is growing against him.


googlegoogle
12-08-2009, 01:49 PM
Confirmation is next week. By the way, I don't support him. We seem to be stuck in a trap of low interest rates and can't get out.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/71195-committee-vote-on-bernanke-expected-next-week


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/moving-the-senate-banking_b_384007.html


This guy says replace him with Paul Volker.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/167260-replace-ben-bernanke-with-paul-volcker

Dodd says no.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-dodd-dont-be-so-sure-bernanke-will-get-re-confirmed-2009-11

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 02:13 PM
Well, it's not who should be at the helm it's whether or not we should even have one.
He'll only be replaced by someone of like mind. Anyone, who heads the Fed has to be a died-in-the-wool Keynesian to be put there.

googlegoogle
12-08-2009, 02:50 PM
Volker or someone who doesn't believe just low interest rates grows an economy.

banyon
12-08-2009, 03:17 PM
Well, it's not who's should be at the helm it's whether or not we should even have one.
He'll only be replaced by someone of like mind. Anyone, who heads the Fed has to be a died-in-the-wool Keynesian to be put there.

One thing I can guarantee is that there's probably not more than 5 votes in the House for this irresponsible view.

Whether we need to fundamentally alter the transparency and accountability of the institution is a different question, but I for one would like to be able to finance a war should we find ourselves in a necessary one again.

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 03:58 PM
Volker or someone who doesn't believe just low interest rates grows an economy.

At this point, Volcker was better than Greenspan and Bernanke. These guys get worse over time just like our presidents.

But I have to wonder if Volcker slamming on the breaks was because it was during RR.

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 04:01 PM
One thing I can guarantee is that there's probably not more than 5 votes in the House for this irresponsible view.

Whether we need to fundamentally alter the transparency and accountability of the institution is a different question, but I for one would like to be able to finance a war should we find ourselves in a necessary one again.

Irresponsible? In your irresponsibly brainwashed and pig-headed opinion. Our economy did fine when we had no Fed. I have the graph....economy climbed upwards just the same as with one.
It's just hard to buck established opinion or a status quo....which can be wrong.

Don't forget wars were funded without one too. But that's the idea, to hamstring govt from spending on unecessary things in general. That's why socialists like yourself, readers of the Nation, NR and other assorted statists love the arrangement.

banyon
12-08-2009, 04:05 PM
Irresponsible? In your brainwashed opinion. Our economy did fine when we had no Fed. It's just hard to buck established opinion or a status quo....which can be wrong.

Don't forget wars were funded without one too. But that's the idea, to hamstring govt from spending on unecessary things in general. That's socialists and statists love the arrangement.

You need to read the history of the financing of the War of 1812. It even persuaded your buddy Madison to come around on the idea.

The only major international war we fought without a central bank was the Revolution, and that saddled us with debt so extreme and volatile that it threatened our financial ruin for most of our first 10-15 years.

Our economy did not do "fine" without a Fed. In fact it was more volatile and prone to panics and liquidity crises. Aside from the Great Depression (sans the FDIC), the volatility of economic crises has been much tempered in this century compared with its 19th century bretheren.

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 04:08 PM
Did someone say something?ROFL

banyon
12-08-2009, 04:11 PM
Did someone say something?ROFL

Yeah, facts are scary! Run away! Back to your psychological infantile defense mechanisms ASAP!

memyselfI
12-08-2009, 04:17 PM
Confirmation is next week. By the way, I don't support him. We seem to be stuck in a trap of low interest rates and can't get out.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/71195-committee-vote-on-bernanke-expected-next-week


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/moving-the-senate-banking_b_384007.html


This guy says replace him with Paul Volker.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/167260-replace-ben-bernanke-with-paul-volcker

Dodd says no.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chris-dodd-dont-be-so-sure-bernanke-will-get-re-confirmed-2009-11

No, but he'll get confirmed because Lite and the Congress need a scapegoat.

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 04:24 PM
No, but he'll get confirmed because Lite and the Congress need a scapegoat.

:thumb: Good One!

KC native
12-08-2009, 05:47 PM
I say no but he will be nominated and more than likely confirmed. I just don't see Obama jumping horse midstream on this one.

There's no way in hell that Volker comes back though. The Obama administration has minimalized his influence much to my dismay so there's almost a zero chance of him being nominated. Beyond that he's old as balls now and i really doubt he wants to head the Fed again.

KC native
12-08-2009, 05:48 PM
You need to read the history of the financing of the War of 1812. It even persuaded your buddy Madison to come around on the idea.

The only major international war we fought without a central bank was the Revolution, and that saddled us with debt so extreme and volatile that it threatened our financial ruin for most of our first 10-15 years.

Our economy did not do "fine" without a Fed. In fact it was more volatile and prone to panics and liquidity crises. Aside from the Great Depression (sans the FDIC), the volatility of economic crises has been much tempered in this century compared with its 19th century bretheren.

But but but but but but...she's got a chart made by some guy she knows. ROFL

googlegoogle
12-08-2009, 05:59 PM
You need to read the history of the financing of the War of 1812. It even persuaded your buddy Madison to come around on the idea.

The only major international war we fought without a central bank was the Revolution, and that saddled us with debt so extreme and volatile that it threatened our financial ruin for most of our first 10-15 years.

Our economy did not do "fine" without a Fed. In fact it was more volatile and prone to panics and liquidity crises. Aside from the Great Depression (sans the FDIC), the volatility of economic crises has been much tempered in this century compared with its 19th century bretheren.


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091022213917AA0EAZ2

Calcountry
12-08-2009, 06:02 PM
But but but but but but...she's got a chart made by some guy she knows. ROFLAnd besides, "Who is she, that she should be the economic moraityl police of the whole economy. "

googlegoogle
12-08-2009, 06:05 PM
But but but but but but...she's got a chart made by some guy she knows. ROFL

"Some economists including Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman),<sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference">[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#cite_note-16)</sup> Ben Bernanke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke),<sup id="cite_ref-Federal_Reserve_Board_17-0" class="reference">[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#cite_note-Federal_Reserve_Board-17)</sup> Robert Latham Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latham_Owen) and Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard)<sup id="cite_ref-mobgreatdepression_18-0" class="reference">[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#cite_note-mobgreatdepression-18)</sup> believe that the Federal Reserve System helped to cause the Great Depression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Taco John
12-08-2009, 06:27 PM
I think if you're going to have a Fed Chairman in a time like this, you have to have someone who isn't afraid to get in a helicopter and throw hundred dollar bills out the window, like Bernanke says he'd do if he needed to. That's dedication.

Chocolate Hog
12-08-2009, 06:31 PM
I think if you're going to have a Fed Chairman in a time like this, you have to have someone who isn't afraid to get in a helicopter and throw hundred dollar bills out the window, like Bernanke says he'd do if he needed to. That's dedication.

They should keep Bernanke around. The grassroots has been able to do alot with the fed since that idiot has taken over.

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 06:34 PM
"Some economists including Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman),<sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference">[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#cite_note-16)</sup> Ben Bernanke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke),<sup id="cite_ref-Federal_Reserve_Board_17-0" class="reference">[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#cite_note-Federal_Reserve_Board-17)</sup> Robert Latham Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latham_Owen) and Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard)<sup id="cite_ref-mobgreatdepression_18-0" class="reference">[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#cite_note-mobgreatdepression-18)</sup> believe that the Federal Reserve System helped to cause the Great Depression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System
^^^^ This

To asshole KCnaive who is thoroughly indoctrinated by our current system ( flat earther) and works for the criminal banksters and Wall Street getting fat off the stimulus:
I did not have a casual conversation with just someone I know for anecdotal data. It's from an economics professor named Clifford Thies. He is the Eldon R. Lindsay Chair of Free Enterprise at Shenandoah University in Winchester, VA. He wrote the article "The Color of Money" (http://mises.org/daily/1028) for the Mises Institute which has a link to send him email which I did. It was about the necessity of having a central bank. And spare me about those banking panics.

I still have the email on this drive but have the chart someplace on my older computer. It can still be verified since we became an economic juggernut passing Europe during the Gilded Age before we had the Fed. Anyhow, this is what Cliff wrote to me:


On Dec 6, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Thies, Clifford wrote:

You have hit on the emerging concensus in monetary economics. That, in the long run, monetary policy determines the inflation rate, and that the unemployment rate is largely independent of monetary policy.

I think there is some debate as to whether monetary policy can have a modest effect in ameliorating the business cycle, and also some appreciation that attempting to use monetary policy to ameliotate the business cycle risks worsening the business cycle (most recently, the effect of easy money to fight the recession of 2001 in inducing a boom-and-bust cycle in housing).

****

From:xxxxxxx
Sent: Thu 12/6/2007 10:56 AM
To: Thies, Clifford
Subject: Re: Saw your article on Mises- The Color of Money


Thank you. Good Chart.

These guys both Keynesians and Monestarists claim our economy is also prosperous and successful because of a Central Bank in terms of facilitating this prosperity. This chart shows that the Central Bank isn't a factor...that other factors exists. However, there's no denying the inflation to our money and boom bust it creates. But the Keyenesians and even Monetarists
claim that the CB is a cure for booms and busts. Regardless, if we did have them then we still have them.

So I fail to see how it cured anything except that it has ruined our currency and put our govt into debt.

****

On Dec 5, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Thies, Clifford wrote:
My comments are attached.

****
From: xxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:17 PM
o: Thies, Clifford
Subject: Saw your article on Mises- The Color of Money

Saw your money article on Mises site.
"Its also worth pointing out that, even when our currency was fixed to the price of gold, there was much more currency in print then there was gold backing it, we still used fractional reserve banking and a central bank (or de facto central bank)."

Been arguing about this subject with a Keynesian and a Monetarist who feel a fiat currency and a Central Bank is the facilitator ofour large and prosperous economy. Is it possible for you to fill in more specifics on this claim.


No link but did a screen save of it.

Chocolate Hog
12-08-2009, 06:39 PM
lol KcNative won't even answer why the value of the dollar is down 96% since the creation of the Federal Reserve.

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 06:42 PM
I think if you're going to have a Fed Chairman in a time like this, you have to have someone who isn't afraid to get in a helicopter and throw hundred dollar bills out the window, like Bernanke says he'd do if he needed to. That's dedication.

ROFL
Bernanke-Hawk down!
KCnaive would enjoy the ride too. So long as it's on the taxpayer's dime.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/bernanke-helicopter.jpg

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 06:43 PM
lol KcNative won't even answer why the value of the dollar is down 96% since the creation of the Federal Reserve.

He's too busy attacking those who have called his game.

KC native
12-08-2009, 07:57 PM
"Some economists including Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman),<sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference">[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#cite_note-16)</sup> Ben Bernanke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke),<sup id="cite_ref-Federal_Reserve_Board_17-0" class="reference">[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#cite_note-Federal_Reserve_Board-17)</sup> Robert Latham Owen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Latham_Owen) and Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard)<sup id="cite_ref-mobgreatdepression_18-0" class="reference">[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System#cite_note-mobgreatdepression-18)</sup> believe that the Federal Reserve System helped to cause the Great Depression."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

That's nice. You can post excerpts from wiki. Did you have a point?

KC native
12-08-2009, 07:59 PM
They should keep Bernanke around. The grassroots has been able to do alot with the fed since that idiot has taken over.

lol KcNative won't even answer why the value of the dollar is down 96% since the creation of the Federal Reserve.

Ah, I love idiots that think they can pile on when they don't know wtf they are talking about.


Carry on dumbfuck. Please continue to show how little you know.

KC native
12-08-2009, 08:02 PM
^^^^ This

To asshole KCnaive who is thoroughly indoctrinated by our current system ( flat earther) and works for the criminal banksters and Wall Street getting fat off the stimulus:
I did not have a casual conversation with just someone I know for anecdotal data. It's from an economics professor named Clifford Thies. He is the Eldon R. Lindsay Chair of Free Enterprise at Shenandoah University in Winchester, VA. He wrote the article "The Color of Money" (http://mises.org/daily/1028) for the Mises Institute which has a link to send him email which I did. It was about the necessity of having a central bank. And spare me about those banking panics.

I still have the email on this drive but have the chart someplace on my older computer. It can still be verified since we became an economic juggernut passing Europe during the Gilded Age before we had the Fed. Anyhow, this is what Cliff wrote to me:



No link but did a screen save of it.

OMFG ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Not only does she have a chart but she also has an email!!111010100101!!!11 Facts be damned!!!1110101010101!!111!!1

God damn the planet has been hilarious today.

KC native
12-08-2009, 08:03 PM
ROFL
Bernanke-Hawk down!
KCnaive would enjoy the ride too. So long as it's on the taxpayer's dime.


What's funny is you think I'm a Bernanke fan. I've been severely critical of Ben yet you wouldn't know it from listening to you jackoffs. Keep throwing labels against the wall though. One might eventually stick.

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 08:05 PM
LMAO LMAO LMAO

KC native
12-08-2009, 08:15 PM
LMAO LMAO LMAO

What's a matter? Run out of false history to spew?

Ebolapox
12-08-2009, 08:23 PM
no, he doesn't deserve another term. he'll get one anyway. peter principle, baby. fail upward and stay at level of failure.

BucEyedPea
12-08-2009, 09:04 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zGi1r87-Apg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zGi1r87-Apg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Chocolate Hog
12-08-2009, 09:56 PM
Ah, I love idiots that think they can pile on when they don't know wtf they are talking about.


Carry on dumb****. Please continue to show how little you know.

Seeing as how I worked with people from St.Louis to Kansas to get support of HR 1207, I'd say I have a pretty good understanding of how the Federal Reserve works and what the people want. Now go on and watch MSNBC.

googlegoogle
12-08-2009, 11:20 PM
What's a matter? Run out of false history to spew?

Where's the false history.

We had a GREAT DEPRESSION under your system.

Please STFU

Taco John
12-09-2009, 12:50 AM
I don't see where who is in charge of the Federal Reserve matters. What are they going to do that Bernanke isn't trying to do? The truth is, there's not Bernanke can really do. The market is dictating his actions, responding, of course, to actions that have already been taken. The Fed can play their little game of financial god, but eventually the chickens come home to roost. Unfortunately, the American people serve as the roosting poles. And poor people are the worst victims.

That last part is the thing that amazes me about bleeding hearts like Banyon who pretend to care for the poor. The Federal Reserve absolutely KILLS the poor. Banyon will tell you himself that he wishes we didn't have a monetary system based on debt - up until you talk to him about the opposite of that, which is a monetary system based on actual capital.

The American people are going to continue to get financially killed by the policies of The Federal Reserve, and poor people and old folks on fixed incomes are going to be the ones who feel it the worst. And of course, the only solution to that is to tax the rest of us more.

BucEyedPea
12-09-2009, 07:27 AM
Where's the false history.

We had a GREAT DEPRESSION under your system.

Please STFU

Awesome Fact! :thumb: There's no arguing with results...'er lack of I should say.

KC native
12-09-2009, 07:40 AM
Where's the false history.

We had a GREAT DEPRESSION under your system.

Please STFU

And we had depressions prior to the Fed. your point?

KC native
12-09-2009, 07:42 AM
I don't see where who is in charge of the Federal Reserve matters. What are they going to do that Bernanke isn't trying to do? The truth is, there's not Bernanke can really do. The market is dictating his actions, responding, of course, to actions that have already been taken. The Fed can play their little game of financial god, but eventually the chickens come home to roost. Unfortunately, the American people serve as the roosting poles. And poor people are the worst victims.

That last part is the thing that amazes me about bleeding hearts like Banyon who pretend to care for the poor. The Federal Reserve absolutely KILLS the poor. Banyon will tell you himself that he wishes we didn't have a monetary system based on debt - up until you talk to him about the opposite of that, which is a monetary system based on actual capital.

The American people are going to continue to get financially killed by the policies of The Federal Reserve, and poor people and old folks on fixed incomes are going to be the ones who feel it the worst. And of course, the only solution to that is to tax the rest of us more.

Ah this ought to be good.

Just how are the poor hurt by the Fed moreso than if there wasn't one? The swings up and down prior to the creation of the Fed were more violent and erratic.

KC native
12-09-2009, 07:43 AM
Awesome Fact! :thumb: There's no arguing without throwing as many labels and as few facts as possible.

FYP dumb bitch.

BucEyedPea
12-09-2009, 08:08 AM
LMAO LMAO LMAO

Criminals are of like minds.

KC native
12-09-2009, 08:18 AM
LMAO LMAO LMAO

Criminals are of like minds.

So, buc, how do you justify your stance in light of the fact that the boom/bust cycle prior to the creation of the Fed was more unstable? How do you ignore the depressions that came before the creation of the fed?

Otter
12-09-2009, 08:24 AM
FYP dumb bitch.

If you weren't so stupid I'd point out the "internet tough guy" irony here but I realize you're too dumb.

You laraza cuunt.

Maybe someday that community college degree you try to pass off will help you realize what a self-incriminating cock sucker you really are.

KC native
12-09-2009, 08:27 AM
If you weren't so stupid I'd point out the "internet tough guy" irony here but I realize you're too dumb.

You laraza cuunt.

:spock: How is calling BEP what she is being an internet tough guy? I never mentioned any type of billy badassery (unlike you have) just simply pointed out that she is in fact a dumb bitch.

Otter
12-09-2009, 08:31 AM
:spock: How is calling BEP what she is being an internet tough guy? I never mentioned any type of billy badassery (unlike you have) just simply pointed out that she is in fact a dumb bitch.

You missed this part in your reply sanchez laraza:

Maybe someday that community college degree you try to pass off will help you realize what a self-incriminating cock sucker you really are.

Do you see irony in the neg rep you just sent me face to face, 'sanchez laraza?'

I didn't think so spineless cock sucker.

banyon
12-09-2009, 08:37 AM
So, buc, how do you justify your stance in light of the fact that the boom/bust cycle prior to the creation of the Fed was more unstable? How do you ignore the depressions that came before the creation of the fed?

She ignores any data or facts which don't fit the mandated narrative, hence why she had to resolt to the childish fake ignore again in this thread, when I didn't call her names, insult her or anything and simply made factual claims which didn't work for her.

KC native
12-09-2009, 08:47 AM
You missed this part in your reply sanchez laraza:



Do you see irony in the neg rep you just sent me face to face, 'sanchez laraza?'

I didn't think so spineless cock sucker.

I missed that because you added it after I quoted you.

Don't be jealous because I went to a good school and you didn't.

Also, now you're whining about neg rep? ROFL You really are a pussy ass wannabe internet tough guy. You and Io-allicanthinkaboutispenis-awanian should hold hands and cry about my posting and neg reps. ROFL

KC native
12-09-2009, 08:48 AM
She ignores any data or facts which don't fit the mandated narrative, hence why she had to resolt to the childish fake ignore again in this thread, when I didn't call her names, insult her or anything and simply made factual claims which didn't work for her.

I know. With the collection of whack jobs that are in DC it says a lot when people from both sides call her the nuttiest poster out here.

Otter
12-09-2009, 08:50 AM
I missed that because you added it after I quoted you.

Don't be jealous because I went to a good school and you didn't.

Also, now you're whining about neg rep? ROFL You really are a pussy ass wannabe internet tough guy. You and Io-allicanthinkaboutispenis-awanian should hold hands and cry about my posting and neg reps. ROFL

You should use more smiley faces. If you're not going to have context at least have appearance.

banyon
12-09-2009, 08:51 AM
lol KcNative won't even answer why the value of the dollar is down 96% since the creation of the Federal Reserve.

How did it do against other currencies?

KC native
12-09-2009, 08:53 AM
You should use more smiley faces. If you're not going to have context at least have appearance.

All out of outrage and billy badassery for the day already? Que Lastima!ROFL

banyon
12-09-2009, 08:56 AM
That last part is the thing that amazes me about bleeding hearts like Banyon who pretend to care for the poor. The Federal Reserve absolutely KILLS the poor. Banyon will tell you himself that he wishes we didn't have a monetary system based on debt - up until you talk to him about the opposite of that, which is a monetary system based on actual capital.


I don't understand. How do you get to be this disingenuous? Is it borne of a mania from reading the same demagoguery over and over and assuming everyone else is the devil?

I've posted here on this forum NUMEROUS times the problems I have with the federal reserve, including the debt basis of our money. I've done this on several occasions EVEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU. I agree it damages the middle class in the form of erosion of savings, but here you go and again pretend that I haven't posted these things and that somehow because I disagree on one point, that automatically I must disagree on all points.

I mean you and BEP do this repeatedly. Disagee? Then you're the enemy and you must believe the exact opposite of us! SOCIALISTS! FASCISTS! NEOCONS! It's like reading this tripe over and over short-circuits the part of your brain that understood nuance or complexity.

Otter
12-09-2009, 08:56 AM
All out of outrage and billy badassery for the day already? Que Lastima!ROFL

ROFL

KC native
12-09-2009, 08:57 AM
How did it do against other currencies?

I won't answer ridiculous questions like billay's. It only gives idiots like that what they want. A hundred plus year range for currency does nothing for analysis and anyone who tries to simplify it in terms like that is an idiot. They completely ignore the shifts in our economic makeup and differences in leadership over the time frame.

BTW this is similar to Wolfman trying to ignore time weighted returns which show a completely different and more accurate picture.

KC Dan
12-09-2009, 10:06 AM
I know. With the collection of whack jobs that are in DC it says a lot when people from both sides call her the nuttiest poster out here.hehe

Taco John
12-09-2009, 10:15 AM
I don't understand. How do you get to be this disingenuous? Is it borne of a mania from reading the same demagoguery over and over and assuming everyone else is the devil?

I've posted here on this forum NUMEROUS times the problems I have with the federal reserve, including the debt basis of our money. I've done this on several occasions EVEN IN CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU. I agree it damages the middle class in the form of erosion of savings, but here you go and again pretend that I haven't posted these things and that somehow because I disagree on one point, that automatically I must disagree on all points.

I mean you and BEP do this repeatedly. Disagee? Then you're the enemy and you must believe the exact opposite of us! SOCIALISTS! FASCISTS! NEOCONS! It's like reading this tripe over and over short-circuits the part of your brain that understood nuance or complexity.

You must not have read what I wrote very carefully. I gave you credit for all those things. And then you turn around and wipe that credit clean by asking how our currency did against other currencies. You entirely miss the point.

Your position, in my mind, is like being against slavery and then boasting about our GNP against other competing slave states. So I don't know how much credit you expect me to give.

The Federal Reserve kills the poor and the middle class. It really only helps the rich.

KC native
12-09-2009, 10:21 AM
The Federal Reserve kills the poor and the middle class. It really only helps the rich.

Prove it

banyon
12-09-2009, 10:22 AM
You must not have read what I wrote very carefully. I gave you credit for all those things. And then you turn around and wipe that credit clean by asking how our currency did against other currencies. You entirely miss the point.

Your position, in my mind, is like being against slavery and then boasting about our GNP against other competing slave states. So I don't know how much credit you expect me to give.

The Federal Reserve kills the poor and the middle class. It really only helps the rich.

How does asking a question about currency comparison "wipe" anything "clean"?

simply because I recognize that there are countervailing arguments and that you can't just assume that the opposition is filled with drooling mendicants doesn't mean that I share the opposition views. Again you make the same type of sloppy conclusionary jumps I just pointed out again and again.

Your slavery red herring could not be more disanalogous (and a cheap tactic).

Taco John
12-09-2009, 10:24 AM
Your slavery red herring could not be more disanalogous (and a cheap tactic).

I absolutely disagree. I believe it to be spot on. Just open your wallet for the proof. Each dollar in there represents a debt that needs to be repaid with interest. Interest, I might add, that isn't put into the system.

My slavery "red herring" is more true than you'd like to believe.

BucEyedPea
12-09-2009, 12:39 PM
I mean you and BEP do this repeatedly. Disagee? Then you're the enemy and you must believe the exact opposite of us! SOCIALISTS! FASCISTS! NEOCONS! It's like reading this tripe over and over short-circuits the part of your brain that understood nuance or complexity.
But we're irresponsible....yuck,yuck, yuck!
At least socialist, fascist and neocon represents a set of ideas or stands which make them actual academic terms. What you use is pure opinion.

Go read your pink rag The Nation.

BIG_DADDY
12-09-2009, 01:29 PM
Prove it

ROFL You should have some idea of what you're talking about before you post stuff like that. I am really embarrassed for you. Nothing personal, just saying.

KC native
12-09-2009, 01:31 PM
ROFL You should have some idea of what you're talking about before you post stuff like that. I am really embarrassed for you. Nothing personal, just saying.

Well, the offer is extended to you too since you want to be a cocksucker too. I'm not the one who made an absurd claim. When you can make a case for that claim get back to me, until then STFU.

Taco John
12-09-2009, 01:35 PM
You've heard of inflation, haven't you KC naive? Who do you think it hurts first and worst, the rich or the poor? Who do you think gets the money first in this sytem before the inflation sets in? The rich, ya think? Who does that help, the rich or the poor?

You're a Wall Street Exec or something? No wonder you're so out of touch.

BIG_DADDY
12-09-2009, 01:38 PM
Well, the offer is extended to you too since you want to be a one who sucks the penis too. I'm not the one who made an absurd claim. When you can make a case for that claim get back to me, until then STFU.

Why don't you just walk around with a bright neon sign that says you'e an idiot. Educate yourself. This banking cartel has stolen 95 cents of every dollar since it's inception. Start with reading Creature from Jekyl Island then we will talk. You can't really expect me to spend hours teaching the basics of our banking system and monetary policy. The very fact that you obviously know nothing about it and are trying engage on the subject is just ridiculous.

KC native
12-09-2009, 01:39 PM
You've heard of inflation, haven't you KC naive? Who do you think it hurts first and worst, the rich or the poor?

You're a Wall Street Exec or something? No wonder you're so out of touch.

You are aware that we've had inflation before the Fed right? A gold standard and lack of a central bank doesn't mean you won't have inflation. It just means you lack the ability to do anything about it when it shows up.

KC native
12-09-2009, 01:39 PM
Why don't you just walk around with a bright neon sign that says you'e an idiot. Educate yourself. This banking cartel has stolen 95 cents of every dollar since it's inception. Start with reading Creature from Jekyl Island then we will talk. You can't really expect me to spend hours teaching the basics of our banking system and monetary policy. The very fact that you obviously know nothing about it and are trying engage on the subject is just ridiculous.

Are you an Austrian too?

Taco John
12-09-2009, 01:44 PM
You are aware that we've had inflation before the Fed right? A gold standard and lack of a central bank doesn't mean you won't have inflation. It just means you lack the ability to do anything about it when it shows up.

You asked me to prove it, and by your response, I take it that you accept the rather obvious notion that the Fed is set up to prop the rich at the expense of the poor.

Now we move to the rationalization stage where you tell me inflation exists without a Fed. Which is true, but it happens on a much more level playing field when the intrinsic value of the money is what makes the market level adjustments, not some dope in an ivory tower making bankers rich and people on fixed incomes poorer and poorer by the day.

BIG_DADDY
12-09-2009, 01:46 PM
Are you an Austrian too?

I just follow the money. Biggest money grab in history. This is an Obamanation. Where is all the money going, the poor? Cmon dude.

Chocolate Hog
12-09-2009, 01:53 PM
haha Kc Native had a meltdown in this thread

KC native
12-09-2009, 02:01 PM
You asked me to prove it, and by your response, I take it that you accept the rather obvious notion that the Fed is set up to prop the rich at the expense of the poor.

Now we move to the rationalization stage where you tell me inflation exists without a Fed. Which is true, but it happens on a much more level playing field when the intrinsic value of the money is what makes the market level adjustments, not some dope in an ivory tower making bankers rich and people on fixed incomes poorer and poorer by the day.

Wow, that's a huge leap and no I don't agree with you. It's impossible to have a debate when you make fallacious leaps like that. I honestly don't know how you make that leap but considering BEP does it too, it must be something unique to Austrian economics and its followers.

Now to your second paragraph. This actually has something to work with. It matters not where inflation comes from, the effects are the same. So your level playing field is a horrible description. The fact of the matter is that inflation and the business cycle was much more volatile (huge swings both ways) prior to the creation of the Fed.

Next, intrinsic value of money? Ah, I love this one. What is gold's intrinsic value? If all hell were to break loose tomorrow then gold would be just as worthless as paper money as the only currency that would be valid at that time is lead. Also, how do you subdivide your gold? Are you going to be handing bakers bars of gold for a loaf of bread? Beyond that, almost every industrial application has a substitute that is either the same quality or better than gold. So, again, just what is gold's intrinsic value?

The fact of the matter is that it makes no difference whether we use gold, paper, sea shells, or dog shit as currency. Money is money because we say it is. Intrinsic value of a medium of exchange is nothing.

KC native
12-09-2009, 02:03 PM
I just follow the money. Biggest money grab in history. This is an Obamanation. Where is all the money going, the poor? Cmon dude.

An Obamanation? ROFL Ah that's rich from a someone who supposedly follows the money. You are aware that almost every bailout facility and bailout was approved under the Bush admin right?

It's hard to put any value on anything you say if you are trying to play partisanship wrt this.

BIG_DADDY
12-09-2009, 02:16 PM
An Obamanation? ROFL Ah that's rich from a someone who supposedly follows the money. You are aware that almost every bailout facility and bailout was approved under the Bush admin right?

It's hard to put any value on anything you say if you are trying to play partisanship wrt this.

I have said for years countless times on this board that it's not a Dem or Rep problem we have it's a corruption problem. I really don't care if you put value on anything I say, it changes nothing. Go ahead and pretend you know something and proceed with your shout down. I'm moving on.

KC native
12-09-2009, 02:44 PM
I have said for years countless times on this board that it's not a Dem or Rep problem we have it's a corruption problem. I really don't care if you put value on anything I say, it changes nothing. Go ahead and pretend you know something and proceed with your shout down. I'm moving on.

Ah, so you don't have anything other than libertarian, teabagger talking points? Figures. :rolleyes:

Please feel free to point out where I've wrote anything wrong regarding the Fed. I'm sure you'll fall short just like the rest of them.

Stewie
12-09-2009, 03:38 PM
Bernanke can stay. If he goes he'll just be replaced by another big bank flunky/puppet. I get a big kick out of the BS spewed out daily. This administration's new mantra is "Pretend and Extend." What a ****ing joke.

Federal and State bank examiners are being extremely lenient in allowing real estate loans of all categories, from commercial to residential, to be carried on the books of the institutions at full value even if they are behind on payments and indebtedness to the institution is greater in size than the asset’s worth is in liquidation


This is crystal clear when you examine the numbers that are public as the FDIC takes over the bankrupt institutions.


This defines the word “PRETEND.”


The word “EXTEND” refers to all the rescue programs that wholly depend on stimulus to work. The financial industry is worse than the walking wounded. It is the walking dead. Therefore applying the name “Zombies” to major corporations and financial institutions is appropriate.


We also know that the economy of the USA is bouncing along a bottom, but far from what would have been anticipated in light of the degree of stimulation initiated. There are definitive reasons for the lack of expected results but they are not germane to this review.


You must know that whatever the cost in terms of continued and increased stimulation, all that is required to infinity will be provided. There will be no serious attempts to drain any liquidity. Interest rates will be held at practically zero for as long as it takes or even if the economic recovery fails.


That strength in the US dollar is at best transitory as it is totally contra-indicated for business recovery in the US.


Truly, Main Street is in the hands of a casino.

BucEyedPea
12-09-2009, 03:56 PM
Who do you think gets the money first in this sytem before the inflation sets in?

The folks he works for, that he makes money from.

Taco John
12-09-2009, 03:58 PM
Wow, that's a huge leap and no I don't agree with you. It's impossible to have a debate when you make fallacious leaps like that. I honestly don't know how you make that leap but considering BEP does it too, it must be something unique to Austrian economics and its followers.

I didn't make any fallacious leap. It's clear that the rich are given the most benefits by the Fed, at the expense of the poor. They get the money first, and experience the inflation last. This matters.


It matters not where inflation comes from, the effects are the same.

Easy for you to say. You're not living on a fixed income. Someone on a fixed income might have something to say about the fact that the Fed makes money accessible to the rich at the longterm expense of their dollar.


So your level playing field is a horrible description.

Not at all.

The fact of the matter is that inflation and the business cycle was much more volatile (huge swings both ways) prior to the creation of the Fed.

I'll pull a KC naive tactic: "prove it."

Next, intrinsic value of money? Ah, I love this one. What is gold's intrinsic value? If all hell were to break loose tomorrow then gold would be just as worthless as paper money as the only currency that would be valid at that time is lead. Also, how do you subdivide your gold? Are you going to be handing bakers bars of gold for a loaf of bread? Beyond that, almost every industrial application has a substitute that is either the same quality or better than gold. So, again, just what is gold's intrinsic value?

This is a horrible argument. Gold has historical value, not to mention industrial value. If all hell were to break loose tomorrow, gold, silver, and other precious metals would become the defacto trading standard. Historically, there's been little problems with regards to the subdivision of gold. We're not talking about rocket science here.


The fact of the matter is that it makes no difference whether we use gold, paper, sea shells, or dog shit as currency. Money is money because we say it is. Intrinsic value of a medium of exchange is nothing.

I really think that this is a bankrupt view of what money actually is. You lack a fundamental understanding of how an individual interacts with money, and what it means to them from an individual standpoint.

I don't share your shallow view of money.

banyon
12-09-2009, 03:59 PM
But we're irresponsible....yuck,yuck, yuck!
At least socialist, fascist and neocon represents a set of ideas or stands which make them actual academic terms. What you use is pure opinion.

Go read your pink rag The Nation.

I thought we already decided you were going to run away from this thread and put me back on fake ignore?

Also, yes as I have said in the past the Nation is one of the publications that I read, along with a spectrum of others. Like I have also said in the past, it is very different from your method of limiting yourself to a minute amount of fringe ideology online and offline rags.

BucEyedPea
12-09-2009, 04:01 PM
To kcnaive, the man who had to be schooled on the subject of finance not being the same subject as economics— This country had inflation before because we had central banks before on a temporary basis. As soon as Hamilton got his bank, inflation began immediately. Same shit different era.

Chocolate Hog
12-09-2009, 04:02 PM
Banyon answer this question..... Why are alot of the people on Obama's finacle team the same one from Bush's finacle team? Can't you see this is a Goldman Sachs circle jerk or do you need Ed Schultz to tell you it before its true?

banyon
12-09-2009, 04:07 PM
I didn't make any fallacious leap. It's clear that the rich are given the most benefits by the Fed, at the expense of the poor. They get the money first, and experience the inflation last. This matters

Easy for you to say. You're not living on a fixed income. Someone on a fixed income might have something to say about the fact that the Fed makes money accessible to the rich at the longterm expense of their dollar.


Everyone experiences inflation at the same time. We all share the same currency and monetary system, unless you have all your wealth in other currencies or something. It's true that the short-term impact of inflation could harm people on fixed incomes if those amounts aren't adjusted upwards quickly enough, but it's also important to remember that with such adjustments, the impact is actually more severe on the middle class because they have more money to get inflated away in absolute terms without the prospect of quickly adjusted payments. Modest savings tend to get eaten away the most easily.



Not at all.



I'll pull a KC naive tactic: "prove it."



This is a horrible argument. Gold has historical value, not to mention industrial value. If all hell were to break loose tomorrow, gold, silver, and other precious metals would become the defacto trading standard. Historically, there's been little problems with regards to the subdivision of gold. We're not talking about rocket science here.




I really think that this is a bankrupt view of what money actually is. You lack a fundamental understanding of how an individual interacts with money, and what it means to them from an individual standpoint.

I don't share your shallow view of money.

These are great soundbites about your strong feelings about money. You do not, however, offer any countervailing alternative to consider.

banyon
12-09-2009, 04:23 PM
Banyon answer this question..... Why are alot of the people on Obama's finacle team the same one from Bush's finacle team? Can't you see this is a Goldman Sachs circle jerk or do you need Ed Schultz to tell you it before its true?

His finacle team? What? Are you drunk in the middle of the day?

Taco John
12-09-2009, 04:29 PM
Everyone experiences inflation at the same time. We all share the same currency and monetary system, unless you have all your wealth in other currencies or something.

This is a fallacy born by a lack of understanding. When fresh money is pumped into the market, the rich get it (ans spend it) first. It's not until WELL after this money is spent that the inflationary impact of that money is felt within the market, and where it is felt the most is for the people who can afford to suffer it the least.


[qoute]It's true that the short-term impact of inflation could harm people on fixed incomes if those amounts aren't adjusted upwards quickly enough, but it's also important to remember that with such adjustments, the impact is actually more severe on the middle class because they have more money to get inflated away in absolute terms without the prospect of quickly adjusted payments. Modest savings tend to get eaten away the most easily. [/quote]

I'm not ignoring the damage that the Federal Reserve does to the middle class. It's robbery as far as I'm concerned. As Ron Paul puts it: an invisible tax.



These are great soundbites about your strong feelings about money. You do not, however, offer any countervailing alternative to consider.

Gold, Peace, and Prosperity (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/GoldPeaceProsperity.mp3)

I think this audio essay written by Ron Paul has a lot of merit.

Here is the PDF is you care to read it (http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf).

BucEyedPea
12-09-2009, 04:33 PM
Taco's arguments are more than soundbites or feelings and as an Austrian he does offer a countervailing alternative—as much as one can on a BB. Honest to gawd, banyon this is not academia where a full case can be built.
Besides banyon has his own strong feelings against it and his own strong feelings for a managed and controlled economy. banyon has his own soundbites too. Sounds like another case of classic projection.

Taco John
12-09-2009, 04:51 PM
Banyon, from the essay I linked:

"The rise of prices that follows an expansion of [paper
money]," wrote William Gouge, President Jackson's Treasury
advisor, in 1833, "does not affect all descriptions of labor and
commodities, at the same time, to an equal degree... .Wages
appear to be among the last things that are raised The working
man finds all the articles he uses in his family rising in price,
while the money rate of his own wages remains the same."

Stewie
12-09-2009, 04:55 PM
The amount of mind-boggling crap in these threads is ridiculous.

Just yesterday the Obama administration said the "windfall" of bank bailout money that wasn't necessary will create jobs.

Today. The bank bailout money will be extended until October 2010!

There's no "windfall" when deficits are $1 trillion plus!

You're being lied to and trying to figure out how to justify your idiocy!

BucEyedPea
12-09-2009, 05:22 PM
You're being lied to and trying to figure out how to justify your idiocy!

Yet, look at some of the college educated people that buy this.

KC native
12-09-2009, 06:00 PM
This is a fallacy born by a lack of understanding. When fresh money is pumped into the market, the rich get it (ans spend it) first. It's not until WELL after this money is spent that the inflationary impact of that money is felt within the market, and where it is felt the most is for the people who can afford to suffer it the least.


I'm not ignoring the damage that the Federal Reserve does to the middle class. It's robbery as far as I'm concerned. As Ron Paul puts it: an invisible tax.

Gold, Peace, and Prosperity (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/GoldPeaceProsperity.mp3)

I think this audio essay written by Ron Paul has a lot of merit.

Here is the PDF is you care to read it (http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf).

No, the lack of understanding is completely yours. How do the rich get the money first? You know that people can't just walk up to Fed and get a loan right? I really like how you gloss over the mechanics of the money multiplier but I guess we can't all just leave out key components so they fit our ideology.

Again we get two more posts with zero substance and full of fallacies.

KC native
12-09-2009, 06:08 PM
And from a better writer than I

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/11/gold-a-six-thousand-year-old-bubble/
Gold - a six thousand year-old bubble
November 8, 2009 6:02pm

Gold is unlike any other commodity. It is costly to extract from the earth and to refine to a reasonable degree of purity. It is costly to store. It has no remaining uses as a producer good - equivalent or superior alternatives exist for all its industrial uses. It may have some value as a consumer good - somewhat surprisingly people like to attach it to their earlobes or nostrils or to hang it around their necks. I have always considered it a rather vulgar metal, made for the Saturday Night Fever crowd, all shiny and in-your-face, as opposed to the much classier silver, but de gustibus… .

The total stock of ‘above-ground’ gold is about 160,000 metric tonnes (a metric ton is 2,204 lbs. or 35,264 oz, for those of a non-decimal mind-set). About 50 percent of this existing stock of above-ground gold is kept as a pure store of value (for investment purposes), most likely somewhere below-ground, for security reasons. The other 50 percent exists as jewellery. I would argue that most of this jewellery demand is simply small-scale store of value (investment) demand by households, rather than demand driven by aesthetic considerations or other intrinsic sources of joy associated with having gold hanging from your extremities.

From a social perspective, gold held by central banks as part of their foreign exchange reserves is a barbarous relic (Keynes used the expression to refer to the Gold Standard, but close enough is close enough). The same holds for gold held idle in private vaults as a store of value. The cost and waste involved in getting the gold out of the ground only to but it back under ground in secure vaults is considerable. Mining the ore is environmentally damaging, especially if it involves open pit mining. Refining the gold causes further environmental risks. Historically, gold was extracted from its ores by using mercury, a toxic heavy metal, much of which was released into the atmosphere. Today, cyanide is used instead. While cyanide, another toxic substance, is broken down in the environment, cyanide spills (which occur regularly) can wipe out life in the affected bodies of water. Runoff from the mine or tailing piles can occur long after mining has ceased.

Even though, from a social efficiency perspective, the mining of new gold and the costly storage of existing gold for investment purposes are wasteful activities, they may be individually rational. There is no invisible hand here (or elsewhere) to ensure that the aggregation of individually rational behaviour adds up to anything desirable or sensible.

Because to a reasonable first approximation gold has no intrinsic value as a consumption good or a producer good, it is an example of what I call a fiat (physical) commodity. You will be familiar with fiat currency. Unlike what Wikipedia says on the subject, the essence of fiat money is not that it is money declared by a government to be legal tender. It need not derive its value from the government demanding it in payment of taxes or insisting it should be accepted within the national jurisdiction in settlement of debt. Instead the defining property of fiat money is that it has no intrinsic value and derives any value it has only from the shared belief by a sufficient number of economic actors that it has that value.

The “let it be done” literal meaning of the Latin ‘fiat’ should be taken in the third sense given by the Online Dictionary: 1. official sanction; authoritative permission; 2. an arbitrary order or decree; 3. Chiefly literary any command, decision, or act of will that brings something about.

The act of will in question is the collective attribution of value to something without intrinsic value. Being declared legal tender by a government may help achieving that status, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Gold is very close therefore to the stone money of the Isle of Yap. This stone money, known as Rai, consists of large doughnut-shaped, carved disks, consisting usually of calcite, that can be up to 4 m (12 ft) in diameter, although most are much smaller. Apparently, the total stock of Rai cannot be augmented any further. It also depreciates very slowly. This intrinsically useless form of money in the Isle of Yap is in all essential respects equivalent to gold today in the wider world. Another example would be pet rocks, as long as the rock in question is rare and costly to get into its final shape.

Gold has become a fiat commodity or a fiat commodity currency, just as the US $, the euro, the pound sterling and the yen (and a couple of hundred other currencies) are fiat paper currencies. The main differences between them are that gold is very costly to produce, while the production of additional paper money has an extremely low marginal cost. If we count the deposits of commercial banks with the central banks, which together with currency in circulation make up the monetary base, as fiat money, then the incremental cost of fiat base money creation is zero.

The outstanding stock of physical gold, at 160,000 tonnes or thereabouts, is very large relative to the maximum amount of new gold that can be mined and refined during a year. The short-run supply curve of new gold is steep and becomes vertical at a volume of production that is small relative to the oustanding stock (annual gold production has been declining from a peak of just over 2,500 tonnes in 2001 to 2330 tonnes in 2008 - only 1.5% of the outstanding stock).[1]

The good news for gold bugs

Since gold is a fiat commodity currency, its value will be determined largely by its attractiveness relative to other fiat currencies - the fiat paper currencies issued by central banks. Gold should not be analysed as one of a set of intrinsically valuable commodities (silver, iron, lead, zinc, platinum, aluminium, titanium etc. etc.) but as part of a set of intrinsically useless and valueless fiat currencies - the US dollar, the yen, the yuan, the euro, sterling, the rupee, the rouble etc. etc.). It is therefore in times that market participants are nervous about the future value of most other fiat currencies, that gold will be at its most attractive.

Such a time is what we are going through now. Many systemically important central banks have expanded their base money stocks and balance sheets massively. The Fed has doubled the size of its balance sheet. The Bank of England has tripled the size of its balance sheet. Many central banks have bought vast amounts of public debt. In the UK, out of the initial £175 bn of quantitative easing, as much as £173 was spent on gilts. The Fed has purchased only about €300 bn worth of Treasury securities, but has acquired a much larger amount of Treasury-guaranteed agency debt.

Although in most of the overdeveloped world (except the UK), deflation is the immediate threat, there is a medium and long-term threat of much higher inflation in all countries with enlarged central bank balance sheets and the prospect of large future fiscal deficits. The great advantage to investors of gold is that, although it is not intrinsically valuable, it is very costly to increase its stock. The tap can be opened at the drop of a hat for fiat paper and electronic currency. The tap produces never more than a trickle in the case of gold.

So when fiscal incontinence threatens price stability in some of the main industrial countries (especially the US and the UK) because the central banks in these countries may be forced to monetise both the stock and large new net flows of public debt, the one fiat money whose quantity cannot be varied at will by a monetary authority will do well. We see that with gold today. We also see that, to a lesser degree, in the strength of the euro. The ECB is by far the most independent of the leading central banks. They also have a heavily asymmetric de-facto interpretation of price stability: inflation is unacceptable, deflation is OK.

So until the risk of serious inflation is removed from the medium-term outlook for the US, the UK and other fiat currencies, gold will be a relatively attractive store of value despite the cost of storing it.

The gold bug’s nightmare

An economy with fiat money can have many different equilibria. To make the point as clearly and simply as possible, consider a stationary economy. Population, endowments, technology, government spending, taxes and preferences are constant. The government budget is balanced. Prices are flexible. There is a constant stock of fiat money (which could be paper money, gold, Rai or pet rocks. This fiat money is perfectly durable and therefore can serve as a store of value. It pays no interest. Assume that, for whatever reason, society prefers it (or even has decided to require) it as a medium of exchange or means of payment.

With a bit of further work, such an economy will have an equilibrium with a positive, constant price of money (a constant general price level). Economists call this the fundamental equilibrium. This stationary economy will, however, also have many other (in fact infinitely many other) non-stationary equilibria, called (speculative) bubbles. They always have equilibria in which the value of money starts at a positive value but falls steadily towards zero - the general price level rises without bound even though the quantity of money is constant. The holders of money anticipate the future inflation and reduce the real stock of money balances they want to hold. This further increases the actual and expected rate of inflation, and the real stock of money balances goes to zero: the general price level goes to infinity or the price of money goes to zero. We have Zimbabwe.

What is often ignored is that this economy has an equilibrium that is even more ‘fundamental’ than the fundamental equilibrium. That is the equilibrium in which the price of money is zero in every period, not just in the long run (as with the speculative inflationary bubble equilibria). Remember, fiat money, including gold, is intrinsically useless. It has value only because people believe it to have value. If everyone expects that money will have no value in the next period, it will have no value this period, because no-one will be willing to take receipt of money to carry it into the next period where it will be valueless. So fiat money with a zero value is always an (unfortunate) fundamental equilibrium.

I would actually call it the only fundamental equilibrium. All other equilibria with a positive price of money - an asset with no intrinsic value - are benign (relatively speaking) bubbles. The constant price of money (constant general price level) equilibrium is also a bubble, based entirely on belief and trust - a beneficial bootstrap equilibrium, lifting itself by its hair, like the Baron von Münchhausen.

In a world with multiple fiat moneys, the zero value of money equilibrium lurks for each of the fiat currencies, including gold. Admittedly, as regards gold, so far so good. Gold has positive value. It has had positive value for nigh-on 6000 years. That must make it the longest-lasting bubble in human history.

I don’t want to argue with a 6000-year old bubble. It may well be good for another 6000 years. Its value may go from $1,100 per fine ounce to $1,500 or $5,000 for all I know. But I would not invest more than a sliver of my wealth into something without intrinsic value, something whose positive value is based on nothing more than a set of self-confirming beliefs.
[1] Since gold is very durable, it is reasonable to assume that virtually all the gold that was ever refined is still out there somewhere. There is no gold ‘consumption’, just its transformation into jewellery and no significant depreciation of the stock.

November 8, 2009 6:02pm in Economics, Environment, Finance, Financial Markets, Monetary Policy | 47 comments

Taco John
12-09-2009, 06:24 PM
No, the lack of understanding is completely yours.

Not at all.


How do the rich get the money first? You know that people can't just walk up to Fed and get a loan right?

Of course I know that. The banks get the money first straight from the source.


I really like how you gloss over the mechanics of the money multiplier but I guess we can't all just leave out key components so they fit our ideology.

Money multiplier? ROFL

You even make it sound like the cheap trick that it is! I love it!



Again we get two more posts with zero substance and full of fallacies.

You mean like people can trade dog shit for money? Get out of my face you clown.

Taco John
12-09-2009, 06:29 PM
And from a better writer than I

A better writer for sure, but just as disjointed in his view of reality as you are. Gold as a fiat currency? Bwahahaha! That article is nothing but a temper tantrum that misses the point of gold as a currency base.

I especially like this line:

There is no invisible hand here (or elsewhere) to ensure that the aggregation of individually rational behaviour adds up to anything desirable or sensible.

Uh... Hello? Who gets to decide what adds up to desireable or sensible except the individual? What a dope!

Gold in a six thousand year bubble! Bwahahaha! He not only props up gold with that notion, but completely undercuts the Fed in one thought!

Taco John
12-09-2009, 06:33 PM
(really dopey voice)

Oh hey, gold is in a six thousand year bubble.

(/really dopey voice)


ROFL

KC native
12-09-2009, 06:35 PM
Not at all.




Of course I know that. The banks get the money first straight from the source.




Money multiplier? ROFL

You even make it sound like the cheap trick that it is! I love it!





You mean like people can trade dog shit for money? Get out of my face you clown.

Denying the existence of the velocity of money? Wow! All I can say is that you can STFU you are yet another in a long line of people in DC who can recite talking points yet not have a fucking idea of what you are talking about. Even with a gold standard money has velocity. It's convenient how you just completely ignore it so you can paint your narrative of the rich getting the money first.

KC native
12-09-2009, 06:35 PM
A better writer for sure, but just as disjointed in his view of reality as you are. Gold as a fiat currency? Bwahahaha! That article is nothing but a temper tantrum that misses the point of gold as a currency base.

I especially like this line:

There is no invisible hand here (or elsewhere) to ensure that the aggregation of individually rational behaviour adds up to anything desirable or sensible.

Uh... Hello? Who gets to decide what adds up to desireable or sensible except the individual? What a dope!

Gold in a six thousand year bubble! Bwahahaha! He not only props up gold with that notion, but completely undercuts the Fed in one thought!

So, what is gold's intrinsic value?

Taco John
12-09-2009, 06:46 PM
So, what is gold's intrinsic value?

It's worth to people (and industry - I'm being redundant by adding industry, but I know that I have to be).

Taco John
12-09-2009, 06:49 PM
Denying the existence of the velocity of money?

I never denied the existence of the velocity of money. What an odd charge.

BucEyedPea
12-10-2009, 05:46 AM
Originally Posted by KC native View Post
So, what is gold's intrinsic value?

See this shows you have your basics out. I realize that this is taught in universities and elsewhere but nothing has any "intrinsic" value. It's what human's impart to something that give that something value. See, this is why you can't mix Keynesian concepts one-for-one with Austrian ones then call them idiots. This whole concept, which is key to the Austrian school, is at the base of economics. This is why economics not a science but a branch of ethics at it's root.

Gold has value simply because people have historically given it value. Scarcity is a part of this perceived value. With enough agreement on it you have a means of exchange. This is why when states fail or a currency fails or there is an economic crisis there is a flight to gold. Many in Hong Kong hoarded gold just before it was returned to China out of fear. Make something too readily and easily available like printed money, makes it less valuable and people get rid of it. ( spending) This plays into velocity too.

KC native
12-10-2009, 08:17 AM
See this shows you have your basics out. I realize that this is taught in universities and elsewhere but nothing has any "intrinsic" value. It's what human's impart to something that give that something value. See, this is why you can't mix Keynesian concepts one-for-one with Austrian ones then call them idiots. This is whole concept, which is key the Austrian school, that is at the base of economics. This is why economics not a science but a branch of ethics at it's root.

Gold has value simply because people have historically given it value. Scarcity is a part of this perceived value. With enough agreement on it you have a means of exchange. This is why when states fail or a currency fails or there is an economic crisis there is a flight to gold. Many in Hong Kong hoarded to gold just before it was returned to China out of fear. Make something too readily and easily available like printed money, makes it less valuable and people get rid of it. ( spending) This plays into velocity too.

You do just realize that you just made my case right? ROFL

BigRedChief
04-22-2010, 11:00 AM
Fed makes big profit from bailout

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb /><fb:like class=" fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/22/news/economy/federal_reserve_banks/index.htm" action="recommend" background="none" show_faces="false" layout="standard" width="450"></fb:like>By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writerApril 22, 2010: 12:46 PM ET


<!--startclickprintexclude-->
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- CONTENT -->
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve banks that form the backbone of the nation's financial system transferred an extra-large payload to the U.S. Treasury last year, as they reaped interest from Wall Street bailouts.
The 12 Federal Reserve banks reported that their 2009 income totaled $53.4 billion (http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/12/news/economy/fed_profits.fortune/), a jump of $17.9 billion, or one-third, from the year before.

<!-- REAP --><!--startclickprintexclude-->
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- /REAP -->The board of governors of the Federal Reserve system attributed this increase to a surge in the holding of mortgage-backed securities to prop up the devastated housing market.

The banks said they transferred most of this money, $47.4 billion, to the U.S. Treasury in 2009, an increase of 50%, or $15.7 billion, from the amount they transferred in 2008.
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- /REAP -->
The assets of the Federal Reserve banks totaled $2.235 trillion at the end of 2009, a decline of $11 billion from the prior year. The banks reported that the biggest change in their portfolio was an increase of $919 billion in mortgage-back securities.
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said the financial disclosure "reaffirms our commitment to transparency and to the responsible stewardship of public resources."

The Mad Crapper
04-22-2010, 11:02 AM
Fed makes big profit from bailout

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb /><fb:like class=" fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/22/news/economy/federal_reserve_banks/index.htm" action="recommend" background="none" show_faces="false" layout="standard" width="450"></fb:like>By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writerApril 22, 2010: 12:46 PM ET


<!--startclickprintexclude-->
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- CONTENT -->
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve banks that form the backbone of the nation's financial system transferred an extra-large payload to the U.S. Treasury last year, as they reaped interest from Wall Street bailouts.
The 12 Federal Reserve banks reported that their 2009 income totaled $53.4 billion (http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/12/news/economy/fed_profits.fortune/), a jump of $17.9 billion, or one-third, from the year before.

<!-- REAP --><!--startclickprintexclude-->
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- /REAP -->The board of governors of the Federal Reserve system attributed this increase to a surge in the holding of mortgage-backed securities to prop up the devastated housing market.

The banks said they transferred most of this money, $47.4 billion, to the U.S. Treasury in 2009, an increase of 50%, or $15.7 billion, from the amount they transferred in 2008.
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- /REAP -->
The assets of the Federal Reserve banks totaled $2.235 trillion at the end of 2009, a decline of $11 billion from the prior year. The banks reported that the biggest change in their portfolio was an increase of $919 billion in mortgage-back securities.
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said the financial disclosure "reaffirms our commitment to transparency and to the responsible stewardship of public resources."

You're still spewing this BS? It's official, you are not only a dumbass, but you are a liar.

petegz28
04-22-2010, 11:03 AM
Fed makes big profit from bailout

<?xml:namespace prefix = fb /><fb:like class=" fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/22/news/economy/federal_reserve_banks/index.htm" action="recommend" background="none" show_faces="false" layout="standard" width="450"></fb:like>By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writerApril 22, 2010: 12:46 PM ET


<!--startclickprintexclude-->
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- CONTENT -->
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve banks that form the backbone of the nation's financial system transferred an extra-large payload to the U.S. Treasury last year, as they reaped interest from Wall Street bailouts.
The 12 Federal Reserve banks reported that their 2009 income totaled $53.4 billion (http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/12/news/economy/fed_profits.fortune/), a jump of $17.9 billion, or one-third, from the year before.

<!-- REAP --><!--startclickprintexclude-->
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- /REAP -->The board of governors of the Federal Reserve system attributed this increase to a surge in the holding of mortgage-backed securities to prop up the devastated housing market.

The banks said they transferred most of this money, $47.4 billion, to the U.S. Treasury in 2009, an increase of 50%, or $15.7 billion, from the amount they transferred in 2008.
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- /REAP -->
The assets of the Federal Reserve banks totaled $2.235 trillion at the end of 2009, a decline of $11 billion from the prior year. The banks reported that the biggest change in their portfolio was an increase of $919 billion in mortgage-back securities.
Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said the financial disclosure "reaffirms our commitment to transparency and to the responsible stewardship of public resources."

LMAO, stay away from economics. You are as clueless as they come. Amazing how those $919 bil worth of MBS's were worth $0 until the Fed got a hold of them. ROFL

The Mad Crapper
04-22-2010, 11:11 AM
LMAO, stay away from economics. You are as clueless as they come. Amazing how those $919 bil worth of MBS's were worth $0 until the Fed got a hold of them. ROFL

BRC is officially caught spewing propaganda with the intent to deceive:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6644578&postcount=62

I called him out on this BS a few weeks ago, and lo and behold, he once again starts a thread trying to fly it under the radar.

He wants so desperately to believe that his hero B.O. knows what he's doing, and all of his policies are good and having a positive effect on the economy in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary. It's pathetic.

BigRedChief
04-22-2010, 11:22 AM
LMAO, stay away from economics. You are as clueless as they come. Amazing how those $919 bil worth of MBS's were worth $0 until the Fed got a hold of them. ROFLuhhh I'm not saying chit. I just copied and pasted a cnnmoney article. You got an issue with the facts, take it up with cnn.

BigRedChief
04-22-2010, 11:32 AM
BRC is officially caught spewing propaganda with the intent to deceive:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6644578&postcount=62 (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6644578&postcount=62)

I called him out on this BS a few weeks ago, and lo and behold, he once again starts a thread trying to fly it under the radar.
You are the liar, been documented on several occasions. You point to an AP article and say I'm a liar? ROFL

I copied and pasted an Associaite Press article without altering the article one bit. You have an issue with the facts/items in the article take it up with the AP.
I called him out on this BS a few weeks ago, and lo and behold, he once again starts a thread trying to fly it under the radar.
I didn't start either of the threads recently that you and pete are mentioning. But, don't let the facts get in your way of a good slander.

The Mad Crapper
04-22-2010, 11:35 AM
You are the liar, been documented on several occasions. You point to an AP article and say I'm a liar? ROFL

I copied and pasted an Associaite Press article without altering the article one bit. You have an issue with the facts/items in the article take it up with the AP.
I didn't start either of the threads recently that you and pete are mentioning. But, don't let the facts get in your way of a good slander.

Why do you keep posting an article that is clearly deceptive? And it's been shown to you how deceptive it is yet you continue to post it.

That makes you a liar.

KC native
04-22-2010, 02:31 PM
Why do you keep posting an article that is clearly deceptive? And it's been shown to you how deceptive it is yet you continue to post it.

That makes you a liar.

ah sweet irony

The Mad Crapper
04-23-2010, 09:31 AM
ah sweet irony

Asshead.