Money, Power and Wall Street

If you want to keep the value of the currency constant, that is.

Generally you do not - the monetary actions you propose there are pro-cyclical, and so exaggerate the business cycle and eventually cause a big wreck. Instead, what you want is to grow the money supply slowly and steadily. This will result in inflation, but a little bit of inflation is no big deal and is easily worth the reduction in dislocations and unemployment that result from a zero-inflation policy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Michael's answer:

Michael's answer is more than just a bit dishonest as this has been proven to him many times before. But it does not fit with his ideology, therefore he ignores it.

The fact is that the time before the creation of the Fed and New Deal Keynesian policy - the period Michael claims was better - was characterized with recessions that were more frequent; more severe; and longer in duration than they are after the establishment of the Fed and Keynesian economic policy.

"There was neither a central bank nor deposit insurance during this era, and thus banking panics were common. Recessions often led to bank panics and financial crises, which in turn worsened the recession." - Wikipedia

The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months.[5] This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe.[7] Factors that may have contributed to this moderation include the creation of a central bank and lender of last resort, like the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the establishment of deposit insurance in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, increased regulation of the banking sector, the adoption of interventionist Keynesian economics, and the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid). - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States#Great_Depression_onwards

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We just "need better governments".

:bugeye:

heh.... 'better government'. That's kind of funny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We just need much LESS governments. Better yet, NO government.


Why is it, do you think, Communism is an utterly complete failure? Why is it Japan was doing so well when it was a full on free-market Capitalistic State but then when Japan became rich the Japanese went full on socialistic. There's some really great 1980s quotes of how Japan perfected "socialism". Yeah, it's nearly destroyed their society.

We don't NEED better governments.
We need LESS governments.

I know, it seems counter-intuitive. That's ONLY because we've been raised to think the way we do. It's like religion.


But, that aside, I think we will have to agree to disagree.


Luckily, we can at least agree to one thing: We (society) will do things your way. Which, while that makes me sad, oh well. That's life. It should make you happy. Let's see if your way works. More tax. More government. More regulations. Less services as we live through austerity one way or another (austerity through inflation and more debt or austerity through deflation and debt repayment). Yup, I'm 100% we'll be a lot poorer next few years/decade. But, lets see. At least BIG government is able to promise more stuff to the masses and point at everyone but themselves and their crooked banking buddies and their crooked banking system as being at fault.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A nice often repeated conservative talking point, but what does that mean exactly?

How is this relevant?

And it's not today? :shrug:

Why not better government? And again, what do you mean "we need less government"? Get specific.

Wither you are richer or poorer next year depends on you, your actions - not government. Two, who is advocating more tax for most Americans? Are you one of the 1 percenters? Because those are the only ones Democrats are advocating taxing more next year.

 

Democrats use the hidden tax of inflation to do their evil.
Republicans use the hidden tax of inflation to do their evil.

Both directly tax the hell out of the middle class.

By less government, I mean, lets just try and shrink down to the size we were under Clinton. Then, if that doesn't shock the hell out of people we'll work our way down to the size of LBJ's government. Which would be about 10% the size it is now.


The 0.1% own 80% of America. This has happened with the HELP of government. Democrat AND Republican.


But, don't worry Joe. You're going to get what you want. MORE government. MORE regulation. This means MORE Tax. And life will suck just that much more. It's OK in Japan due to the Japanese culture of shutting up and doing what their told. That's not going to happen in the USA. You're living through it Joe. You're no different than the Queen of France: "Let them eat cake". I mean, you're THAT oblivious to what's all around you. Most other people know shits hitting the fan and they're just grasping for more government because that's what we're taught as kids to believe. YOU think things are improving! Ha!!

 

RE: Better government

Replace the word Government with Mafia and that's pretty much the way I see things. We go through the motions of voting but more or less it's either one or the other crime syndicates. They're both the same. Trying to elect a better government would be like trying to elect a better Mafia crime boss whom you (and all the stores) have to pay protection money to. Sure, the Don may give the little people a favor or two, but at the end of the day, you're going to pay. Hell, a Mafia boss might even be BETTER than a politician. At least there'd be some semblance of honor.

 

OK, Michael, let's summarize:

You failed to prove your point, why a responsible government with central banking is bad for society. You also failed to provide one existing country without central banking system.
Your only example from history was plagued with cyclical bank failures and recessions.

So as we come to a conclusion, responsible central banking is necessary to a modern society...Case closed, end of thread...

 

Where is your proof of excessive inflation? It does not exist. It is a fiction.

What does that mean? How do you define the size of government? Are you going to shrink the population as well? If you are talking about spending as a percent of GDP; you want to go back to the Clinton days; the days when government was spending 3 percent more as a percent of GDP? You want to go back to the days of LBJ when government was spending a percentage more of GDP than we are today?

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/35xx/doc3521/125revisedjuly3.pdf

Primarily Republican, especially in the last few decades. But both parties have had a role.

I have asked you several times to explain what you mean by more government, and I have not yet received a good explanation. You think that allowing the 1 percent to do whatever they want, whenever they want by eliminating regulation is a good thing? Where have you been? You want to go back to the days of the George Junior administration or The Industrial revolution? History has shown those were not good times for your average Joe and Jane.

 

Its really only necessary as a clearing house for international transactions...otherwise hundreds of banks in one nation would have to clear thousands of checks with hundreds of banks in other nations.

 

isn't about time that the Central Bank of America is publicly owned ( federally ) as opposed to privately owned ?

 

It is publicly owned.

 

The Fed is necessary for far more than that. It is also a clearing house for domestic transactions.

Reasons the Fed is needed:

"The Federal Reserve System, often referred to as the Federal Reserve or simply "the Fed," is the central bank of the United States. It was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. Today, the Federal Reserve's responsibilities fall into four general areas.

- Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices.

- Supervising and regulating banks and other important financial institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers.

- Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.

- Providing certain financial services to the U.S. government, U.S. financial institutions, and foreign official institutions, and playing a major role in operating and overseeing the nation's payments systems." Federal Reserve

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12594.htm

Containment of systemic risk was just added to the list of Fed responsibilities.

 

the Central Bank of America is NOT publicly owned

that is a little known fact

 

First, there is no such a thing as Central Bank of America.

Second, the closest to it is the Fed, and it is a quasi-public institution, it is owned by the local Fed banks, although the President names its head and also, the government audits it. Go figure...So essentially it is semi-private...

 

Oh, I look forward to seeing your proof.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

"Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.

However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year. " - The Federal Reserve

You are poorly informed river.

 

so your saying that you can't prove the opposite ?

 

I just did prove the Fed is not privately owned. Few if any of the things you hear and read from right wing extremist sources are true.

 

What the Hell are you talking about? Did I say there was or is something called Central Bank of America? No I didn't. And the fact that river does not know the correct name for the Federal Reserve is really not that material. It appears that river doesn't know much about the Federal Reserve.

As for the rest, I think you need to go back and read my post number 35. The Federal Reserve is not in anyway privately owned. It is an organ of government operating under the laws and mandates given to it by Congress.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2934053&postcount=35

 

quote, ;

from Jim Marrs book rule by Secrecy ; pdg 69

" Jackson saw Biddle's maneuverings's as a bald face attempt to black-mail the government into renewing the banks charter. He warned , " The bold effort the present bank had made to control the Government , the distress it had wantonly produced... are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution, or the establishmentof another like it "

 

Oh boy, Jim Marrs. The guy who makes a ton of money selling conspiracy novels and is on just about every conspiracy TV program in the nation. How about using some credible sources? You know, ones that can back up their claims with evidence.