Wow! So, by 1963 it reached $1.29 and in 1964 they would only redeem them with granules. They continued redeeming them with granules for the next four years. I wonder what the price was between 1964-68. The Treasury used 1,156,000,000 ounces of its silver reserve. Since it was removed from currency, the price rose sharply, along with the rise in fabrication and industrial use. Hmm...very interesting, Billy. Thank you!
That's ONE reason why some people don't use commodity-backed currencies. Although, one wonder's why the Federal Reserves owns 8000 tons of gold and we broke from the gold standard specifically BECAUSE we were running through ours like crazy with government "Great Society" spending policies. AND one wonder's why China is increasing it's gold reserves. Why? Why do they do that? I mean *gasp* Monster Cables might have a fire sale and drive up gold by $0.0000000000001 a troy ounce. Also, let me reiterate, I didn't say as a nation we should revert to using gold and silver, my position is that people should HAVE THE CHOICE to use WHATEVER currency they choose to store their wealth in. But, you make the point that the value of gold can rise and fall. This is true, except it doesn't happen that much when people use it for extended periods of time - as a matter of fact, for 5000 years gold and silver have generally acted as stabilizing forces in economies whereas ALL fiat currencies have ended usually within a generation or two. So, why not use your own logic? If history shows ALL fiat currencies are devalued and therefor can't perform one of the functions of money (to act as a store). Why not think about WHY we USED to have competing currencies here in the USA? Are you really looking for an answer to the current economic mess we're in or are you an ideologue looking to justify the statuesque? One needn't stamp a value onto gold or silver, you can just stamp it's weight. That way people could use it as STORES of wealth and use multiple electronic and paper currencies to conduct business day to day. The value of the USD has one long term trend - - and that's a MASSIVE LOSS IN value. Oh, speaking of which, Operation Twist 2.0 was announced today - more signs of the 'robust strength' of the USD and "wonderful economy" that has become the American Cattle Ranch. To think, one unelected douche tied to the end of a stick chooses what you and your families and friends and their family's future will hold. A Free Republic indeed. Five years so far. Five years of Helicopter Ben's failed policies. Well, if the Great Depression is anything to go by, we'll need about 3 more sever years of Depression as Ben wipes out most retiree's savings in inflation. Then we'll need to have a War to really get the public behind the bullshit justifications for inflation. Then we'll need, I'm guessing, another 15 more years of stagnation before MAYBE people start thinking about addressing the problems. Maybe when people are actually starving in the streets, then maybe, they might reflect on why central planned economies do not, and never have, worked. But, it's pretty hard to think about things when you're hungry and afraid. Particularly a public inclined to look towards douche's on the end's of sticks to "fix the problem". Haaa! These are the people who MADE the problem. A ripe time for a demagogue. It might be a good time to run for office. Rail on about how the "rich" are "stealing" from the "poor" and all we need are more taxes on the rich and some "moral politicians" in office. Oh, and don't forget to mention you're love of country and baby Jabesus. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If the USD does not act as a store of wealth, then it's not meeting the definition of money. However, it is able to be exchanged for goods and services. So it does meet the definitions of currency. As such the USD is fiat currency and not a fiat money. Here we see for the average Joe American they've been hit with about 8% inflation in a year. And 4% not counting fuel. IN A YEAR Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Here may be why China, world´s largest producer of gold for about 5 years is now importing much more gold (probably has passed India to be #1 importer now): “…China will soon (a few years more when China will want the dollar to collapse**) back its bonds with gold for central banks to encourage them to hold RMB bonds instead of dollar bonds in their reserves. {Gold is a "dead asset" - pays no interest, so few banks will turn these bonds into gold. Now that China has bought the London Metals Exchange, China can control the price of gold.} In last part of 2009 China allowed its banks to open Gold accounts to Chinese. I.e. instead of X RMB the account has Y ounces of gold. They have been very popular, especially now that investing in real estate (the traditional Chinese investment) is giving negative returns. China can, as the US did, "confiscate" this privately owned gold, paying what ever Yuan/oz it wants to. (The US paid only $35/ oz when it "confiscated" privately held gold.) Surely an important reason why China is now letting the Chinese deposit Yuan into gold accounts is that removes them from circulation to fight inflation, which has come down for peak of 6.5% to only 4.5% in last year. As I understand it, the Chinese cannot actually get the gold in their gold account, only its value in Yuan when they take it out. Thus when China does not need to peg the RMB to the dollar (Is more of a domestic than export economy) the RMB may appreciate 30% and that mean they will get ~30% less RMB when closing their Gold account. That appreciation will also greatly reduce inflation. ** That sends US & EU into deep long lasting depression, and effectively removes them as competitors buying oil, etc. China will absorb the ONE TIME loss on the dollar bonds it still holds*** for this EVERY YEAR SAVINGS on cost of its essential imports. …” This quote is part of post at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2892666&postcount=32
There are many reasons why we nor virtually any nation in the world remains on a commodity back currency. Where is your evidence that gold and silver prices have an inate long term price stability? Additionally we can use as many currencies as we like in the US. But as has been pointed out to you numerous times before, US vendors do not want to use currency other than the US dollar because it is inefficient. It adds operational cost and increases risk. I suggest you go back and review history. A commodity backed currency offers no immunity from inflation or deflation. In fact, inflation and deflation were more frequent when we used a commodity backed currency. Reality just does not support your notions Michael. One more point, if the dollar purchases less but you get more dollars to offset the decreased purchasing power of the dollar, where is the harm? There is none. This too has been pointed out to you numerous times before. Instead of focusing so much attention on the currency, you should be focusing attention on disposable income. Because in the end, that is the measure wealth and well being. As my grandfather used to say, it doesn't matter how much money you make. What matters is how much money you have left over at the end of the day. That is just inane nonsense Michael. You need to start getting your information from credible sources Michael. Your chart that claims to be sourced from Bureau of Labor Statistics is bull shit. Instead of relying on whacko web sites for BLS data, I suggest you go right to the source, the BLS. Inflation in the US has been nowwhere near the 8 percent you claimed. It has been very modest. And in fact during The Great Recession was negative - meaning we had deflation rather than inflation. ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
Nobody to speak of uses commodity-backed currencies. All reserve currencies are fiat currencies. And it's states that decide what sort of currencies they'll use, not "people." The same reason that any central bank holds any kind of forex reserves: as a backstop on the bank's solvency, and as a means to manipulate the exchange rate with other currencies. It is not held to back the dollar, beyond the extent to which backing the Fed itself amounts to backing the dollar. More to the point: the value of all of the gold ever extracted and refined in all over human history is only about 2/3 of the US GDP. There simply is not enough gold in the world to back even just the US dollar, as we create significantly more value than exists in the entire gold market, every single year. Probably because their gold reserves are fairly small relative to the size of their economy, and they have the same needs as any other country to backstop their central banks, influence exchange rates, etc. A more interesting question would be why the IMF is reducing its gold reserves. You're being flip, obviously, but also stupid: the premise that gold will increase in value hardly argues against institutions boosting their reserves. Then why do you keep bringing it up? You don't seem to understand the issue in the first place, so who cares what your policy prescription is? People have always had that choice. You can invest your wealth in whatever you want - currencies of most any stripe, commodities, equity in businesses, government bonds, stockpiles of food and ammo, baseball cards - anything you think will hold (and preferably, grow) in value. Do you really not understand that nobody is forcing anyone to store their wealth in the form of a big pile of dollars? This tendency of libertarian ideologues to frame issues as if they're living under Soviet Communism or something is both bizarre and telling. You only need to any dollars if you want to exchange some of your wealth for goods or services that are sold in dollars. If all you are looking for is an instrument to park your wealth in, you don't have to hold any dollars at all. I suspect that you've never had any wealth to worry about, or you'd already know all this basic, obvious stuff. There is no 5000 year history of fiat currencies to consider - or even, meaningfully, non-fiat currencies. And the whole reason that the gold and silver standards were abandoned was exactly that they were destabilizing the world economy. You don't seem to even know any of the relevant history here, let alone have a coherent interpretation of it. You're just baldly asserting whatever is convenient, without any serious substantiation. Doesn't follow. People don't need money to act as a store in the strict sense of always holding (or even, gaining) in value. A small amount of inflation is acceptable, and even desireably overall (it keeps unemployment down, inflates away debts, etc.). I don't think you'll find a serious economist that holds that the money supply shouldn't grow indefinitely - the disputes are all over exactly how fast devaluation should occur. Meanwhile, people who are strongly concerned with holding the value of their wealth have always been better off investing it. The fact that it's a losing proposition to keep your wealth in a pile of currency is a feature of fiat money and inflation, not a bug. You want people investing that money into productive things, not just sitting on big wads of cash. I have - why don't you think about how the ultimate market response to that scenario was to consolodate them all into one currency? The fact is that the inefficiencies and risks of multiple currencies are far more costly than the putative higher inflation that a single fiat currency exhibits. You clearly haven't thought through how that would actually work out - and we note that your advocacy of such never goes beyond "why wouldn't this work?" in the first place. "Statuesque?" But, I dispute the premise that the answer to our economic difficulties lies in reconfiguring our currency in the first place. That's not what caused the problems, and it won't fix them. This is all just your own pet fixation, stemming from your embrace of libertarian ideology. You're trying to sex it up by linking it to the recession and so-on, but it's unconvincing. This is all just another irrelevant pet issue from a one-note crank, much like BillyT's wet dreams about Chinese domination. You say that as if it were not the exact situation that we already have, today and for generations previously. You are perfectly free to store all of your wealth in gold or whatever, and only use any currencies as an accounting/transaction medium for when you perform day-to-day business. There is absolutely nothing to stop you from doing that, although it will incur some transaction costs from all of the monetary conversions involved. Nobody is forcing anyone to store any portion of their wealth in US currency. No, it's a slow, managed loss of value. Especially in recent years, when inflation has been quite low (it was hovering right around zero for years after 2008, and only ticked up again in the last year). The Supreme Court is also unelected - do you insist that such is a trampling of your freedom? These posts are all filled by appointment - and that appointment is done by elected officials. Your elected representatives in Congress and the Executive Branch can fire any of them tomorrow, if we indicate that we'd like them to. You're being dishonest and hyperbolic by implying that the Fed is some kind of dictatorship or something. Get a grip. Not to interrupt your recitation of talking points from a Ron Paul fan site, but where, exactly, is all this inflation? Here on planet earth, inflation has been low-to-zero since late 2007. The justification for inflation is to boost aggregate demand and so reduce unemployment. The public is already "behind" this. The US economy is growing, not "stagnating." We don't have a "central planned economy." Having a central bank does not make us into the Soviet Union. Try to keep some perspective. Money is as much about being a medium of exchange, as storing wealth. And, again, a currency only needs to "store wealth" in the sense of not exhibiting too much inflation. It doesn't need to be attractive as an investment asset - in fact, situations in which is does are very bad for the economy (there's a reason that deflation is a dirty word in monetary policy). THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONEY AND CURRENCY. YOU HAVE ALREADY EXPLICITLY AGREED WITH THIS IN THIS VERY THREAD. That is complete horseshit. What libertarian wackjob site are you getting your information from? You can find the real information here: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ Notice that the CPI is actually decreasing slightly this month, and was flat last month. You can see the historical tables here: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt Note that total inflation for 2010 was 1.5%, and for 2011 it was 3.0%. Your numbers (or maybe your creative interpretation of them) are bullshit.
AND your point? At one time hardly any nation didn't promote and practice Slavery. So what? 7000 years of human history. AND as I pointed out to you non-interest bearing Federal Reserve Promissory Notes have the full weight of the US government, Income Tax and Bonded labor backing their value. It's not a case of "inefficiency" it's a case of market manipulation. But don't worry. Society isn't about to pull it's head out of its ass any time too soon and people are more than happy to stand next to you in their stall as the rich get richer and rake in the majority of the gains while the poor subsist on government "handouts" and get poorer. Society will continue to stratify and people will get used to their permanent status as underclass. So, you should be happy. I mean, it's been around 4 year now. You got everything you wanted. Obama is going to be POTUS again, nothing will change (other than the slogan) and the rich are getting richers. The poor, poorer. YOUR system is obviously Wonderful. In 5 more years, if the USD is still in place, retirees eating animal feed will be common place and the poor will be poorer, fewer people will afford the privilege of higher education and life will generally be much worse under the horrendous debt, inflation, obligations and overall lack of opportunity. But hey, at least the banks got bailed out. At least Obama was elected. Oh, and in a free-market USD would HAVE to have interest higher than inflation. Or people would move their money into a currency where it did. It's that simple. Joe, if you'd have bothered to READ (I include quadraphonics as well) you'd have noticed that this was inflation for commonly purchased items that people buy day to day sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Not that it matters. It doesn't matter if reality is staring you right in the face, you refuse to see it. Nope. Things are great. The "Great Recession" ended and life is wonderful. Oh, did you notice Operation Twist 2.0? What happened Joe, I thought the "Great Recession" was over and we were on the mend? The Economy was growing and things were looking good for the future. News Flash Joe, the economy only appeared as if it was doing well because of all the stimulus. It's called a hit off the Glass Cock. One the country comes down from that high, reality sets in, and people will begin to feel the pain. Like little babies they'll whine for more Crack. It won't help. But the politicians/fed will surely sell them some. Because, like any drug pusher, they couldn't give two shits about the drug abuser. In reality (you do remember that place?) the economy is just as bad as it was and is getting worse AND now we have TRILLIONS in debt. Are you getting the picture YET!?!? Probably not.
Well, this is basically the difference between us. You want to live in a managed centrally planned State and I don't. You think it's good to have a central bank and I don't. Lucky you, because that's how we live. It's an irreconcilable difference. Which is OK. But, yours is immoral as it requires you to put a gun to my head and say stay and pay, go some place else or go to jail. Oh, and you do that to the unborn too, including your own unborn. You're happy to sell Bond's on their future labor (to the Chinese among other nationals) - for things you want to enjoy for yourself today, but don't want to pay for yourself. Dress it up in Nationalism "For the Good of the Nation: America" "USA USA USA" or try and justify it "You use the roads", nevertheless, at the end of the day. You're the one holding the gun while I'm holding principle based on logic and reason. AND I believe this is the reason you loose your temper with me. Because I'm pointing out the inconsistency with reason and logic. So, label me a Libertarian, a Crank, a whatever .... you're still the one who advocates force and violence and I'm the one who advocates volunteerism and peace. You yourself have told me: Don't like, then leave. Income Tax must be paid in USD. Yes, they are. In theory you are correct. In practice it rarely, if ever, happens. People don't like to think and they don't like too much change. Which is why incumbents are usually re-elected. The American Dream, only someone asleep could believe it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! AND, I don't care if it's inflation OR deflation. The Federal Reserve and independently so which ever. they can cause more inflation or they could cause severe deflation. Whichever suites the Bankers purposes they can cause to happen. While I would prefer to live in a FREE country where the free-market decides the money supply, you OTOH are happy to live under a State planned economy that's going straight into the toilet - just as they all do. The Soviet Union had very low unemployment. So what? Central planning does NOT WORK. But don't worry, we're doing things your way. AND yes, the Fed's massive influence and control over our economy is State Planning. What else would it be? Which is why we just had Operation Twist 2.0. And why we'll see QE3/4.5 soon enough. The morons at the Fed will see to that. As soon as the cheap money ends, so will any artificial State induced growth. The party's over, lets see how long they can string out the after-party drinks. Money, unlike currency, is ALSO suppose to store wealth. Now that I know you do not recognize that the store of wealth is an attribute of "money" I'll keep that in mind when engaging in future discussions. But, some people DO. Money functions as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a standard of deferred payment, and a store of value. Currency refers to a generally accepted medium of exchange and therefor must be a unit of account. It does not have to store value. AND fiat currencies generally don't. As can easily be seen here as we transitioned from MONEY to fiat CURRENCY: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No Inflation Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As of 2008 these SAME slippers from the same store were $16.99. I wonder what the price are today? I saw a pair online for $24.99 but who know's where those were bought.
A few comments on economies and global trade via post 48´s shoes: Good chance the 2002 pair were made in Brazil, Perhaps the 2005 also, as Brazil had and still has the world´s largest cattle herd - lots of cheap leather. But making shoes is labor intensive, and Brazilians worker get paid in the local currency, the Real, not the dollars the shoes are sold for in the US. I don´t remember exactly the number of Real a dollar would buy back in 2002 but 4 Real / $ is reasonable and convenient guess. Back in 2002 the Bolsa Familia program did not yet exist. It gives in rough terms about $100 per month per child kept in school until age 18 to poor mainly rural family (with three kids or less) This program has transformed Brazil´s social-economic structure - 30 or more million people lifted out of deep poverty into the lower middle class. Before it most lived out side the cash economy - grew all their food, tobacco and got free second hand clothes at the church, cooked on a wood stove*, usual with no electric lights and certainly no phone, etc. Now they go to town and buy things (or order them for delivery on the next day´s milk truck with their cell phone. Milk truck picks up their cow(s)´s surplus milk and that gives some cash too.) - Merchants sell more and pay more taxes. Great increase in domestic economy when the multiplier effects are considered. Not only that but the "free health care" services costs have been significantly reduced as to get funds from Bolsa Familia program these poor now must get their free vaccinations, pregnant ladies their free preventative care, etc. Now instead of joining their father in the field at ~10 to 12 years old, and barely able to read, students get salaried jobs - more taxes paid and more buying in the domestic economy and later in life good salaries. Studies show or at least suggest that Bolsa Familia will more than pay for its cost via these "side effects" But, back to the shoes: Wages in Brazil, like in China, are rapidly increasing in real terms. People are buying their first refrigerator, etc. (same as in China). That salary increase makes cost of producing shoes more now. However the main reason why Brazil no longer exports cheap shoes to the world is that there has been a huge flow of dollars to Brazil, some for productive investments, but more just to take advantage of (until recently) the world´highest real interest rates (even just via bank deposits). Back in 2002, my banks accounts, in real terms were gaining 1% per month. With all the surging domestic demand Brazil needed to make borrowing to buy that new refrigerator very expensive. Again I don´t remember exactly but basic interest rate in Brazil was at least 15% then. The flood of dollars coming to Brazil had to buy buy Real for local use. Law of supply and demand made the Real more valuable wrt the dollar I.e. instead of getting 4R$ / $ soon after 2002 the dollar would only buy two Real and by 2005 only 1.5R$. (all numbers only for illustration, not exact) So back in 2002 the 10$ the shoes sold for gave 40R$ which easily paid the low wages of the worker making the shoes, say 4R$ per pair of shoes (with lots of profit for shoe company) then the $10 from shoe sale only bought 20R$ and worker cost per pair climbed to 12R$ per pair, so selling shoe was no longer profitable and the factory closed, at least by 2005 when 10$ would only buy 15R$. Now US shoes come from some other higher cost source, but still are much cheaper than if US made. Brazil is very unhappy to have its high labor cost factories closed (many jobs destroyed) by the flood of dollars coming to Brazil (due to fact they can earn very little in US Bank). Calls the low interest rate policy in the US a "currency war" and "export of inflation" as do many other countries adversely effected by US interest rate policies. Brazil has recently started to fight back in this currency war - cutting its interest rates drastically - more on this in post 577 here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2932977&postcount=577 even though that makes control of inflation in Brazil harder. Fortunately, enough time has passed so that production of refrigerators etc. has increased in Brazil to help hold prices down. Also China´s demand for soy and iron ore etc. has grown so Brazil earns more with basic material exports and can buy Chinese made refrigerators etc. to meet the growing domestic demand (China is now Brazil´s main trading partner, not the US and more.) I hope this "shoe based" economic lesson helped some understand better some factors of trade and domestic growth. To be fully honest, I note that currently China´s demand for Brazil´s exports is down so part of the lower interest rates now in Brazil is for same reason US basic interest rates are only 0.5% - i.e. to stimulate the slowing economy. In many countries some form of stimulation is being used, but globally economies are still slowing down. There is a good chance the western world will sink into depression as I predicted 7 years ago by end of 2014, or early 2015, but this one will be unusual as baskets full of currencies have been "printed" so there will be inflation too - I.e. the money you saved will have very reduced value, but you will be scared thing will grow even worse (and they will) so you don´t spend. China and its suppliers like Brazil etc. will just have a recession, not a depression. * Stoves are cheap, a simple but clever design: Uses only one flat piece of steel with 3 or 4 holes for pots at convenient height - all else is bricks with lower part at least 4 feet long by 1.5 or 2 foot wide platform to hold logs burning only at end under the steel plate. Little chopping of the wood required - just keep pushing logs in as the ends burns off. Pipe chimney has internal flap ("damper") to control air flow - heat production.
That is not how inflation is measured. Inflation is not based on the price of one commodity sold at one store. Inflation is measured based on a weighted basket of consumer goods and services intended to mimic the consumption of a typical consumer. Assuming your price representations in your moccasin example are correct and fully disclosed and that is a big leap of faith, you making a huge error in reasoning. Just because price for one commodity at one location went up, it does not follow that all prices for that commodity and every commodity and every service went up in equal measure everywhere. That is why we use the Consumer Price Index which is a weighted basket of consumer goods and services intended to represent the typical consumption of a US consumer. And as previously pointed out to you, the Consumer Price Index does not bear out your claims of rampant inflation.
The Thomson Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index was first calculated in 1957. The publishers of the Thomson Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index do not and have not published data for periods before 1947. So what that says Michael is that you are using disreputable sources again. One more thing, it was in defense of the Gold Standard that caused the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates rather than lower them as they should have done during the Great Depression.
The difference would be that, at one time, all countries did use commodity backed currencies, and they all decided it was a bad idea and stopped doing it. Just like slavery. But, I thought that you were not an advocate of commodity-backed currencies, so why are you comparing them to emancipation here? You're tarring any form of monetary policy as "market manipulation" now? Well, then, you need to either retract that bit of hyperbole, or come clean and embrace anarchism. If you're just going to stump for a different, less inflationary monetary policy, then I'm going to call bullshit on your rhetoric. Your favored monetary policy - one that avoids inflation at all costs - would greatly worsen exactly those issues. The fact that you have no grasp on that - you can't actually describe any mechanism connecting the policies you criticize with the outcomes you cite - means that nobody should listen to your rhetoric. Is it? What about a scenario in which the risks associated with all other currencies are even worse (i.e., the present market conditions)? Then you might be willing to take a small haircut, no? Or, you could always just put your money into some other asset. Investing it in piles of currency is pretty stupid in the first place. That's exactly what the CPI consists of. If you knew the first thing about inflation statistics, you'd already have known that. Speaking of reading, did you notice the point on your graph of the value of the dollar where there was 100% year-on-year inflation under the gold standard? It's in the 1920's. Your constant resort to these obvious strawmen is another thing undermining your credibility. That's unequivocably false. Liar.
Your own charts dispel that notion. How do you explain the double digit inflation in the years 1917 to 1920 when we were on the gold standard? A Federal Reserve note (the US Dollar) is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. It’s called money. That is a bunch of hype. At least the economy is growing again and jobs are being added to the economy rather than lost as was the case when President Obama came into office. Income distribution is another problem that has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve, banks or the stimulus. I don’t understand your point if you have one. I think you are confusing currency with debt. The dollars is currency, it is not debt. As previously pointed out to you the Consumer Price Index replicates the goods and services a typical consumer would purchase in the course of a year. And the CPI does not reflect the outlandish inflation claims you have made. As previously proven, the US economy is out of recession and has been growing at a steady 2-3 percent per year. But that growth is not enough to recoup all of the jobs that were lost during the Great Recession. The US stimulus was rather modest given the gravity of the crisis and the continued inability of the Europeans to put their financial houses in order has put a dampener on the US economy. But that does not mean that the US stimulus did not work, because clearly it did. It took an economy that was losing almost a million jobs a month and turned it into an economy that has been steadily adding 100-200 private sector jobs each and every month for 3 years now. No unfortunately for you Michael, the economy is better by any measure than it was 3 ½ years ago. And we had trillions of dollars in debt before The Great Recession. Is there a point? You seem to think there is a state of economic nirvana. I am sorry to surprise you but economic nirvana does not exist. There will always be economic issues/problems and challenges. But that does not mean that things have not changed.
You skip over the charts and go for the shoes. Nice one Joe. Inflation targeting There you go Joe. It's called Central Planning. The Fed whose mandate is to maintain the value of the USD has a stated goal of destroying at least 2% the value per year. So, for all those retiree's who live on fixed income they can watch as the Central Planners at the Big New York Bankers wipe out their savings. In a quick 10 years they'll of seen a minimum of 20% destruction in their standard of living. This is when you'll see more retirees eating cat food (if they're lucky). Now, people like me, I'm going to do MUCH better with 2% inflation. Hell, go balls to the wall 10% per annum. Even better. Which is probably closer to the mark. But, I have the ability to recognize what's good for me isn't good for everyone and so we default to morality. Stealing in immoral, inflation is stealing time that was invested as labor and stupidly stored in fiat currency - from retirees. That's Slavery Joe. It's immoral.
This thread is all over the place. How about a specific policy proposal? Along the lines of "Here is a problem, and this is what I think would fix it." While I'd hardly argue that our present situation is the best of all possible worlds, I don't think we're (those of us in the U.S.) living in a dystopia either. When and where were things better?
The comparison was to illustrate the flaw in the argument. Just because all your friends are jumping off bridges doesn't mean you should too! When the government interferes in the market then, yes, that is market manipulation. In this case, where the Fed has near monopolistic control over our currency, the amount of it, the interest on it - yeah, that's manipulation. ALL of the bubbles are created by the Federal Reserve. This Depression was created by the Federal Reserve. We are far from a free market that's for sure. There's almost nothing free in the American market. Almost everything has one regulation or another. Once again, my political leanings have no bearing on what is and is not the reality of things. Anarchism by the way doesn't mean no rules. It means no rulers. Most Americans actually interact with one another through anarchic interactions. It'd seem vulgar to call the police and force someone to go on a date. Yet, we're more than happy call those same clowns when it comes to other things you may want from the same person you were just enjoying a coffee voluntarily with. Now, I said currency competition. Some currencies will be inflated while other's will deflate. It will be left to the free-market. And your point? Tell that to the 15 banks hit with a downgrade by Moody’s Investors Service today. The "Great Recession" Joe keeps referring to, that was only pre-dinner drinks. The real party's about begin.
The only one skipping over stuff is you Michael. The bottom line is the facts do not support your notions as has been demonstrated ad nauseum. You don't seem to be able to discern the difference between monetary policy and the economy at large. The Fed does not interfere in or plan production and distribution. It only controls the monetary supply. And as previously pointed out to you ad nauseum, the Fed has a duel mandate, to control inflation and maintain full employment. It is a balancing act. Massive unemployment and government debt hurts the senior citizen just as much as inflation does. And has been pointed out to you before, there are many investments out there that do better than the inflation rate. So seniors do have choices. They are not locked into low interest rate investments. I am happy for you. Yeah we have been through this many times before. Stealing is not taxation. Stealing is not inflation. It is not slavery and it is not immoral. You seem to have a very singular focus Michael and are not able to see the Forrest for the trees and you even invent trees when there are none.
Which is why 15 Banks were downgraded yesterday. Oh, but don't worry, your lovely Federal Reserve will step in and make sure the American tax payer bails them out AGAIN. You know, because if not *gasp* we'd be living in the Dark Ages. Oh, and since we've given up monetary sovereignty why not give up political sovereignty while we're at it? We might have to suspend voting, "temporarily (like the Patriot Act) as voting is just not working - perhaps we'll just have non-elected Technocrats (like Bernanke) als make the Political calls for us. You know, like they do in Greece, Italy, etc... because if not we'd *gasp* be living in the Dark Ages. Yes, the world is just too big and too scary and too complex for us mere Tax Cattle to negotiation on our own. Best if we leave it up to the Tax Farmers .... I'm sure our best interest is at their very heart. I mean, just look at how more productive free-range Cattle are. Happy little dumb bastards, and (more importantly) more productive. :bugeye: moo moo Let me get this right Joe. Your argument is the Fed is mandated by Congress to control our economy, including attempting to directly influence something esoteric as total employment in the USA, but that's NOT central planning. Not Central Planning?!?! Near total monopolistic control over the money supply, total monopoly over interest rates .... direct influence over the economy, mandated to influence employment numbers... is NOT central planning. Gotchya there.... yeah, ever hear of the word Oxymoron? We can take this to the Ethics subform and have a formal debate. If society voted to level a 99.99% tax on you Joe, would that be theft? Well, would it? Yes, it would. AND one more time as you seem to miss it again and again: I said Income Tax which is a specific type of tax. I did NOT say "all tax". Do you think you should pay a tax to China? Why not? Because you're not "Chinese"? But, your argument "you use the roads" can be applied here just the same. You use Chinese made products which are shipped to you on Chinese roads. So pay your 'fair share'. Oh, but I'm not Chinese, I'm not Chinese, I live in a mental bubble, I'm "American" so I only have to pay American farmers moo moo moo..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tax is not necessarily theft. Income Tax IS theft as it forces someone to part with their property (money) which is a store of their labor (time) and thus yes, that is Slavery Joe. Now, as to the thread topic, as quadraphonics does not distinguish between money and currency, I suggest to make arguments more clearer we could use the terms Representative money (like the USD) versus Commodity money (like a gold coin). When the distinction is relevant. Example: Commodity money could be printed without a fiat amount stamped onto the coin. Just the pureness of the metal and the mass. The value would fluxate with the price of the commodity, true, but, metals such as gold generally gold their value nicely over long periods of time and thus make excellent sources of savings. Representative money (like USD) are designed to specifically LOOSE value over long periods of time and thus make horrid stores of value, hell, one wonders why any idiot would refer to them as money at all (ah, but I digress). So, this money would better be used for day to day bribing of the electorate with make work projects so the Keynesian slouches (that make up a large chunk of our society) are able to live under the illusion their representatives really craps about them even though every contraindication suggests otherwise (such as when the top 1% garnish 99% of the productive gains while retiree's would be lucky to eat cat food).
Moody's downgraded the credit ratings of those banks. So? The US taxpayer is not bailing out the banks. Additionally you are confusing the US with Europe, the US has not given up the right to make monetary policy as you have claimed. And none of this has anything to do with voting rights. The rest of your post here is just unfounded hype. No, you are making stuff up again Michael. Contrary to your previous claims, the Fed is an agency of the US government. As previously pointed out to you the Fed has two mandates from Congress, maintain price stability and full employment. That is not managing or planning the entire economy. As previously pointed out to you, the Fed is limited to monetary policy and bank regulation. LOL, Only in your dreams Michael. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ok so you want to limit your objection to income tax. Why? Do you pay your taxes from something other than income? No Michael if I purchase goods made in China I am not paying Chinese tax. Perhaps the supplier of those goods pays a tax to the Chinese government. But I do not. I do on the other hand pay use services provided by the US government and I do pay taxes to the US government for those services. If you don’t like paying those taxes, you can leave the country and avoid paying those taxes. You have a choice. If I don’t like the taxes here in this country, I can try to change the tax through political action or I can leave. You seem to like the benefits of US citizenship but you don’t want to p ay your share of the costs for those benefits. A tax is a tax. It is just that simple. Quad is correct and I don’t think you have been paying attention.
