Cagematch: Ron Paul's two views - wacky or sane?

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
El Fenix I said Friedman claimed work to be an asset. Mises did no such thing. There's a lot to this topic and if you really want to delve into you probably would have to read it post by post.

you didn't appear to do so:

Oh and I guess it is in your opinion and you must be correct that this is the proper way to handle the economy. I counter that Hard currency is not deflationary as assets grow with expansion of the populace. As the populace increases, work thus assets increase and the markets will iron out the smoothness of inflation or deflation.

that was posted at 2:21 pm central time yesterday.


what assets do you propose to back your hard currency with. how do you propose to convert them? does the issuer of the currency own the assets? do they merely take a security in the assets? what asset does RP propose to back the currency with?


i'm pretty certain friedman wasn't for an asset based currency. he just wanted to print an exact amount of money to slowly and orderly increase the size of the money supply. if the asset were gold (for example) a) it only increases when new strikes are found, and b) those strikes are of random size and found at random intervals.

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: ElFenix

but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair.

you're not being called a loon because you've heard a message you like. you're being called a loon because you've been given an argument to the contrary and refuse to even acknowledge it.

Refused to acknowledge it? Excuse me, but I responded to every point made with a counter point and even brought LK's points from another thread into this one and responded to them as well. You want to call me a loon, knock yourself out, but realize that your logic is severely flawed and you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction. I've even gone so far as to point out that a hard backed currency IMO is a bad idea and why. I am not the blind follower I referenced in my previous post and it ruffles my feathers quite a bit to have you insinuate such.



P.S. - Here's your for pissing me off rather than engaging in an intelligent debate.

i have yet to call anyone a loon. and i've been responding to mavtek3100. you're involved only tangentially, in the fact that he took your post because, yet again, he was unable to think for himself.

 

[LegendKiller]

First off, I really appreciate you responding to this. You're the first person to do so and you get a lot of respect just for addressing it through anything but one-liners and bullcrap.

1.The Fed banks are still owned by Member banks who are, largely, publicly distributed companies. Who has controlling shares in most of these companies? As I previously stated, 80% of float is controlled by institutional investors, mainly pensions, 401k, mutuals, or different types of hedge funds or banks for brokerage accounts.

Nor should Congress mandate that policy. We have seen how Congress has mandated policy in the recent past and it isn't good. I personally think that the Fed has done a much better job at managing the monetary policy than Congress has done managing the fiscal policy.


2. Congress is likely to make mistakes in fiscal policy due to election pressures, but that's the point. They would/should be held accountable for the fiscal policies they implement and those who fail to steer policy in the PUBLIC'S best interest are/should be voted out and someone with better ideas and values can replace them. Private bankers who stand to make immense profits with money they don't even have to begin with do not have OUR best interests at heart, they have their best interests at heart and could give 2 shits about Joe Sixpack. There are certainly advantages to having the monetary system removed from "election pressures" but those advantages are quite easily negated by greedy power hungry private bankers.

What private bankers are making a ton of money off of the Fed? Nobody really makes any money off of it at all. The Fed only pays it's own employees and the money that the member banks hold in reserve, capital that cannot be deployed otherwise and are compensated for that lack of deployment. The remainder of the money the Fed collects is all dividended back to the government. Even without the Fed this would still happen, probably on a lesser scale, since more money would be wasted in the disaggregation, monetary frictions would occur.

As far as the interests of the public. Who do you think drives the economy? Not the bankers and everybody knows that the economy isn't driven by them. You sit around claiming greedy private bankers, yet you don't provide any examples of how they manipulate the system for more money. Are they not taking a lot of losses now? Are they not being layed off in droves? Is BoA Securities not massively downsizing?

People have this distrust of people who deploy their brains in efficient manners. I work 14 hours a day usually and my skills are worth a lot of money. I get paid what I do because I went through 10 years of post-HS education and busted my ass to get where I am. I do not take advantage of anybody and sure as hell the Fed's monetary policy isn't helping me, my bonus is directly affected by the current events despite me not being involved in them.

Give up your nihilistic viewpoint on "private bankers" bilking society.


As far as Congress having control. Please, Congress distracts people with shiny toys, all the while being far more corrupt than "private bankers". Those shiny toys are wedge issues, gay marriage, abortion, flag burning, social services, stimulus packages with cheap-payoff checks...etc. Congress in control of fiscal policy has adoringly rung up $4TR in debt, with no repurcussions. Congress in control of monetary policy would merely print multiples of paper more than the Fed in their zeal to pay for any give-away programs possible to get more votes. Either that or they'd think it was a good idea to take a Wiemar-ish approach to printing money to pay for sovereign debt, allowing them to spend more.

Yeah, good luck with that. I'll trust a far more educated "private banker" than the dipshit mob that is distracted like a 3-year old kid with shiny toys.

3. How would it stabilize the markets? Please provide specific examples of this. I agree that some additional transparency shoudl be allowed, but not much more.

Speaking realistically, additional transparency would open the market up to specific examples of what Fed governors are thinking. It would begin bets on whether this or that governor has more influence, who doesn't, what each one thinks...etc. It would then add more volatility to the market as people began speculating on what would happen during each meeting, or what power blocks could form...etc. The FOMC would have no choice but to inhibit what they said in open meetings, further reducing the amount of free thought and ideas.

We do not need to open the market up to everything going on behind those doors, nor would it be smart. Would we want investors seeing every presentation made to a company's BOD? Certainly not, as the BOD would accept less off the wall ideas, or new thoughts, as they'd be seen as bad ideas by the market without correct implementation. There's a reason why BOD meetings are closed and largely not recorded and it has nothing to do with increased transparency leading to decreased volitility.


4. The Member banks do not get any revenue from the Fed beyond dividends for the reserve funds kept in the fractional reserve system. These amounts paid are set amounts at usual depository rates, nothing more. You can see this from the audited financial statements of the Fed.

5. I agree also. However, many RPBs believe that the Fed is the crux of the debt problem. It isn't, it's Congress, which is the reason why Congress shouldn't be left to monetary policy also.


6. First off, debt doesn't mean money is created. Debt is nothing more than a storage vehicle for one person who has wealth to lend to another person who has a need for borrowed wealth. That wealth is generated by anybody who has created economic value added, that is, revenue above their costs. This wealth is generated internationally and domestically and put to work by investors.

So, once we get to that point we see that the $100,000 loan created is borrowed by whom and lent to whom? Where is the wealth coming from?

You say it's created from money, but who has the money? You say it's money printed and then lent, but it had to have been earned with goods and services.

This is a common problem with people. They think the Central Bank creates debt to lend.

The general premise of a Central Bank should be to monitor the amount of currency in

7. Where do they get the money? You keep saying it's these shadowy people, who are "they", where does their profit come from? How are they benefiting from the current situation and nobody else is? You keep mentioning these cloudy smoky things but you provide nothing but nihilistic innuendo and half-baked ideas. Fine, be an emo person and slit your wrists for all I care. It doesn't prove that money is beign "siphoned", since the Fed itself makes no profits, not do the Member banks.

You can't peg something at a certain basis and expect no devaluation or inflation. It's simply impossible. Currencies operate on a global basis with all currencies performing differently. Changing economic conditions and microeconomic factors dictate that currencies adjust relative to one another in spite of any fiat based system. This is a fact, not theory. As such, even a pegged currency will fluctuate, especially if it's pegged to any type of asset. Additionally, just having it pegged doesn't allow the Fed to adjust to anything economically, whether it is loosening or tightening and the system would quickly get out of control.


8. Ahh, "they" again. Of course, the Fed cuts currently only have to do with "they" preventhig "them" from losing money. It has nothing to do with people keeping their jobs throughout the country.

9. I fully agree that returning to the past doesn't work and there could be a better system out there, but it isn't gold or hard asset backed. I am open to anything, provided somebody has a sound basis for suggestion, which none of the RPBs provide.


10. Can you make that claim and back it up? I'd love to see it. The vast majority of the companies aren't owned by individuals. Go check that out.

11. I would agree that the Fed did try to prevent a recession after the tech bust and 9/11, but was that really a bad thing? It wouldn't have been bad had we not had the massive debt abuse, which wasn't driven by the Fed reall. Why? Because in spite of the Fed rate being low, there is no 1:1 correlation there. Long-term debt rates are not neccessarily connected to the Fed funds target rates. Look at mortgage rates, they almost have nothing to do with Fed Funds and almost everything to do with the amount of bond interest. The key difference in funding, though, came with exotic mortgages and reduced credit spread in all mortages. The credit spread was reduced, not because of cheap funding from the Fed, but because everybody in the world plowing money into the US housing and credit environment. More money, same amount of borrowers = cheaper rates.

Sorry, but the Fed's cheap money had a lot less to do with the current problem than you think.


12. A portion of some companies and businesses in the US are owned by institutions and a portion of houses are also. However, a lot of houses aren't or are owned to a lesser extent. Furthermore, the aggregate size of all of the major businesses in the US owned by investors (keep in mind, about 80% of all businesses aren't owned by private people, but funds or funds of funds, pensions, 401k, mutuals...etc), is much smaller than the size of all fo the businesses in this country that are private or sole proprietor. Small and medium businesses are the backbone of this country and dwarf everything else. Ohhh, I forgot, they are all owned by "rich" evil people.

13. LOL, an independent Central Bank is actually against the grain of dictatorship, considering that all dictatorships that have taken control of monetary policy have failed. Look at Chavez and inflation. Sorry, but your correlation utterly fails. A dictatorship in the current sitution is only because of the people asking for it, for their security so they don't wet their pants.

Furthermore, a non-independent central bank is evidenced by Argentina, Brazil, Russia, Wiemar...etc

14. Volitility would be *much* worse if people knew what was going on in the FOMC meetings. They'd be betting on mere thoughts, not even on announcements.

15. Injecting cash encourages investment, creating new wealth, which backs the injection. Furthermore, injection of liquidity is often backed by the selling of assets, those assets were always funded through debt or equity of a company, now it's funded by the Fed. In most cases those assets were just sovereign debt or other forms of AAA solid securities. That liquidity is essential, since it keeps the flow of funds in the economy going, not just to buy more plasma tvs or lend more money, but to have banks lend from one to another to support each other. It also Your thought that injecting cash is all bad is incorrect.

16. If anybody comes up with a new idea I am more than willing to go for it. My statement re: churchill had nothing to do with keeping old forms of thought and forgetting the new, it has everything to do with thinking of something other than the old conventions and not wistfully thinking of them as great.

The situation is much akin to people thinking of the "good ole days", when, in fact, the "good ole days" weren't that great. You think of them as great because you conveniently forget about the bad times and remember the good.



I also want to expand on a point I am currently researching.

Back before there was an aggregation of the monetary system every state issued their own currencies. Often times different banks did. I am researching how that system resulted in rampant fraud, not to mention inefficiencies of currency use. Since the English banks were far more cohesive, they were often considered the index currency. As a result, many of the transactions conducted in the 1800's were transacted in Sterling, rather than state currencies.

Additionally, disaggregating the currency function, without a strong central bank, resulted in other banks trying to bury competition. Many times competing banks would drive down securities held in reserve of some banks, just to sink their cash reserves, or call margins. This would cause the targeted bank to default on credit lines and notes of payments.

Notably, this is where JP Morgan came to favor a strong CB. His father's business, which was started by Peabody, was targeted by Barings and other banks in London, because they didn't like Americans encroaching on their territory and they didn't like Peabody. As such, they drove down the price of American securities to erode Peabody and Morgan's Father's capital base. The only way Peabody and Co was saved was because the Bank of England and, ironically, Barings, offered them a large credit line, in very unfavorable terms.

This is one major function of CBs, as Peabody and Co would have been able to go to the discount window to repo highly liquid and credit worthy securities, much like today. Furthermore, they wouldn't have been able to erode the value of the system or individual member banks in the system, especially since currencies were controlled by the individual banks.

Another interesting aspect of the time was when American securities were considered as close to trash as possible, since we were so confused about our monetary system. States defaulted on their obligations left and right, as did banks, because there was no uniform system regulating or liquidating the system. In the tale of Scrooge, all of his British bonds were turned into American bonds, much to his horror.


You see, people who grasp to the past have little to no idea how bad it could be. They listen to blowhards speak, but never listen to anything but they want to hear.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

That's absolutely ridiculous! That's possibly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. It's my duty to prove how the Fed is a crappy system because LK called Ron Paul's idea, which he hasn't even investigated, loony. Can you imagine if this is how it worked in the real world of debate or even in our own Judicial system? Lets say I have been accused of murder by you, I say I didn't do it so I'm innocent. That's where we'd leave it in your system. No the accuser must back up the claim my friend. If you accuse me of murder than it is you who must prove it. LK has not given one iota of evidence showing how Ron Paul's idea is loony other than to claim it is.

I didn't even see this post.

Mavtek, you are the one leveling the charge against the Federal Reserve. YOU are saying it's a failed system. Our country is innocent until proven guilty, so prove that the Fed is a failed system before we even begin to discuss how to fix it, improve it, or transform it.

Thanks.

I most certainly did not call it a failed system!!!

Milton Friedman did! I was quoting him, I never called it as such. I have provided LK with economists who wanted to abolish the Fed, and I have given some of their reasons as to why they wanted to. He has given me his opinions, with no evidence as to why his opinions are correct. He has not even talked about why Friedman or Mises were incorrect or Loony, which is what his original premise was in the 1st place.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

That's absolutely ridiculous! That's possibly one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. It's my duty to prove how the Fed is a crappy system because LK called Ron Paul's idea, which he hasn't even investigated, loony. Can you imagine if this is how it worked in the real world of debate or even in our own Judicial system? Lets say I have been accused of murder by you, I say I didn't do it so I'm innocent. That's where we'd leave it in your system. No the accuser must back up the claim my friend. If you accuse me of murder than it is you who must prove it. LK has not given one iota of evidence showing how Ron Paul's idea is loony other than to claim it is.

I didn't even see this post.

Mavtek, you are the one leveling the charge against the Federal Reserve. YOU are saying it's a failed system. Our country is innocent until proven guilty, so prove that the Fed is a failed system before we even begin to discuss how to fix it, improve it, or transform it.

Thanks.

I most certainly did not call it a failed system!!!

Milton Friedman did! I was quoting him, I never called it as such. I have provided LK with economists who wanted to abolish the Fed, and I have given some of their reasons as to why they wanted to. He has given me his opinions, with no evidence as to why his opinions are correct. He has not even talked about why Friedman or Mises were incorrect or Loony, which is what his original premise was in the 1st place.

yes, because my opinion has no founding in reality. It doesn't matter because I don't toss around a few names and claim victory.

Look dude, as I said, you remind me of the prick in Good Will Hunting who can't do anything but quote other people's opinions. You have no original thoughts, nothing reasoned, nothing challenged, nothing thought of. Just regurgitated bullshit from people who are easily proven wrong, because they have no grounding in reality. Nothing emperical, nothing proven. Just theoretical bullshit.

I have outlined, specifically, why RP, Mises, and Friedman's ideas cannot work in reality. You have done nothing but say "OMG, HE SAID THEY WERE LOONY, WHERE IS DA PROOFS!" or "OMG, FRIEDMAN AND MISES!". You have nothing at all.


Look at the post above. I come up with a rational response to *EVERY* *FUCKING* *POINT*. Look how long it is. Sure, I don't provide specific links, I don't throw down theoretical bullshit names. I don't bandy theory. I talk in specific and easy to understand points while providing specific historical and current reasons why they can't work.

You = Fail.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Oh yes I'll admit defeat, when someone can actually back up that Ron Paul's, Milton Friedman's, and Ludwig Von Mises were all indeed loony. Until then LK, and you little anti Ron's, just because you think it's cool, can wallow around this topic claiming victory when th epoints have never even been argued in the 1st place.

Look at the detail of my points. Just because I don't list "RP is looney because of this..." doesn't mean I am not addressing it.

How about we do this, you take on every point of why you think RP's outlook is correct. Since I am obviously missing your targets, provide some, then I will hit them. Much the same as I did with your post, where in fact, you never even responded to each one of mine.

How is that response to CitizenKain going? What about the points you missed about those computers?

How about any of my longer posts, including the first one you have no balls to take on? What about my last detailed one?

Each one of those posts shoots down every single one of your assertions and rips to shreds RP's ideas. All of them, including CK, ElFenix, and other's, rips to shreds your posts. They all, combined, show that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about and all you have is "OMG, MISES AND FRIEDMAN" regurgitated crap. All of those posts prove you and your fellow bots, are nothing more than regurgitating tape recording doofs who can just spam articles with little thought or consideration.

THIS is why you will always fail in your endevour to prove to learned people, experienced people, knowledgable people, why your positions should stand. I have asked dozens of people on WS if they know who RP is. Very few know, those that do think it's an utter moron for not knowing what he's talking about.

Sure, you can blame the establishment, or "private bankers", but in reality, you have nobody but yourself and RP to blame for not articulating your ****THEORIES***** into provable reality.

That is why you, and your ilk, will always be marginalized fringe freaks.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek

Originally posted by: ElFenix

but calling people loons and such because they've heard a message they like is more than a little unfair.

you're not being called a loon because you've heard a message you like. you're being called a loon because you've been given an argument to the contrary and refuse to even acknowledge it.

Refused to acknowledge it? Excuse me, but I responded to every point made with a counter point and even brought LK's points from another thread into this one and responded to them as well. You want to call me a loon, knock yourself out, but realize that your logic is severely flawed and you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction. I've even gone so far as to point out that a hard backed currency IMO is a bad idea and why. I am not the blind follower I referenced in my previous post and it ruffles my feathers quite a bit to have you insinuate such.



P.S. - Here's your for pissing me off rather than engaging in an intelligent debate.

You certainly deserve a lot of credit for doing what Mavtek, Lozina, PC Surgeon, or Capitalitz really have failed to do. While I think many of your points are a bit out there ("private bankers...etc"), you at least tried to engage me instead of just running away because I haven't gone point by point saying (RP is a loon because...), or I haven't hit the moving target (or hit and Mavtek dodged) that is Mavtek's post content.

I appreciate your added value and i certainly don't categorize you as a bot. You're still not getting a lot of my important points, but at least you are trying.


Thank you!

 

[teclis1023]

LK, it's never going to happen. MavTek is in over his head, and he's got nothing to contribute. He's an instigator, not a thinker.

 

[Mavtek3100]

Thank you LK

Your long winded opinionated post with little to no evidence have convinced me that all theories are indeed loony. Keyword "theories", you ask me a to take a theory not of my own and prove to you that it is indeed loony. I asked you the claimer that said theory is indeed loony and you come back with long winded post about why the Fed works yet again. I have the same problem with the Fed that Ron Paul and even Greenspan have with the Fed.

The Federal Reserve System enjoys virtual immunity from Congressional investigation. The few who propose to subject the Fed to even minimal scrutiny, such as Henry Gonzales of Texas, at once find a consensus arrayed against them. They threaten the stability of the market; since, it is alleged, only the Fed's independence blocks the onset of uncontrollable inflation.

Here lies the paradox. Inflation results from the infusion of new money into the economy, and it is the Fed that is responsible for its creation. "The culprit solely responsible for inflation, the Federal Reserve, is continually engaged in raising a hue-and- cry about `inflation' for which virtually everyone else in society seems to be responsible". How did this odd situation come about?

We already can answer the following question; what is the optimum quantity of money? If one has understood the explanation of money's genesis, the answer is apparent. An increase in the supply of money does not increase real wealth, since money is used only in exchange. (The exception owing to non-monetary uses of gold and silver can for our purposes be ignored) "Any quantity of money in society is optimal' ". And, to add one complication, the answer remains the same when paper money has been introduced.

A problem now arises for the analysis so far presented. If an increase in the supply of money does not increase real wealth, why have governments continually resorted to inflation? This is the premise we must start with as I attempted to do so at post #3 of this thread.

Should we, are we willing to, start over?

The premise that Ron Paul, Mises, and even Greenspan adhere to is that inflation is a tool for the wealthy, there have been many posts regarding this that you have ignored. You seem to think inflation can not be blamed on the Fed? The premise of inflation is a devaluation of the currency, how can one not realistically blame the printer of the money? I put you to task to dive into the history of the "Fed", and why these premises are indeed loony.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Seems to me that what are you are trying to say is that it is the FEDs job to purposely make sure no one knows what is really going on ...to obscure reality to protect us from ourselves.

That's exactly what I said, gee, if I didn't have your brain, I'd never get through my life....


On second thought, the Fed doesn't make sure that nobody knows what's going on. They release their financial statements, they make quarterly and annual reports to Congress, they release their meeting minutes...etc.

As far as knowing *exactly* what's going on, since when should we , or do, know *exactly* what's going on? There's a lot that must be said in privacy and confidence to make sure the ideas aren't taken incorrectly. It's like that with any institution.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
El Fenix I said Friedman claimed work to be an asset. Mises did no such thing. There's a lot to this topic and if you really want to delve into you probably would have to read it post by post.

You know who else said labor is the source of value of money? Marx.

This whole topic is ridiculous. I've read through much of this thread and Mavtek hasn't done much to refute the points brought against RP.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

1. If you don't think a strong and independent CB is essential to a well running economy please provide why and examples of how a current economy is operating well without one. Furthermore, provide evidence, through history, that economies have operated well without one, excluding any major boom/bust periods. Explain further how this fits within the well known fact that stability is essential and how stability will be enhanced without a strong CB.

2. So deflationary currencies aren't bad? What happens when you have a deflationary spiral? How do you control for that outside of the free market, which responds in arrears, not proactively? Furthermore, how do you take into account boom/bust mentalities in a world where extremism becomes all the more rampant? Please provide evidence that a free market gives as much predictability, security, and thus willingness to invest for the long-term as the current system.

Then you say that if access to currency is the problem, then buy more assets and issue more currency? What happens with the assets you buy as they go up in value? You must devalue the currency peg, printing more money to fight deflation. On top of that, you drive out the people who *need* those same hard assets for their own industries or collections.

The point being, the entire bulk of hard asset values are arbitrarily set by the market. The entire base cannot hope to encapsulate the wealth of the world to infinity. Your only option is to devalue while purchasing, leading to further instability as the exact peg will never be maintained for more than an intermittant time. Additionally, since those same commodities are at the will of the specific commodity market they can easily be cornered or manipulated, see oil.

The smoothness hasn't been enhanced by the fiat system? See the bank runs of the mid to late 1800s and the chaos that ensued. There were far more boom/busts at that time and manipulations of the banking system due to disaggregation.

3. AHHH, so now the problem isn't the monetary system, but the fractional reserve system? The fractional reserve system is put into place to cover the losses of a bank. It's a good system that has been strengthened in many years.

How was fractional reserve banks at fault during the 4-5 runs on banks in the 1800s and before the Reserve Act was put into place? How come there's only been a few minor runs in subsequent times, with the CB coming to the rescue?

How many times did JP Morgan bail out banks? How many times did he see banks fail because they didn't get help from a strong CB? In fact, his Father's bank was one!

4. Because disaggregation is a bad thing. We had that system before, it sucked ass. It lead to a lot of runs, chaos, and inefficiency. International people hated our disaggregation so much they demanded domestic sales be transacted in Sterlings often times. Yeah, great system!


5. Short-term thinking is Congress. They care about getting re-elected, not about ensuring future progress. Look at our national debt! For flucks sake, if they cared about the long term they wouldn't be shackeling us with more than $10TR in debt with sights on locking us into more!

6. See above how a fractional reserve shouldn't be illegal.


7. This is why people won't ever see that RP is wrong. If we relied totally on free markets, including for currency, then you get situations where things go awry very quickly. Some organization must take place, if only for the sake of market certainty.

People weren't bitching when the Dollar was kicking ass only a few years ago. Then RP's ideas were loony and they still are. Things are cyclical.

Arbitrage can be great as it cures price fluctuations. However, in this case, they would be horrible since they increase overhead and aggregate wealth to those that can exploit it (aka the rich). Furthermore, it decreases willingness for investment both domestically and internationally, since they know that part of their returns are lost beyond their control.

We had competing currencies, they resulted in chaos, runs on banks, some banks taking others down, problems with the economy, and variability in inflation and deflation. All of that lead to decreased investment and the bunker mentality.

Sorry, but your system failed and this one has proven much more stable in a relative sense. IF you have a better idea, present it, but regurgitating the same bullspit doesn't work.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
This whole topic is ridiculous. I've read through much of this thread and Mavtek hasn't done much to refute the points brought against RP.

That's because Mavtek is another mindless Paulbot who repeats propaganda and talking points, with a few video clips snuck in. He hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Your long winded opinionated post with little to no evidence have convinced me that all theories are indeed loony. Keyword "theories", you ask me a to take a theory not of my own and prove to you that it is indeed loony. I asked you the claimer that said theory is indeed loony and you come back with long winded post about why the Fed works yet again. I have the same problem with the Fed that Ron Paul and even Greenspan have with the Fed.

What this is saying is: "I don't know enough to refute your points, nor do I want to take the time to learn, so I give up!"

I have refuted everybody's points. That refution, in total, proves that the ideas are loony. If you can't hack that, then you're fucking dense and there's nothing I can do for you. Otherwise, you haven't proven anything, as pretty much everybody, but you, says. Sorry sparky, you fail.

The Federal Reserve System enjoys virtual immunity from Congressional investigation. The few who propose to subject the Fed to even minimal scrutiny, such as Henry Gonzales of Texas, at once find a consensus arrayed against them. They threaten the stability of the market; since, it is alleged, only the Fed's independence blocks the onset of uncontrollable inflation.

What investigation should there be? List what should happen, including what Gonzales was looking for. Congress can ask the President to dismiss Governors if they are doing the wrong thing, which is readily apparent. Congress is also issued statements and can call the Chairman or any Governor to testify in front of it and has recently done so, why then, do you say it enjoys immunity?

Here lies the paradox. Inflation results from the infusion of new money into the economy, and it is the Fed that is responsible for its creation. "The culprit solely responsible for inflation, the Federal Reserve, is continually engaged in raising a hue-and- cry about `inflation' for which virtually everyone else in society seems to be responsible". How did this odd situation come about?

You say that inflation results from the infusion of new money. Yet you haven't provided any counter to the emperical evidence of the increase of groceries due to Ethanol, or the fact that when the Fed dropped rates and the dollar dropped oil went down. or how about all of the alleged liquidity and "dollars printed" entering the market, yet core prices haven't really moved.

See, your 1:1 correlation of "printing" and inflation utterly fails. It holds no water and there's no way you can prove it in the current circumstance.

BTW. Where did you get your soundbite? More regurgitated bullshit eh?

We already can answer the following question; what is the optimum quantity of money? If one has understood the explanation of money's genesis, the answer is apparent. An increase in the supply of money does not increase real wealth, since money is used only in exchange. (The exception owing to non-monetary uses of gold and silver can for our purposes be ignored) "Any quantity of money in society is optimal' ". And, to add one complication, the answer remains the same when paper money has been introduced.

A problem now arises for the analysis so far presented. If an increase in the supply of money does not increase real wealth, why have governments continually resorted to inflation? This is the premise we must start with as I attempted to do so at post #3 of this thread.

Should we, are we willing to, start over?

The premise that Ron Paul, Mises, and even Greenspan adhere to is that inflation is a tool for the wealthy, there have been many posts regarding this that you have ignored. You seem to think inflation can not be blamed on the Fed? The premise of inflation is a devaluation of the currency, how can one not realistically blame the printer of the money? I put you to task to dive into the history of the "Fed", and why these premises are indeed loony.

Money doesn't increase wealth, money is a vehicle to transact wealth. more wealth = more money. Increasing prices (wealth) also require increased money, thus more money is needed. While the feedback of more bills = inflation to some extent, so does price increases from other inputs.

Your whole premise rests on two things.

1. Is inflation bad?

2. Should we have 0% inflation?


1. Inflation is not bad, provided it is predictable and can be accounted for in the changing of wages. The boogeyman of inflation is relative to the boogeyman of "fat". Everybody has demonized fat, saying it...makes you fat. Instead, it's calories that make you fat, not fat. Instead of just saying "eat less *****" we say "eat fatfree, fatass". Fat-free doesn't solve the problem, eating less does.


In the same token, inflation free doesn't solve the problem of providing a stable environment. Having less, but predictable, inflation does. stable environments provide for certainty and enhanced lending, investment, and wealth creation.

Inflation can be counted for and wages increased for inflation. Furthermore, asset returns, such as interest rates, have inflation components in them, constant and stable inflation aids in the correct pricing of financial instruments.


2. Having 0% inflation is impossible. Inflation, as I said before, has way too many inputs beyond just monetary expasion beyond wealth increase (or decrease), as we have seen with my two examples. Additionally, the deflationary tendancy of hard assets, and the impossibility of containing all wealth in those assets do not enhance the stability of the currency. IN fact, the combination of those two issues lead to the variability of the currency, which reduces the desire for investment.


Again, you provide nothing other than names and theories, rather than practical knowledge.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Thank you LK

Your long winded opinionated post with little to no evidence have convinced me that all theories are indeed loony. Keyword "theories", you ask me a to take a theory not of my own and prove to you that it is indeed loony. I asked you the claimer that said theory is indeed loony and you come back with long winded post about why the Fed works yet again. I have the same problem with the Fed that Ron Paul and even Greenspan have with the Fed.

The Federal Reserve System enjoys virtual immunity from Congressional investigation. The few who propose to subject the Fed to even minimal scrutiny, such as Henry Gonzales of Texas, at once find a consensus arrayed against them. They threaten the stability of the market; since, it is alleged, only the Fed's independence blocks the onset of uncontrollable inflation.

Here lies the paradox. Inflation results from the infusion of new money into the economy, and it is the Fed that is responsible for its creation. "The culprit solely responsible for inflation, the Federal Reserve, is continually engaged in raising a hue-and- cry about `inflation' for which virtually everyone else in society seems to be responsible". How did this odd situation come about?

We already can answer the following question; what is the optimum quantity of money? If one has understood the explanation of money's genesis, the answer is apparent. An increase in the supply of money does not increase real wealth, since money is used only in exchange. (The exception owing to non-monetary uses of gold and silver can for our purposes be ignored) "Any quantity of money in society is optimal' ". And, to add one complication, the answer remains the same when paper money has been introduced.

A problem now arises for the analysis so far presented. If an increase in the supply of money does not increase real wealth, why have governments continually resorted to inflation? This is the premise we must start with as I attempted to do so at post #3 of this thread.

Should we, are we willing to, start over?

The premise that Ron Paul, Mises, and even Greenspan adhere to is that inflation is a tool for the wealthy, there have been many posts regarding this that you have ignored. You seem to think inflation can not be blamed on the Fed? The premise of inflation is a devaluation of the currency, how can one not realistically blame the printer of the money? I put you to task to dive into the history of the "Fed", and why these premises are indeed loony.

By the way, you are wrong. Also, I'm going to call you loon now. Loon.

 

[NoStateofMind]

The wolves smell blood. How can they resist?

EDIT: And whats with this notion of "Your own ideas"? Most of the ones talking economics on this board learned from someone else's ideas. Keynesian thought up these theories and people are just regurgitating them, so don't use that argument "Its someone else's idea" crap, you're doing the same.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The wolves smell blood. How can they resist?

EDIT: And whats with this notion of "Your own ideas"? Most of the ones talking economics on this board learned from someone else's ideas. Keynesian thought up these theories and people are just regurgitating them, so don't use that argument "Its someone else's idea" crap, you're doing the same.

Sorry, but there's a difference between tossing names around, direct posting, or just saying "he or she thougth", and providing actual emperical evidence, realistic reasons, or sound analysis.

If you look what I provide, it's all real-world knowledge, actual experience, or emperical evidence. I provide historical examples.

Mavtek provides theories and people, nothing solid.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
The wolves smell blood. How can they resist?

EDIT: And whats with this notion of "Your own ideas"? Most of the ones talking economics on this board learned from someone else's ideas. Keynesian thought up these theories and people are just regurgitating them, so don't use that argument "Its someone else's idea" crap, you're doing the same.

Sorry, but there's a difference between tossing names around, direct posting, or just saying "he or she thougth", and providing actual emperical evidence, realistic reasons, or sound analysis.

If you look what I provide, it's all real-world knowledge, actual experience, or emperical evidence. I provide historical examples.

Mavtek provides theories and people, nothing solid.

I understand and acknowledge you have these experiences. First hand experience is important, which is why bringing in comments and articles of people like Mises and Greenspan hold just as much importance as your view.

I personally think either school of thought would work. But whats scary about the fiat system being used by the majority of nations is, if the American economy collapses so does a multitude of foreign economies. The effect we have on the world is substantial. The last week of trading in the stock markets shows this to be true.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

I understand and acknowledge you have these experiences. First hand experience is important, which is why bringing in comments and articles of people like Mises and Greenspan hold just as much importance as your view.

I personally think either school of thought would work. But whats scary about the fiat system being used by the majority of nations is, if the American economy collapses so does a multitude of foreign economies. The effect we have on the world is substantial. The last week of trading in the stock markets shows this to be true.

Ron Paul's theories work off of just historical experience, all of which is refuted by simple explanations of what that historical experience was. His basic premise works off of the evils of inflation, which are quite false, then that the Fed is shadowy and evil, which it isn't. That's about all he says. The fix to it all is hard currencies, which has been proven to not work, history and common sense shows that. Practical knowledge shows that.

As far as the collapse of the US economy affecting the world, how is that any different? We were still essentially a gold standard in 1929 but somehow the interlocking world went down the spiral. How is that possible? What about the massive recession that affected the world after the Crimean war? Or the any number of recessions that happened worldwide before the creation and expansion of fiat systems?


You see, people think everything before a fiat system was great, it wasn't. Everbody puts the evils of the current situation on the fiat system, which is false.

As the analogy I provided before. Prior human behavior was that we went to work in the field, ate a lot of calories, and stayed skinny. As we progressed to a services sector instead of ag, we consumed the same calories but did much less work. Instead of putting the blame where it belongs, on calorie intake, we put the blame onto "fat", thus people razzle-dazzled us with "fat free" this and "sugar free" that or "no trans fats". Not, "EAT LESS MORON".

People aren't focusing on the key problem, credit. This has nothing to do with printing money and everything to do with borrowing it from international creditors. Our falling dollar isn't a result of the expansion of money for liquidity and everything to do with the expansion of credit for consumption, the liquidity part is a by-product of the problem.

Instead of focusing on *THE PROBLEM* we focus on the by-product, which is complete bullcrap.

If Ron Paul stuck to the real problem, which is credit, and ignored all of this speculative bullshit, then we'd be much better off. His message would be heard loud and clear. Instead, he focuses on the "fat free" problem.

 

[Mavtek3100]

http://www.giveproductions.com...onGlennBeck1-23-08.mp3

Ron Paul on the economy, you can all listen, you decide is he loony?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

I understand and acknowledge you have these experiences. First hand experience is important, which is why bringing in comments and articles of people like Mises and Greenspan hold just as much importance as your view.

I personally think either school of thought would work. But whats scary about the fiat system being used by the majority of nations is, if the American economy collapses so does a multitude of foreign economies. The effect we have on the world is substantial. The last week of trading in the stock markets shows this to be true.

Ron Paul's theories work off of just historical experience, all of which is refuted by simple explanations of what that historical experience was. His basic premise works off of the evils of inflation, which are quite false, then that the Fed is shadowy and evil, which it isn't. That's about all he says. The fix to it all is hard currencies, which has been proven to not work, history and common sense shows that. Practical knowledge shows that.

As far as the collapse of the US economy affecting the world, how is that any different? We were still essentially a gold standard in 1929 but somehow the interlocking world went down the spiral. How is that possible? What about the massive recession that affected the world after the Crimean war? Or the any number of recessions that happened worldwide before the creation and expansion of fiat systems?


You see, people think everything before a fiat system was great, it wasn't. Everbody puts the evils of the current situation on the fiat system, which is false.

As the analogy I provided before. Prior human behavior was that we went to work in the field, ate a lot of calories, and stayed skinny. As we progressed to a services sector instead of ag, we consumed the same calories but did much less work. Instead of putting the blame where it belongs, on calorie intake, we put the blame onto "fat", thus people razzle-dazzled us with "fat free" this and "sugar free" that or "no trans fats". Not, "EAT LESS MORON".

People aren't focusing on the key problem, credit. This has nothing to do with printing money and everything to do with borrowing it from international creditors. Our falling dollar isn't a result of the expansion of money for liquidity and everything to do with the expansion of credit for consumption, the liquidity part is a by-product of the problem.

Instead of focusing on *THE PROBLEM* we focus on the by-product, which is complete bullcrap.

If Ron Paul stuck to the real problem, which is credit, and ignored all of this speculative bullshit, then we'd be much better off. His message would be heard loud and clear. Instead, he focuses on the "fat free" problem.

You could be entirely correct, I won't deny that.

From the other thread:

I think its important to point out LK that its the direction he wants to go that is important. We all know that abolishing the FED is unlikely, but discussing its viability is a good thing. If anything maybe there would be something better come of it, maybe not, but at least we would have basically "audited" the FED system.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

I understand and acknowledge you have these experiences. First hand experience is important, which is why bringing in comments and articles of people like Mises and Greenspan hold just as much importance as your view.

I personally think either school of thought would work. But whats scary about the fiat system being used by the majority of nations is, if the American economy collapses so does a multitude of foreign economies. The effect we have on the world is substantial. The last week of trading in the stock markets shows this to be true.

Ron Paul's theories work off of just historical experience, all of which is refuted by simple explanations of what that historical experience was. His basic premise works off of the evils of inflation, which are quite false, then that the Fed is shadowy and evil, which it isn't. That's about all he says. The fix to it all is hard currencies, which has been proven to not work, history and common sense shows that. Practical knowledge shows that.

As far as the collapse of the US economy affecting the world, how is that any different? We were still essentially a gold standard in 1929 but somehow the interlocking world went down the spiral. How is that possible? What about the massive recession that affected the world after the Crimean war? Or the any number of recessions that happened worldwide before the creation and expansion of fiat systems?


You see, people think everything before a fiat system was great, it wasn't. Everbody puts the evils of the current situation on the fiat system, which is false.

As the analogy I provided before. Prior human behavior was that we went to work in the field, ate a lot of calories, and stayed skinny. As we progressed to a services sector instead of ag, we consumed the same calories but did much less work. Instead of putting the blame where it belongs, on calorie intake, we put the blame onto "fat", thus people razzle-dazzled us with "fat free" this and "sugar free" that or "no trans fats". Not, "EAT LESS MORON".

People aren't focusing on the key problem, credit. This has nothing to do with printing money and everything to do with borrowing it from international creditors. Our falling dollar isn't a result of the expansion of money for liquidity and everything to do with the expansion of credit for consumption, the liquidity part is a by-product of the problem.

Instead of focusing on *THE PROBLEM* we focus on the by-product, which is complete bullcrap.

If Ron Paul stuck to the real problem, which is credit, and ignored all of this speculative bullshit, then we'd be much better off. His message would be heard loud and clear. Instead, he focuses on the "fat free" problem.

You could be entirely correct, I won't deny that.

From the other thread:

I think its important to point out LK that its the direction he wants to go that is important. We all know that abolishing the FED is unlikely, but discussing its viability is a good thing. If anything maybe there would be something better come of it, maybe not, but at least we would have basically "audited" the FED system.

Could be? HIstory has shown me as correct.

As far as the direction, discussing the viability is a poor way to frame your original thought, to increase oversight and provide more transparency. If you framed it like that, then you'd be OK. However, nobody does.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller


Could be? HIstory has shown me as correct.

Actually a case could be made for either through history.

As far as the direction, discussing the viability is a poor way to frame your original thought, to increase oversight and provide more transparency. If you framed it like that, then you'd be OK. However, nobody does.

Those are things Paul has been pushing for for years. Increased transparency and more congressional oversight.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller


Could be? HIstory has shown me as correct.

Actually a case could be made for either through history.

As far as the direction, discussing the viability is a poor way to frame your original thought, to increase oversight and provide more transparency. If you framed it like that, then you'd be OK. However, nobody does.

Those are things Paul has been pushing for for years. Increased transparency and more congressional oversight.

Indeed, but he muddles the debate with other things.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller


Could be? HIstory has shown me as correct.

Actually a case could be made for either through history.

As far as the direction, discussing the viability is a poor way to frame your original thought, to increase oversight and provide more transparency. If you framed it like that, then you'd be OK. However, nobody does.

Those are things Paul has been pushing for for years. Increased transparency and more congressional oversight.

Indeed, but he muddles the debate with other things.

Sure, because he feels he has so much to cover. Of course this is IMO.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
http://www.giveproductions.com...onGlennBeck1-23-08.mp3

Ron Paul on the economy, you can all listen, you decide is he loony?

Holy shit on a stick batman, where to start?


1. Bond insurance - He completely misses the point of the current problem and doesn't understand what's going on in the credit markets. He starts with bond insurance and goes on to FDIC and FHA, completely ignores the whole problem. He doesn't know jack shit about what's going on! He simply goes on to blather about this or that problem, never addressing the problems in the capital markets. Do you guys know why there was a bounce in the markets today? Not because Ron Paul saved us, but because people found out there was a plan to bail out the bond insurers and stop the problems.

2. Print money, call it capital - He claims the debt is printing money. What does this mean? Isn't debt capital invested from somebody else? Don't people have to have money to invest? What about international investors, don't they have other money to invest? Is that printed? Does he even realize what happens when the Fed floods the market with money? They usually do so by backing it up with assets. Again, he is a joke. Sure, some money is printed and put onto the market, but most of it is into a downturn. What do downturns produce? That's right, deflation. So who knows if inflation is even going to happen to a large extent.

3. Business people think savings are going on - They are going on, not just our savings but other savings. He assumes that increased debt means savings aren't occuring, they are occuring, they are just offset by greater debt. More loony tunes. Sorry, but things are happening and he's too stupid to realize it.

4. Capital comes out of nowhere - How does capital come out of nowhere? Isn't isn't wealth created, savings made, and investments deployed? How do you get the fact that the economy is growing and money is still taken in? What about all of the foreign capital?

What about the debt for the future that will be repaid? Isn't that wealth created?

Debt is nothing more than future cashflows brought to today, it isn't "created". Somebody has cash they can lend today and do so.

people claim the banks are distributing more cash. What about the single biggest injection of cash in the world history by the ECB? Won't that increase Euro inflation? Why hasn't it degraded the euro to a certain extent? I bet he can't answer that, but I can.

5. Getting rid of Sarbox in response to Enron. Does he even know what SarbOx is? Does he know how it hold's CEOs and other execs accountable for their own actions? Nah, he just wants less regulation. He somehow thinks that the "free market" in a fairy tale world will fix itself. Good one sparky.

6. Get rid of death tax? Wow, here's a real good one. This fucktard thinks that redistribution of wealth throughout the economy isn't a good thing. Too bad this goes against all principals of "private bankers" and "rich" people controlling everything. He advocates this and claims he is a Republican or a libertarian? He actually advocates the creation of a perm. aristocracy with ever increasing wealth and permanence? Eventually they become the ruling class, to the detriment of the whole society. You fail again gasbag.

7. Getting rid of taxes encourage investment - Here's a good one. Sorry buckwheat, but somehow we've managed to invest quite a bit despite the taxes, imagine the fact that we've done pretty damn well! All he wants to do is shift taxation from one hand to another, right pocket left pocket to play money games. Novel idea!

8. Interest rate generates bubble - Sorry, but the Fed interest rate had almost no bearing on the long-term interest rates of the 10-year note, the benchmark for mortgages. Additionally, it has almost no bearing on credit card spreads, both of which drove mortgage pricing. Too bad it was the deployment of long-term capital overseas that generated the RE and credit bubble. But of course, overseas money was fictional too!

9. dollar bubble - Nobody bitched 5 years ago, but in a downturn do. What happens when it rebounds eventually after the PPP returns to decent levels compared to the euro? Then what?

10. borrow or print money, where is inflation - Again, we come back to demonizing "fat" like we demonized inflation. Inflation BAD, GOLD GOOD! Sure caveman, think in binary terms. Too bad inflation isn't directly correlated to expansion of money, as is proven by several items. Furthermore, inflation isn't always bad, unpredictable inflation is.

11. how do they lower interest rates? They lower them through Repo and liquidity, so what? Does that mean it always creates inflation? If it did, then why didn't it create inflation in 2001-2003?

12. Dollar goes down, weaking is crisis, how do we suffer? I love his alarmist statement that a dollar is now .8, sorry, but it's not that bad. Furthermore, that's assuming that wages don't go up. Sorry, but you haven't proven that long-term wages have eroded significantly, you just say inflation is evil, which it isn't.

13. dollar is worth so little - Is it? If it was worth so little and the prospects sucked so much long-term, why are people still willing to finance our companies and consumers? Obviously it's not for the hell of it.

14. Poorest getting hit by more inflation - Prove?

15. where is inflation of 10-12% come from? Any proof behind this? At most, CPI is at 4.1% annualized. Where do you get this? I would like direct information that is empirical and repeatable.

16. He predicted market would go down - Whoops, bond insurers aren't that bad now, are they? Guess that's why the market swung up. His prediction, like the rest of his bullcrap, was wrong.

17. One world government and socialism from wilson - Ohhh, here we go, shadowy conspiracies! More loony toon bullcrap!

18. Any great nation off gold standard will not remain to be great, what nations? Emperical proof is against. - Proof? Empirical evidence says he is wrong as Halik linked. I guess he has some Mises or Friedman theory that counters that, eh?

19. How would gold standard and competing currency be less chaotic? - Competing currencies have, historically, shown themselves to be more chaotic, less enticing for investment, and create more runs on banks. Sorry loony tune, you lose again!

20. Has read the federalist papers - Wow, you read some of the founding fathers, but not all. Considering the head federalist was Hamilton and he was the real, first, state-controlled top-down big brother government believer, I guess I question why you don't counter many of his believes with Republican ones, which were Jefferson's ideas for more state rights and a smaller government. Of course, only one-sided founding father papers are correct.

All in, crap interview from a crap interviewer and a crap interviewee. Too bad both are fringe loony tunes kept to fringe politics...