Sorry, but they don't. One only has to look at the S&L crisis to see that. Rates weren't all that low, yet massive problems occured. Why? Because there were a lot of other problems involved, not just rates. Much of it had to do with shoddy regulation and loan underwriting.
Obama: Power to the fed!!!
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sorry, but they don't. One only has to look at the S&L crisis to see that. Rates weren't all that low, yet massive problems occured. Why? Because there were a lot of other problems involved, not just rates. Much of it had to do with shoddy regulation and loan underwriting.
LegendKiller
Lifer
- Mar 5, 2001
- 18,256
- 68
- 86
It goes point by point and refutes huge amounts of the book. Sorry you can't acknowledge it. You can lead a blind, deaf, dumb horse to water but you can't make it drink.Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
1) At this point it is simply their research views and conclusions against that of Jekyll Island. That doesn't prove or disprove jack shit. And I'd say that most of the information on the site does little of anything is contradict much of anything in the book.
2) My analogy is simplistic, yes, but to the point. Most of the senate banking committee and god knows who else is in the Fed's pocket. The Treasury is in the Feds pocket. Simple enough?
Yeah, it's all one big conspiracy.
3) Name one actual benefit that has arisen from central banking that would not be available under a gold standard or the treasury system.
Name one actual benefit that arose out of the gold standard?
We've had the most propserous 80 years in the history of mankind. We went from one of the medium economies in the world to the world leader.
4) The Fed and other central banking interests control the senate banking committee... so who failed to act on Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC again? This isn't complicated.
Everybody failed to act on Fannie and Freddie.
5) Look at the aftermath... who is getting richer out of this and who getting more control? With every financial crisis in the US we hand over more control to the Fed. Europe is doing the same thing. Central banks the world over are gonna come out of this with more money, more public debt in their hands, and more power to control their economies.
Who do you think is getting richer? Seen hedge fund returns lately?
LegendKiller
Lifer
- Mar 5, 2001
- 18,256
- 68
- 86
Originally posted by: bamacre
Sorry, LK, the truth is coming out.
And, again, no one is saying the Fed is "solely" to blame for this mess. You just like to use this straw man argument because it's easy to point out other factors.
But it is the primary cause of this mess.
It wasn't even close to the primary cause.
LOL, but the whole point of artificially low interest rates is to increasing lending. Hence, people borrow when they otherwise wouldn't, and banks lend when they otherwise wouldn't. It's like adding more members to a basketball team past the already limit of 12, anyone added isn't going to be as good as the 12 you already have.
The whole point to a lot of actions in the last 10 years was to increase lending. Decreasing leverage floors, off balance sheet treatment, combination of retail, commercial, and investment banking...etc. All of them were problems.
Decreased regulation around exotic mortgages were another problem. They were ways around higher interest rates (market set ones, risk based pricing).
Not if the low interest rates are real, i.e., set by the market. Of course, if this were the case, lending standards wouldn't be low in the first place.
Have you ever looked at a chart of interest rates vs overnight window rates? There's a bigger disconnect than you're saying.
This is kind of a dumb scenario. If interest rates were high, people wouldn't have been as likely to borrow, thus less likely to buy a home. So house prices wouldn't have gone through the roof, and we wouldn't have had a housing bubble.
Sure they would have. Leverage was the key, not the rate. If you can borrow at 100% financing, what difference does it make if you pay 6% or 9% on a loan? Especially if you think prices will increase 20% per year.
To that fact, in securitization issuance, Issuers often didn't even keep $1 of exposure to the loans they wrote. 100% leverage, again. Even now it's being acknowledged as a huge problem, part of the Obama plan.
And if we were actually practicing capitalism, lending standards would be better set by banks. But when you take out the risk factor, create the moral hazard, proclaim businesses "too big to fail," yeah, it's a problem.
Lending rates are set by the banks. Since when has the Fed ever told the banks what a 30-year mortgage would be priced at?
It goes point by point and refutes huge amounts of the book. Sorry you can't acknowledge it. You can lead a blind, deaf, dumb horse to water but you can't make it drink.
It addresses some of book with their opinions and conclusions of what the facts say... big difference than me saying gold has atomic mass of 12 and you correcting me saying "no idiot, it's about 197." Maybe i am missing a lot the info you are talking about on their website... it is not really well organized or i suck at finding it.
Yeah, it's all one big conspiracy.
Look... people say conspiracies can't happen. I simply say who was really responsible for killing JFK? Conspiracies can and do happen... they happen often in history and many conspiracies are never realized as such because they are never discovered or believed. Part of what make a conspiracy so easy to pull off is that people don't think they could happen "without people finding out". Well people have been screaming about conspiracies and are summarily dismissed as crackpots.... that is perfect... that is exactly what you'd want if you where the one pulling the job.
I am simply open to premise that "none of us is as stupid as all us" and that, as such, the public is a lot easier to deceive and mislead than we'd like to think.
Name one actual benefit that arose out of the gold standard?
Stable currency... the inability to generate mass public debt at the drop of a hat. And my question was name one thing that central banking gives us that a gold standard or direct treasury control couldn't? The answer is nothing.
We've had the most propserous 80 years in the history of mankind. We went from one of the medium economies in the world to the world leader.
That has nothing to do with central banking and more to do with a war and the politcal and technological prowess that it pushed us into.
Everybody failed to act on Fannie and Freddie.
A lot of people did what they could to stop this from happening... but not enough people screamed loud enough, perhaps. The people in power who had the ability to act to stop this didn't even though they were warned this was coming. They used poorly contrived arguing opinions from other so called experts "who had their hands in the cookie jar" to justify inaction at the time.
Who do you think is getting richer? Seen hedge fund returns lately?
That is a drop comparing to sudden swelling of the money supply and the hundreds of billions in interest that will flow to central banks in future years.
Look Legend... you may not believe me but my father was the VP of foreign financial investment for BofA for a long time back in the 70's and early 80's. He knows banking and macroeconomics better than you can imagine and was involved heavily in dealing with foreign governments, central banks, the fed, etc.
Some of things that Jekyll Island talks about my father knows are true because he has first hand knowledge of those things. He told me some of things in the book that are not true but most of it is moreorless true.
Step back for a moment and consider how much money central banking makes for their interests and how hard you think those interests would work and what they would do to ensure that their cash cow stays intact...
It addresses some of book with their opinions and conclusions of what the facts say... big difference than me saying gold has atomic mass of 12 and you correcting me saying "no idiot, it's about 197." Maybe i am missing a lot the info you are talking about on their website... it is not really well organized or i suck at finding it.
Yeah, it's all one big conspiracy.
Look... people say conspiracies can't happen. I simply say who was really responsible for killing JFK? Conspiracies can and do happen... they happen often in history and many conspiracies are never realized as such because they are never discovered or believed. Part of what make a conspiracy so easy to pull off is that people don't think they could happen "without people finding out". Well people have been screaming about conspiracies and are summarily dismissed as crackpots.... that is perfect... that is exactly what you'd want if you where the one pulling the job.
I am simply open to premise that "none of us is as stupid as all us" and that, as such, the public is a lot easier to deceive and mislead than we'd like to think.
Name one actual benefit that arose out of the gold standard?
Stable currency... the inability to generate mass public debt at the drop of a hat. And my question was name one thing that central banking gives us that a gold standard or direct treasury control couldn't? The answer is nothing.
We've had the most propserous 80 years in the history of mankind. We went from one of the medium economies in the world to the world leader.
That has nothing to do with central banking and more to do with a war and the politcal and technological prowess that it pushed us into.
Everybody failed to act on Fannie and Freddie.
A lot of people did what they could to stop this from happening... but not enough people screamed loud enough, perhaps. The people in power who had the ability to act to stop this didn't even though they were warned this was coming. They used poorly contrived arguing opinions from other so called experts "who had their hands in the cookie jar" to justify inaction at the time.
Who do you think is getting richer? Seen hedge fund returns lately?
That is a drop comparing to sudden swelling of the money supply and the hundreds of billions in interest that will flow to central banks in future years.
Look Legend... you may not believe me but my father was the VP of foreign financial investment for BofA for a long time back in the 70's and early 80's. He knows banking and macroeconomics better than you can imagine and was involved heavily in dealing with foreign governments, central banks, the fed, etc.
Some of things that Jekyll Island talks about my father knows are true because he has first hand knowledge of those things. He told me some of things in the book that are not true but most of it is moreorless true.
Step back for a moment and consider how much money central banking makes for their interests and how hard you think those interests would work and what they would do to ensure that their cash cow stays intact...
LegendKiller
Lifer
- Mar 5, 2001
- 18,256
- 68
- 86
Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
It addresses some of book with their opinions and conclusions of what the facts say... big difference than me saying gold has atomic mass of 12 and you correcting me saying "no idiot, it's about 197." Maybe i am missing a lot the info you are talking about on their website... it is not really well organized or i suck at finding it.
I guess you suck at finding it.
Look... people say conspiracies can't happen. I simply say who was really responsible for killing JFK? Conspiracies can and do happen... they happen often in history and many conspiracies are never realized as such because they are never discovered or believed. Part of what make a conspiracy so easy to pull off is that people don't think they could happen "without people finding out". Well people have been screaming about conspiracies and are summarily dismissed as crackpots.... that is perfect... that is exactly what you'd want if you where the one pulling the job.[/quote]
It's easy to make up conspiracies out of thin air. It's even easier to make them up using a tiny bit of truth wrapped in a malicious lie.
Stable currency... the inability to generate mass public debt at the drop of a hat. And my question was name one thing that central banking gives us that a gold standard or direct treasury control couldn't? The answer is nothing.
Was it all that stable? I can think of at least 3 historical currency crisis prior to the Fed. I can also think of several times the US states were the deadbeat debtors of the world, mainly because they could still issue tons of debt on their own.
Your main argument behind currency instability is inflation. However, long-term inflation has more or less kept up with long-term wage growth.
The main benefit behind the Fed system is having more stability in the system, which has actually worked. The Greater Depression wasn't caused by the Fed because it didn't exist. Having a lender of last resort and a stabilizing entity in the system as a whole is not a bad thing.
That has nothing to do with central banking and more to do with a war and the politcal and technological prowess that it pushed us into.
So the more liquid nature of the capital markets, the presence of a unifying body, the existence of the most transparent financial system in the world, and the stable rate of inflation that lead to people not having to be overly cautious when coming up with capital strategies, aren't all benefits of the Fed that have directly lead us to where we are today?
Investors have to be attracted to this country for a reason and it ain't because we're innately smarter than anybody else.
A lot of people did what they could to stop this from happening... but not enough people screamed loud enough, perhaps. The people in power who had the ability to act to stop this didn't even though they were warned this was coming. They used poorly contrived arguing opinions from other so called experts "who had their hands in the cookie jar" to justify inaction at the time.
I'll give you that, but what people scream loudly when the times are good? It's hard to stop the mob.
Look Legend... you may not believe me but my father was the VP of foreign financial investment for BofA for a long time back in the 70's and early 80's. He knows banking and macroeconomics better than you can imagine and was involved heavily in dealing with foreign governments, central banks, the fed, etc.
Some of things that Jekyll Island talks about my father knows are true because he has first hand knowledge of those things. He told me some of things in the book that are not true but most of it is moreorless true.
Step back for a moment and consider how much money central banking makes for their interests and how hard you think those interests would work and what they would do to ensure that their cash cow stays intact...
So your father thinks some is true. Good for him, some of it is true, but most is not.
It's easy to make up conspiracies out of thin air. It's even easier to make them up using a tiny bit of truth wrapped in a malicious lie.
Fastest way to dismiss a conspiracy is just to call it a malicious lie and then level ad hominem attacks at those who propose that a conspiracy occured or is occurring (not that i'm accusing you of doing that now, mind you). I think it better to carefully examine all aspects of the matter before I dismiss something.
Was it all that stable? I can think of at least 3 historical currency crisis prior to the Fed. I can also think of several times the US states were the deadbeat debtors of the world, mainly because they could still issue tons of debt on their own.
Your main argument behind currency instability is inflation. However, long-term inflation has more or less kept up with long-term wage growth.
The main benefit behind the Fed system is having more stability in the system, which has actually worked. The Greater Depression wasn't caused by the Fed because it didn't exist. Having a lender of last resort and a stabilizing entity in the system as a whole is not a bad thing.
Central banking ideas were put into swing shortly after the panic of 1907... currency manipulation under central banking ideals caused the depression. The Fed was in it's evolutionary infantancy in the 20's but it was already alive and kicking... central banking did cause the depression just like it caused our present fiasco. When money has to be tied to something real you can't manufacture money out of thin air.
Yes the US was a massive debtor way back in the day but there was real incentive to getting out debt and there was only so far that a country could go into debt. Now we have little incentive to get out of debt and no hard limit on the debt we can incur.
The FDIC woulda been plenty to stop bank panic and runs... we didn't need central banking.
So the more liquid nature of the capital markets, the presence of a unifying body, the existence of the most transparent financial system in the world, and the stable rate of inflation that lead to people not having to be overly cautious when coming up with capital strategies, aren't all benefits of the Fed that have directly lead us to where we are today?
Investors have to be attracted to this country for a reason and it ain't because we're innately smarter than anybody else.
All things the treasury could do instead of a locus of central banks... and inflation has not always been stable as we are seeing today.
Investors are certainly no longer attracted to US in particular... just look at the table of highest of the per capita GDP in the world... half of them are tax haven's. The US is no longer a good place to put your money if you are simply interested in fund investing.... Cayman Islands, Ireland, Luxemborg, Lichtenstein, etc. are much better places to go.
Investors were attracted to US because of our work force (lots of technical folks and lots of labor to be had) and the government's friendliness to industry. And ... we used to be innately smarter in terms of what we could actually accomplish (not in terms of IQ). We got to the moon, made nuclear weapons, developed nuclear power.... first. Also, until fairly recently... most investors bring serious cash were US citizens.
But now... if you are gonna start/run a global company the most financially sounds decision to HQ in a tax haven.
Calling our financial system transparent is a quite a stretch... to the average joe our system is about as transparent as a chunk of coal. Which is part of the reason why the Fed yet survives. If you described central in honest terms to most folks they'd immediately say "WTF?!" and/or ask "why can't the Treasury just do that?". Good question.
Fastest way to dismiss a conspiracy is just to call it a malicious lie and then level ad hominem attacks at those who propose that a conspiracy occured or is occurring (not that i'm accusing you of doing that now, mind you). I think it better to carefully examine all aspects of the matter before I dismiss something.
Was it all that stable? I can think of at least 3 historical currency crisis prior to the Fed. I can also think of several times the US states were the deadbeat debtors of the world, mainly because they could still issue tons of debt on their own.
Your main argument behind currency instability is inflation. However, long-term inflation has more or less kept up with long-term wage growth.
The main benefit behind the Fed system is having more stability in the system, which has actually worked. The Greater Depression wasn't caused by the Fed because it didn't exist. Having a lender of last resort and a stabilizing entity in the system as a whole is not a bad thing.
Central banking ideas were put into swing shortly after the panic of 1907... currency manipulation under central banking ideals caused the depression. The Fed was in it's evolutionary infantancy in the 20's but it was already alive and kicking... central banking did cause the depression just like it caused our present fiasco. When money has to be tied to something real you can't manufacture money out of thin air.
Yes the US was a massive debtor way back in the day but there was real incentive to getting out debt and there was only so far that a country could go into debt. Now we have little incentive to get out of debt and no hard limit on the debt we can incur.
The FDIC woulda been plenty to stop bank panic and runs... we didn't need central banking.
So the more liquid nature of the capital markets, the presence of a unifying body, the existence of the most transparent financial system in the world, and the stable rate of inflation that lead to people not having to be overly cautious when coming up with capital strategies, aren't all benefits of the Fed that have directly lead us to where we are today?
Investors have to be attracted to this country for a reason and it ain't because we're innately smarter than anybody else.
All things the treasury could do instead of a locus of central banks... and inflation has not always been stable as we are seeing today.
Investors are certainly no longer attracted to US in particular... just look at the table of highest of the per capita GDP in the world... half of them are tax haven's. The US is no longer a good place to put your money if you are simply interested in fund investing.... Cayman Islands, Ireland, Luxemborg, Lichtenstein, etc. are much better places to go.
Investors were attracted to US because of our work force (lots of technical folks and lots of labor to be had) and the government's friendliness to industry. And ... we used to be innately smarter in terms of what we could actually accomplish (not in terms of IQ). We got to the moon, made nuclear weapons, developed nuclear power.... first. Also, until fairly recently... most investors bring serious cash were US citizens.
But now... if you are gonna start/run a global company the most financially sounds decision to HQ in a tax haven.
Calling our financial system transparent is a quite a stretch... to the average joe our system is about as transparent as a chunk of coal. Which is part of the reason why the Fed yet survives. If you described central in honest terms to most folks they'd immediately say "WTF?!" and/or ask "why can't the Treasury just do that?". Good question.
0marTheZealot
Golden Member
- Apr 5, 2004
- 1,692
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Patranus
So none of you have a problem granting this type of power to a private organization that cannot be held accountable for its actions?
No, because we read and understood what it's about.
lol Patranus just got owned.
BTW, has anyone figured out his account yet? It's a bit too well written to be winnar111, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
AnandTech is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA. All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.
Facebook
Twitter