Should the US abolish the Federal Reserve?

[Narmer]

I don't understand why people reference the founding fathers as if they were gods. Even they weren't perfect so not all their ideas were perfect.

The only problem I have with LK's post is his belief that these banks are public. They are not public in the non-financial term of the word. They are still private companies that are owned by shareholders. Those shareholders can be anybody, even foreigners. So they are not as public as a government-owned organization such as PBS or Amtrak.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: event8horizon
WALL OF TEXT

Yes, the Jews are to blame for all of it. You've discovered their evil secret.

kain, kain, kain, kain.....are u pushing some sort of ADL agenda of B'nai B'rith, a good intel wing of the israeli mossad. come on dipshit, get some lesons from legend. as legend so elegantly put it......."alliance"......is the key word. what do u not understad about alliance and the fact is said nothing of the "jews" alone........shit man, your arguement is about the weakest one on this entire thread. like i said before, u are an adept. go read some more books.

Sure, I'll take reading advice from someone that cannot properly format sentences and form complete thoughts. Thanks for the input.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Narmer
I don't understand why people reference the founding fathers as if they were gods. Even they weren't perfect so not all their ideas were perfect.

The only problem I have with LK's post is his belief that these banks are public. They are not public in the non-financial term of the word. They are still private companies that are owned by shareholders. Those shareholders can be anybody, even foreigners. So they are not as public as a government-owned organization such as PBS or Amtrak.

WTF? So government owned organizations are ran by whom exactly? The "people"? Please. Lets see "the people" try and mold FEMA. Or any other "organization".

The fact that ANYONE can own stocks in a company (read: public) by definition is public. Do you not know the power of a shareholder? Ever been to a shareholder meeting or vote?

What the hell you smokin man?

 

[Fineghal]

LegendKiller, I salute you.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: JS80
LK - why do you even bother?

It saddens me how ignorant people are. This makes me not believe in democracy.

I don't care about the toons, I just hate to see people go on here and see their posts without the rebuttal, that only forms more toons.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Again, you are using the wrong numbers. If you count out per capita then you are ignoring what each person produces rather than the aggregate. If the population grows at 5-10%, as opposed to under 1%, then yes, the population will grow and the economy will grow as a result of the more people producing more goods and services.

Wtf are you smoking? I did use real GDP per capita. Here are the numbers from your own site:


Year Real GDP
per Capita
(2000 dollars)
1870 $2509
1871 $2573
1872 $2683
1873 $2824
1874 $2815
1875 $2726
1876 $2781
1877 $2804
1878 $2894
1879 $3188
1880 $3379
1881 $3708
1882 $3800
1883 $3808
1884 $3667
1885 $3552
1886 $3764
1887 $3944
1888 $4108
1889 $4169
1890 $4502


Year Real GDP
per Capita
(2000 dollars)
1986 $26084
1987 $26725
1988 $27578
1989 $28286
1990 $28493
1991 $28067
1992 $28601
1993 $28981
1994 $29779
1995 $30163
1996 $30917
1997 $31922
1998 $32868
1999 $33939
2000 $34785
2001 $34677
2002 $34876
2003 $35423
2004 $36357
2005 $37110
2006 $37807

So, now you are cherry picking data? Nice! I will have to go back through my spreadsheet, unfortunately, I left it at work and cannot get access to it for another 2 weeks since I am on vacation. I love how you picked a place where the GDP deflator was actually significantly lower , inflating the Nominal GDP for 1890, when looking at it on a real basis, the numbers aren't quite as rosy. When looking at it on the same basis for 86-06, you get a much different picture. Right?

We can go back and forth with the numbers all day. The fact is, we have a healthy growth rate that keeps us the #1 economy in the world. Comparing historical rates and saying they should apply in the future is the first step on making a horrible conclusion and a bad economic model.

You are still discounting the fact of diminishing returns. You cannot expect an economy to continually grow at the same pace forever, eventually it will go down and hit a straight line.

I love how you equate it to the Fed though, it's laughable to say that the aggregation and moderation of the money supply and aiding in capital flow transitions is a *bad* thing. lol.