The Empire State Rebellion

[Anarchist420]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/peaceful-hackers-target-bernanke.html

This is awesome. What do you guys think? I think Ben Bernanke will sooner be the most hated man in America.

The only issue is that after the Fed is destroyed, it may not be replaced with hard money 100% reservism. The banksters are just too powerful for it to happen. Rather, I predict the fed will become part of the Treasury, and things will be even worse. The private banks who control the Fed at least have some incentive to keep their customers not 100% pissed off.

 

[Thump553]

And the difference between this and terrorism is...what?

 

[Brigandier]

"a relentless campaign of non-violent, peaceful, civil disobedience"

 

[Macamus Prime]

Hacker Group Anonymous Brings Peaceful Revolution to America: Will Engage in Civil Disobedience Until Bernanke Steps Down

That's nice.

Now, go back to taking help desk calls from the idiots at the company you work for.

 

[ElFenix]

people would really rather go with a currency standard that ensures decreasing liquidity over time? people would really rather have a central bank subject to the whims of politicians?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Hacker Group Anonymous Brings Peaceful Revolution to America: Will Engage in Civil Disobedience Until Bernanke Steps Down
That's nice.
Now, go back to taking help desk calls from the idiots at the company you work for.

You assume that Anarchist is capable of obtaining gainful employment, however menial?

 

[matt0611]

people would really rather go with a currency standard that ensures decreasing liquidity over time? people would really rather have a central bank subject to the whims of politicians?

I rather have no central bank, but I know thats heresy to even mention. :sneaky:

 

[ElFenix]

I rather have no central bank, but I know thats heresy to even mention. :sneaky:

that's the first option.

unless you'd just rather have no money at all.

or maybe fiat money with no central bank. which is basically the second option.

both of those are terrible ideas.

 

[matt0611]

that's the first option.

unless you'd just rather have no money at all.

or maybe fiat money with no central bank. which is basically the second option.

both of those are terrible ideas.

What we have now is even worse.

Without the federal reserve, this recession could not have even occurred. Central planning is a fail.

 

[Anarchist420]

that's the first option.

unless you'd just rather have no money at all.

or maybe fiat money with no central bank. which is basically the second option.

both of those are terrible ideas.

I really think that if the fed is ever replaced it will still be with fiat currency as legal tender and like the system Hitler had (like the one Ellen Brown suggests in Web of Debt, one of the most inaccurate books ever).

Too many people are too stupid to allow hard money and forced 100% reservism.

 

[LegendKiller]

I really think that if the fed is ever replaced it will still be with fiat currency as legal tender and like the system Hitler had (like the one Ellen Brown suggests in Web of Debt, one of the most inaccurate books ever).

Too many people are too stupid to allow hard money and forced 100% reservism.

Too many people are too stupid to think that hard money is the key to economic prosperity and that 100% reserves is anything but other idiocy.

We've had both of those systems before in history and they didn't prevent anything.

Only a doof like you would completely ignore the fact that we are in an economic war, Barnanke is doing a pretty good job at fighting it.

 

[sandorski]

What we have now is even worse.

Without the federal reserve, this recession could not have even occurred. Central planning is a fail.

BS. Read some History.

 

[matt0611]

BS. Read some History.

I've read it, thanks. Maybe you should.
Even Bernanke agrees the Fed was one of the main causes of the great depression.

This housing bubble couldn't have happened without almost 0-1% artificial interest rates and credit created out of thin air.
Bernanke and Greenspan were completely oblivious to it too. Complete fail. Central planning FTL as usual.

 

[sandorski]

I've read it, thanks. Maybe you should.
Even Bernanke agrees the Fed was one of the main causes of the great depression.

This housing bubble couldn't have happened without almost 0-1% artificial interest rates and credit created out of thin air.
Bernanke and Greenspan were completely oblivious to it too. Complete fail. Central planning FTL as usual.

Fail.

 

[matt0611]

Fail.

 

[LegendKiller]

I've read it, thanks. Maybe you should.
Even Bernanke agrees the Fed was one of the main causes of the great depression.

This housing bubble couldn't have happened without almost 0-1% artificial interest rates and credit created out of thin air.
Bernanke and Greenspan were completely oblivious to it too. Complete fail. Central planning FTL as usual.

Why did he blame the Fed? It was for doing *TOO LITTLE*, not too much. The Fed focused entirely on protecting the dollar, not protecting the economy, until it was too late. By the time they did actually follow the secondary mandate of "lender of last resort" the banks were already failing in droves and things were bad.

The housing bubble would absolutely have have happened without low rates. In fact, the worst of the bubble occurred when rates were increasing. Almost all of the subprime products and the ones that cause the most problems were underwritten for the sole purpose of removing payment (rate) impact.

You and your revisionist history completely fails.

 

[Anarchist420]

Why did he blame the Fed? It was for doing *TOO LITTLE*, not too much. The Fed focused entirely on protecting the dollar, not protecting the economy, until it was too late. By the time they did actually follow the secondary mandate of "lender of last resort" the banks were already failing in droves and things were bad.

No, if they had raised the reserve ratio to 100%, none of the bank runs would've happened and debt would've been quickly liquidated.

In fact, the worst of the bubble occurred when rates were increasing.

It wasn't a bubble if the rates were increasing.

 

[nonlnear]

No, if they had raised the reserve ratio to 100%, none of the bank runs would've happened and debt would've been quickly liquidated.


It wasn't a bubble if the rates were increasing.

The obvious rebuttal to your claim is something that on any other day you might be spouting off at somebody else. Are you ready for it? Here it is:

Reserve ratios don't actually mean anything when the currency isn't backed by tangible assets.

Best to sort out the mishmash of ideas in your head. Good luck with that.

 

[LegendKiller]

No, if they had raised the reserve ratio to 100%, none of the bank runs would've happened and debt would've been quickly liquidated.


It wasn't a bubble if the rates were increasing.

What, exactly, is an option arm no-doc loan?

What's the interest rate on one?

What is the resulting payment from that interest rate?

 

[LegendKiller]

The obvious rebuttal to your claim is something that on any other day you might be spouting off at somebody else. Are you ready for it? Here it is:

Reserve ratios don't actually mean anything when the currency isn't backed by tangible assets.

Best to sort out the mishmash of ideas in your head. Good luck with that.

What is a "tangible" asset? All assets, except for ones you can consume, are fiat assets by the very definition of fiat. Gold and silver are largely fiat assets, in fact, about 80-90% of their value is driven by perception, not actual intrinsic value. That sounds like paper currency, doesn't it?

Best you figure out exactly what us humans have constructed in our minds and determine which course is best. Otherwise you're just chasing your tail with these fantasies of "tangible" assets.

 

[bamacre]

Why did he blame the Fed? It was for doing *TOO LITTLE*, not too much.

Absolutely correct.

The Fed sees their guilt in failing to re-inflate the money supply after the crash occurred. They did not accept guilt for inflating the money supply before the crash occurred.

BS. Read some History.

Want to guess who said this...?

"The gold standard appeared to be highly successful from about 1870 to the beginning of World War I in 1914. During the so-called classical gold standard period, international trade and capital flows expanded markedly, and central banks experienced relatively few problems ensuring that their currencies retained their legal value."

 

[nonlnear]

What is a "tangible" asset? All assets, except for ones you can consume, are fiat assets by the very definition of fiat. Gold and silver are largely fiat assets, in fact, about 80-90% of their value is driven by perception, not actual intrinsic value. That sounds like paper currency, doesn't it?

I'm not advocating tangible assets as the only basis of currency. I was simply throwing one of Anarchist420's catch-phrases in his face to show how self-contradictory he is. I'm actually a fan of a well managed fiat currency. As for gold and silver being fiat, it's true that their financial value is primarily fiat, but there is a physical object that can't be conjured up by an act of congressional (or central banker's) whimsy. To that extent they are tangible.

Best you figure out exactly what us humans have constructed in our minds and determine which course is best. Otherwise you're just chasing your tail with these fantasies of "tangible" assets.

I'm not sure what position you think you're arguing against, but have fun with it.

 

[bamacre]

I'm not advocating tangible assets as the only basis of currency. I was simply throwing one of Anarchist420's catch-phrases in his face to show how self-contradictory he is. I'm actually a fan of a well managed fiat currency. As for gold and silver being fiat, it's true that their financial value is primarily fiat, but there is a physical object that can't be conjured up by an act of congressional (or central banker's) whimsy. To that extent they are tangible.I'm not sure what position you think you're arguing against, but have fun with it.

Good post. But the problem with a "well-managed" fiat currency, is that they are often not "well-managed." IMHO, you're offering too much authority and power not only to gov't but to the financial system, tied to the central bank, as well.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'm not advocating tangible assets as the only basis of currency. I was simply throwing one of Anarchist420's catch-phrases in his face to show how self-contradictory he is. I'm actually a fan of a well managed fiat currency. As for gold and silver being fiat, it's true that their financial value is primarily fiat, but there is a physical object that can't be conjured up by an act of congressional (or central banker's) whimsy. To that extent they are tangible.I'm not sure what position you think you're arguing against, but have fun with it.

The quoting got screwed up there so I wasn't sure what you were advocating.

 

[LegendKiller]

Good post. But the problem with a "well-managed" fiat currency, is that they are often not "well-managed." IMHO, you're offering too much authority and power not only to gov't but to the financial system, tied to the central bank, as well.

It's hard to argue with the fact that through our currency we've become the world's largest economy and, relatively speaking, most stable country. Sure, we have some problems, but they aren't unsurmountable and certainly not fatal.