Federal reserve debunkers I need alittle help

[JimBenArm]

Just keep in mind that to Max, MBA means Make Believe Authority.

 

[proxywar]

It's kind of nice, you know, to look at a currency note and know that there are security features you can use to verify it, that only one institution is allowed to emit the note, and that people will honor it even if they've never heard of the bank you drew it from.

I can't see why anyone would want to go back to the 19th-century situation where none of this was true.

The more I read the more I'm convinced the debunkers are correct and CTist are making outlandish fallacies.

You know why they want to go back to the 19th century they need that useless 5% of sliver in their 95% base metals for no reason. They think it makes it more valuable. basically they want us to be without a physical medium of exchange.

or

Ron paul becomes president, states start minting and emitting their own style of coins, yet noone supporting him realizes that's previously unconstitutional. Something tells me ron pauls plan is liberty dollars. i.e. code for his coins.

 

[AlanGreenspan]

The more I read the more I'm convinced the debunkers are correct and CTist are making outlandish fallacies.

You know why they want to go back to the 19th century they need that useless 5% of sliver in their 95% base metals for no reason. They think it makes it more valuable. basically they want us to be without a physical medium of exchange.

or

Ron paul becomes president, states start minting and emitting their own coins, yet noone realizes that is previously unconstitutional. Something tells me ron pauls plan is liberty dollars. i.e. code for his coins.

Every time you see one of these "theories" come up, all you have to do is use actual data to confront them. As you saw on my previous post, these "theories" never stand up to stand up to the data of the real world.

If Ron Paul becomes president, and toads grow blond hair, may God help the U.S. economy. Seeing him question Bernanke in one of the twoofers youtube favorites is enough to conclude this man is as ignorant as Max Photon in this subject ... probably a bit less.

 

[proxywar]

I've read your work you're like a master at these arguements on advanced scale. oh and I could always use more data.

I'd like to see that youtube favorite so I can giggle.

 

[AlanGreenspan]

I've read your work you're like a master at these arguements on advanced scale.

If you are referring to my posts in this particular forum, thank you. But outside of this forum, that would be the actual Greenspan, I'm just a grad student posing as him here

One of the things i love about working with developed economies is the abundance of data readily available to the public. Particularly in the U.S., the NBER is a great place to start when trying to find statistical data about the economy.

 

[volatile]

Proxywar,

The Federal Reserve is an utter abomination. It is immoral, unconstitutional, deceptive, and completely fraudulent.

The Federal Reserve Notes issues are IOU NOTHINGS - Little Green Lies. The Federal Reserve Notes issued are certainly not money. (For the slow, debt is not money.)

Well, send any of those worthless little lies you have lying around to me. I'll even pay postage.

ETA: I should read the whole thread before posting. Seems like WildCat and I were channelling the same thoughts.

 

[sthomson]

It's kind of nice, you know, to look at a currency note and know that there are security features you can use to verify it, that only one institution is allowed to emit the note, and that people will honor it even if they've never heard of the bank you drew it from.

I can't see why anyone would want to go back to the 19th-century situation where none of this was true.

The Federal Reserve isn't really responsible for printing money - I think you're talking about the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Mint (which are subject to related, but still separate conspiracy theories).

The Fed regulates money supply not by printing and destroying notes (as was done previously and is still used with disastrous results in some developing countries) but by messing around with bank reserve requirements, controlling the discount rate, and by buying and selling gov't securities.

It's possible to have a national treasury with security measures to prevent forgeries without having a Federal Reserve Bank.

 

[Ocelot]

So I was on my site today and a truther is passing this off:

"If the purpose of the Federal Reserve was to prevent depressions, then what about the Great Depression of 1929, which was directly related to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913."

Hanlons Razor cuts most CT's down to size. It seem especially applicable here.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

 

[Gazpacho]

The Federal Reserve isn't really responsible for printing money - I think you're talking about the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Mint (which are subject to related, but still separate conspiracy theories).

The Fed regulates money supply not by printing and destroying notes (as was done previously and is still used with disastrous results in some developing countries) but by messing around with bank reserve requirements, controlling the discount rate, and by buying and selling gov't securities.

It's possible to have a national treasury with security measures to prevent forgeries without having a Federal Reserve Bank.

The Treasury authorizes notes, the Bureau prints them, and the Fed emits them into circulation.

It's also nice that the notes aren't subject to the whims of incumbent politicians.

The Fed is just one part of an elaborate system that has been built up since the 1860s to make paper currency work. I'm not eager to remove any part.

 

[GreNME]

The Treasury authorizes notes, the Bureau prints them, and the Fed emits them into circulation.

It's also nice that the notes aren't subject to the whims of incumbent politicians.

The Fed is just one part of an elaborate system that has been built up since the 1860s to make paper currency work. I'm not eager to remove any part.

Exactly. I began touching on it here and will be adding more as time and resources allow.

 

[proxywar]

Thanks everyone you've been a great help. I'm knee deep in reseach. Grenme excellent site. I plan to study hard and help you guys out in anyway I can in the near future. There are alot of talented and smarter people on this site than myself I can learn a lot from.

I forgot about Hanlons Razor. Thanks.

 

[Alareth]

Too bad Ace is banned. One of his "fiat money" diatribes would have been amusing.

 

[Tippit]

So I was on my site today and a truther is passing this off:

"If the purpose of the Federal Reserve was to prevent depressions, then what about the Great Depression of 1929, which was directly related to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913."

It seems like his explaination is rather to suggestive to be true.

According to the late economist Milton Friedman:

"The Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great Depression by contracting the amount of money in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933."

What Friedman didn't mention, was that they also caused the preceding boom known as the "roaring twenties", with artificially low interest rates and nearly free money. This money eventually found its way into the hands of stock market speculators, and when Benjamin Strong of the NY Fed decided to burst the bubble, the market crashed and set off the Great Depression. This is a situation not-too-dissimilar from the one we're in now, exchange stock market for real estate bubble.

followed by:

"The REAL purpose of the Federal Reserve was to hand the country's remaining wealth over to the internationalist bankers who own the PRIVATE Federal Reserve, which is not federal nor a reserve. This gave the bankers the power to print worthless paper money out of nothing, causing inflation and thus giving them the power to break the currency at their own will, for their own nefarious purposes. This is why the dollar is worth so little today. This is happening by design and to usher in a new form of totalitarian control."

I always thought it was both private and public.

Any thoughts?

Whether it's public or private is a semantic issue. It can probably most accurately be called "quasi-public", since the Federal Reserve board is government appointed, but that its (restricted) stock is held by private banks.

Central banking in general, and the Federal Reserve in particular are probably the biggest disasters for humanity the world has ever known, serving as engines for perpetual war, and never-ending wealth condensation.

Milton Friedman also said:

"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output."

He was right.

 

[Tippit]

I have a few questions for you gravy because this truther I'm dealing with is annoying.


I was trying to think what the hell does he mean by not federal nor a reserve. Is he trying to imply the money is continually printed at will for some "nefarious purposes"? I don't get his CTist lingo. Also is internationalist banker a BUZZ WORD for JEWS?

There is no doubt that some bigots make such references when preaching their bigotry. If you listen carefully enough, you'll probably find more clear evidence of how they really feel. The big problem, however, is that if you assume that everyone who uses terms like "international banker" is a bigot, then you automatically presume that there is no valid critical use of the term. Implicit in this is that "international bankers" are beyond reproach and that there are no valid criticisms of fractional reserve banking, and fiat monetary regimes. If these criticisms are valid, then associating them with bigotry would certainly be a big step in silencing would-be critics.

The idea that all or most international bankers are jews is as ridiculous as the idea that if that were true, by some similarly ridiculous metric, that this would be cause for prejudice against jews in general. I'm sure most jews, like most other people, are totally ignorant of the arcane world of central banking, and racism isn't going to solve problems relating to institutional corruption.

I've been thinking gold and paper are evaluated by en mass presepective to determine their value. Meaning if a majority of our Country men/women recognize the Dollar bill as the accepted currency than it will be circulated as the national currency but has no more value than say if gold was still our nations currency. Am I wrong in this scenario? If so, Which is better to deal with inflation paper currency or gold currency?

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, specifically the problem of too much money chasing too few goods. Since the production of money is governed by its cost, it follows that paper and/or electronic currencies will virtually guarantee inflation. Gold is relatively scarce, and costs money and time to extract from the ground. This helps ensure that its value will remain more or less stable.

I read this book mobs, messiahs, and markets besides the bias history lesson they seemed to suggest investing in Gold is the way to remain wealthy incase of another stock market crash.

Gold is the best way to remain wealthy in case of a dollar crash, which is imminent. The stock market crash will be a byproduct of the general malaise with the dollar. Gold has served as money for four thousand years, and this isn't likely to change in the course of a few decades.

 

[Tippit]

^ i've been reading that gravy and it is a great source of infromation for dealing with these pricks.

However... What threw me off was this...

"If the purpose of the Federal Reserve was to prevent depressions, then what about the Great Depression of 1929, which was directly related to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913."

The Federal Reserve was ostensibly created to prevent banking panics such as the Panic of 1907. Of course, the powers of monetary manipulation which caused the 1907 problems were only amplified with the creation of the Fed, which is why you only had a sixteen year interval between its creation and the worst depression in US history.

It's also important to remember that in economic recessions and depressions, the lion's share of wealth is not destroyed, but merely transferred.

The reason being, the first myth only discusses how the Aldrich Plan was rejected do to the "money trust" issue, which Wilson was staunchly voical about. And how the outline of the Aldrich plan emerged to create the Federal Reserve Act 1913 making the Federal Reserve System privately owned but publicly controlled. Which I suppose should of helped america out of depression instead of landing america into another depression in 1924.

He used that primese to assert the rest of his argument.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was essentially the same as the Aldrich Plan, and its passage was preceded by cloak-and-dagger theatrics surrounding the 1910 meeting of some of the world's wealthiest bankers on Jekyll Island, Georgia.

Does he have a point or create a fallacy of some sort? I'm usually pretty good with catching fallacies But this one has me stumped. I'd like a real answer to this nonsene it would help me out.

I assume you're referring to Flaherty's whitewash of the Fed, which is filled with half-truths, and lies of omission. I wish you would spend half as much time catching spelling and grammatical errors as you do fallacies. The little red underlines are hints.

 

[Tippit]

Do you see where I'm going here? Incompetence is not evidence of a nefarious purpose.

Ah, a paraphrase of that "skeptic" standby, good old Hanlon's Razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

(Unless there is a lot to be gained, in which case a full investigation is warranted.)

 

[Tippit]

Inflation is only one potential problem that the Fed has to worry about.

The Fed doesn't worry about inflation. The Fed and its benificiaries worry about how to disguise the Fed as the cause of inflation, and how to walk the line of what is politically and economically tolerable.

Their other function is to promote steady economic growth by tempering the see-saw effects of the business cycle.

The Fed doesn't attempt to "temper" the business cycle, they and fractional reserve banking are the cause of the business cycle. This was proven by the Russian economist Kondratieff.

Sometimes, this necessitates inflating the dollar during economic contractions, but it also includes tightening up during expansions (which lowers inflation).

But a Wharton graduation should know this, non?

My economics professor liked to say, "The only people who know less about economics than engineers are MBAs."

Perhaps you would care to explain your premise of how economic expansion, presumably defined by productivity growth, is somehow a cause of inflation? How are more goods and services produced per dollar anything other than disinflationary? In fact, monetary expansion is the primary cause of inflation, which is why monetary contraction amounts to a reversal of this process! You have managed to completely confuse cause and effect.

 

[sthomson]

Tippit - you can quote multiple people in one post by clicking the ["] button at the bottom right of each post, then hitting the [Post Reply] button on the bottom left of the page.

 

[JamesB]

The Fed doesn't attempt to "temper" the business cycle, they and fractional reserve banking are the cause of the business cycle. This was proven by the Russian economist Kondratieff.

A Russian economist, now there is an oxymoron.

 

[WildCat]

This is a situation not-too-dissimilar from the one we're in now, exchange stock market for real estate bubble.

Not similar at all. Real estate will never be worthless. In most parts of the country, the value of real estate has gone down only a few percentage points. Hardly the same thing as a stock becoming worthless overnight.