Federal reserve debunkers I need alittle help

[twinstead]

Tippit I'm still learning about this, but it appears initially that while you have some support among the experts, there are many experts who appear to hold a different position than you.

How do you explain this?

 

[Tippit]

Also, interesting to note here... Bush's current incentive plan of tax cuts could easily bust up in his face. The idea behind tax cuts is that, hopefully, people will spend the money they get and boost the economy. The criticism is that, like his last tax cuts and especially in a downturn economy, people/companies DON'T spend, they save.

That won't help the New World Order's desire to over inflate the money supply if people ain't spending it.

What people do with newly created money depends mostly on who they are. The poor buy flat screen televisions, and the rich buy assets. But of course, the money creation and allocation business has never been egalitarian.

 

[Tippit]

Tippit I'm still learning about this, but it appears initially that while you have some support among the experts, there are many experts who appear to hold a different position than you.

How do you explain this?

The simplest explanation is that there are experts who disagree about a number of different subjects, for a variety of reasons. I imagine most of them (at least the rational among them) would agree that nobody has perfect knowledge, and so there is plenty of room for disagreement about complex systems.

Another explanation is that some experts have a real or perceived interest in taking one position or another. Some may be consciously aware of this interest, others not. So whether you believe we can hyper-inflate our way to prosperity or not, we are all subject to economic laws no matter how contemptuously argued they may be.

 

[twinstead]

The simplest explanation is that there are experts who disagree about a number of different subjects, for a variety of reasons. I imagine most of them (at least the rational among them) would agree that nobody has perfect knowledge, and so there is plenty of room for disagreement about complex systems.

Another explanation is that some experts have a real or perceived interest in taking one position or another. Some may be consciously aware of this interest, others not. So whether you believe we can hyper-inflate our way to prosperity or not, we are all subject to economic laws no matter how contemptuously argued they may be.

Personally, I take it as meaning that what you imply are no-brainer concepts and facts aren't quite as cut and dry as you may lead on. This of course goes for both sides, but what you say is flavored with conspiracy theory. For example, your subtle hint that perhaps those who disagree with you may have 'an interest' in doing so is worrying to me.

I think this is another issue that it behooves one to look at BOTH sides of the story. Since I'm a layman, I must go with what the consensus of experts.

This is not necessarily a judgment about your ideas--they may be perfectly rational--but does the consensus of experts support your viewpoint, or are you a minority critic?

 

[GreNME]

Since the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913, I don't see how the founding fathers would be culpable for the Federal Reserve System. This of course unless you're maintaining that the founding documents were negligent with regard to the crucial issue of monetary policy, with which I might agree.

Hello there Mr. False Dichotomy. In case you weren't aware, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was attempt number three at creating a central bank. Attempt number one ran its course and was marred by too many states determined to create their own separate (and not equal) currency, the second one was a failure because they didn't account for foreign interests, and the third one began to form with the National Banking Acts (of 1863 and 1864) and culminated with the passage of the Owens-Glass Act after being debated in Congress for the better part of that year.

Your lack of understanding of American History and the history of central banking in the United States of America is your own failing.

Of course, you have other failings in understanding:

The question is irrelevant in light of the fact that gold would simply be revalued to reflect nominal GDP. The idea that there just isn't enough gold to sustain our "massive" economy is... ridiculous.

Thanks, you just pointed out how gold is just as arbitrary as far as worth as money is, thus shooting your own argument in the foot. Nice lapse in logic.

The simplest explanation is that there are experts who disagree about a number of different subjects, for a variety of reasons. I imagine most of them (at least the rational among them) would agree that nobody has perfect knowledge, and so there is plenty of room for disagreement about complex systems.

Another explanation is that some experts have a real or perceived interest in taking one position or another. Some may be consciously aware of this interest, others not. So whether you believe we can hyper-inflate our way to prosperity or not, we are all subject to economic laws no matter how contemptuously argued they may be.

Ahh, more false dichotomies. Tell me: do you think that inflation didn't exist prior to 1913? After you answer that, can you name the points in US history where inflation has jumped the highest within a twelve-month period? After that, can you name the periods in time when the US experienced its highest amount of deflation (just as bad for a stable economy)? Finally, do you believe that the median standard of living in the US is higher today than it was 200 years ago or lower today than it was 200 years ago?

You see, economies are always going to have to deal with inflation and deflation no matter what they are, whether based on gold or paper or tiddlywinks. You keep arguing your case as if a gold standard would somehow protect the US economy from the problems of inflation and deflation, when American economic history is the most perfect example of how such arguments are a pipe dream.

 

[BenBurch]

The question is irrelevant in light of the fact that gold would simply be revalued to reflect nominal GDP. The idea that there just isn't enough gold to sustain our "massive" economy is... ridiculous.

No, that notion *is* ridiculous, so let me ridicule it.

If you have a fixed amount of gold assigned to each and every dollar in circulation, and had somehow the ownership of ALL THE GOLD IN THE WORLD it would be a really miniscule weight of gold. Not EVEN 1/1000th of an ounce where it is currently priced, but around 1/1800th of an ounce. Around 1.5% of a gram.

You'd have a hard time finding that if you dropped it.

And that is all the gold. You'd have to pry out people's crowns and fillings and take their wedding rings.

And that is JUST for the US Dollar.

And how, pray tell, are you going to acquire ownership of all that gold except by confiscation? Because the government sure as hell hasn't got the money to do it, and likely never will.

And assuming you looted the planet for all of its gold, (Ahoy, Matie!) and pegged your dollar each to its own grain of gold, how the heck do you deal with the need for growth of the money supply to allow population to grow or the economy to grow?

You can't.

Because its a fixed amount.

So the price of everything starts going down.

Whoopie! I can get a Big Mac for three cents.

But my house is worth $800.

And the amount of money in available inexorably falls to such a level as to suppress commerce because it is spread too thinly.

And commerce stops except where it is carried out in barter, company scrip, or the currency of some other nation.

And we are really screwed if that happens.

So, there is your daily dose of ridicule.

Enjoy.

 

[Abbyas]

The question is irrelevant in light of the fact that gold would simply be revalued to reflect nominal GDP. The idea that there just isn't enough gold to sustain our "massive" economy is... ridiculous.

Hold, up, Tippit. Gold isn't a arbitrary commodity. The price of gold isn't determined by the US alone.

How would you suggest that the US revalue gold not only domestically, but worldwide?

 

[AlanGreenspan]

What people do with newly created money depends mostly on who they are.

While Abbyas is talking about fiscal policy, Tippit replies with an ignorant guess about "newly created money" (something that could be related to monetary policy).

I wonder why Tippit insists on trying to discuss something he obviously knows nothing about ...

 

[AlanGreenspan]

JonnyFive: I guess we're basically on the same page

 

[JonnyFive]

A simple google search for the quote would have revealed that no, he wasn't just making that up. It came from Alan Greenspan's own essay, "Gold and Economic Freedom" which obviously you haven't read yet. Would you apologize to him for accusing him of making up quotes? Because I really do get sick and tired of so-called debunkers wanting all quotes that ridicule their position be sourced, while simultaneously spewing the lies and propaganda that flow through the media and our educational system unchecked, unquestioned, and accepted as the absolute truth.

No, I will not apologize for asking him to source his quotes. I did not accuse him of making it up, I asked him if he made it up.

It doesn't help much that he quoted a fourty year old paper written by a man who no longer takes the position he did in the paper.

Here's a thought, before you accuse someone of making up quotes, you actually take the time to copy and paste the quote into a search engine. I realize this may rival the total effort that you've put into learning about this subject as a whole, but it can help avoid you looking like an ass in the future.

Here's a thought: before you assume someone is making a accusation rather than asking for a source citation, maybe you should actually read what they wrote.

Apparently your need to repeatedly resort to personal attacks and insults has not abated since our last discussion.

 

[JamesB]

If I remember correctly, there is only about a trillion dollars worth of gold in the entire world, as oppossed to world GDP in the 50-60 trillion dollar range. Amazingly most of that gold was stolen from the World Trade Center in the back of a single dump truck in the first 3 versions of Loose Change.

 

[JonnyFive]

JonnyFive: I guess we're basically on the same page

We are the Axis of Evil to Tippit and Max's glorious Alliance of Good!

Or something.

If I remember correctly, there is only about a trillion dollars worth of gold in the entire world, as oppossed to world GDP in the 50-60 trillion dollar range. Amazingly most of that gold was stolen from the World Trade Center in the back of a single dump truck in the first 3 versions of Loose Change.

Hey! It was in a Die Hard movie (sort of), so it must be true... right?

 

[Tippit]

Hold, up, Tippit. Gold isn't a arbitrary commodity. The price of gold isn't determined by the US alone.

How would you suggest that the US revalue gold not only domestically, but worldwide?

I'm suggesting the market will revalue it, and that there is enough physical gold to circulate as currency. Since I believe the gold price is actively suppressed right now (see gata.org), I think the market is going to revalue it anyway, eventually. But I'm not arguing for a gold standard as much as I'm arguing that the Federal Reserve banking cartel is against the public interest, and should be abolished. I'd prefer the market decided what money is, at any given time.

 

[twinstead]

I'm suggesting the market will revalue it, and that there is enough physical gold to circulate as currency. Since I believe the gold price is actively suppressed right now (see gata.org), I think the market is going to revalue it anyway, eventually. But I'm not arguing for a gold standard as much as I'm arguing that the Federal Reserve banking cartel is against the public interest, and should be abolished. I'd prefer the market decided what money is, at any given time.

That certainly appears to be a minority opinion among experts, from what have been able to learn about the issue.

 

[Max Photon]

 

[Belz...]

I'm suggesting the market will revalue it, and that there is enough physical gold to circulate as currency.

Gold as currency. Yep. Nothing can go wrong, there.

Why gold more than anything else ? What's wrong with money ? I mean, it seems to be doing fine, all over the world.

But I'm not arguing for a gold standard as much as I'm arguing that the Federal Reserve banking cartel is against the public interest, and should be abolished. I'd prefer the market decided what money is, at any given time.

Wouldn't that make it even more unstable ?

 

[Abbyas]

Originally Posted by Tippit
I'm suggesting the market will revalue it, and that there is enough physical gold to circulate as currency. Since I believe the gold price is actively suppressed right now (see gata.org), I think the market is going to revalue it anyway, eventually. But I'm not arguing for a gold standard as much as I'm arguing that the Federal Reserve banking cartel is against the public interest, and should be abolished. I'd prefer the market decided what money is, at any given time.

Hold up... the Fed doesn't just print money... Who would determine the discount rate to banks or set the reserve ratio? Would you have the market determine how much banks need to hold? Would you be willing to let banks loan out all of your savings account?

Do you mean, you'd prefer the market determine the inflation rate? It already does. The fed just tries to slow it down in times of high inflation or raise it indirectly when it tries to alleviate unemployment. Do you mean you'd like to have the market determine what money "is"? It already does. Go to your local store and try to pay in gold. Or do you mean you'd like the US to tax citizens and accept only gold? Then people wouldn't use dollars at all.

 

[Shalamar]

I vote we go to the Ipod Standard.

At least then you could USE your money for something other than just carrying around..

 

[twinstead]

I vote we go to the Ipod Standard.

It's just a matter of time...

 

[AlanGreenspan]

I'm arguing that the Federal Reserve banking cartel is against the public interest, and should be abolished.

Can you support this comment with actual data? So far every comment you have made in the same line of thought turned out to be just another piece of intellectual fecal matter once we looked at the actual data.

So, can you do that Tippit? Show us the numbers that support your comment.