Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ben Bernake Lecture Series

tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:23:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Explains Federal Reserve and role in financial crisis.

http://www.federalreserve.gov...
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:35:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Probably left out the inflationary polices and artificial demand coupled with low interest rates that led to the bubble collapse.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 2:49:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 2:42:02 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Comedy links normally go in misc.

Pro
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 3:52:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 2:42:02 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Comedy links normally go in misc.

Tell me some good reasons why the Federal Reserve is bad.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 5:12:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 3:52:55 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/13/2012 2:42:02 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Comedy links normally go in misc.

Tell me some good reasons why the Federal Reserve is bad.

-Created Great Depression
-Created Great Recession
-Created many other smaller recessions
-Artificially inflates currency causing a boom and then a bust.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:24:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
-Created Great Depression
-Created Great Recession
-Created many other smaller recessions
-Artificially inflates currency causing a boom and then a bust.

Are you saying if there was no Federal Reserve, none of that would have happened?
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:28:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 6:24:12 PM, tyler90az wrote:
-Created Great Depression
-Created Great Recession
-Created many other smaller recessions
-Artificially inflates currency causing a boom and then a bust.

Are you saying if there was no Federal Reserve, none of that would have happened?

Too a far far far lesser extent.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:38:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 6:28:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 6:24:12 PM, tyler90az wrote:
-Created Great Depression
-Created Great Recession
-Created many other smaller recessions
-Artificially inflates currency causing a boom and then a bust.

Are you saying if there was no Federal Reserve, none of that would have happened?

Too a far far far lesser extent.

How do you know that the situations would not have worsened? Look, I am not saying the Federal Reserve has not made mistakes, it is only about 140 years old. However, I do assert that the Federal Reserve has and is continuing to help us be more stable economically. People seem to forget about the Federal Reserve when the economy is fine. I just don't see us ever pulling out of a disastrous economic situation without the federal reserve. On top of that, we can at least count on our economy, prior to Federal Reserve economy could not been counted on. There was really no power to help the economy.

There are reasons why the Federal Reserve has so much power separate from the elected officials. If the Federal Reserve was in any way linked to elected officials, it would be abused. We would not be able to trust that the Federal Reserve has our best interest in mind. The members would just try to get reelected. The less restrictions the Federal Reserve has the better it is able to operate. That is also one reason, there should not be a gold standard, the less restrictions the better.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:44:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913.

2. Electing officials to the Fed would maximize responsibility to the constituency and the needs of Americans. Otherwise, vested bureacratcs with varying interests are controlling our monetary supply.

3. Yes, the Fed does make the economy better. It is called an inflationary monetary policy. It produces short term gains (roaring 20's), but then collapse when the interest rates are increased.

4. There are many ways to pull out of disastrous economic situations without the Fed. Ex. 1909 Bank Runs.

Also, the Fed caused many more disastrous economic situations than it helped us get out of via short term prosperous monetary regulation.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:56:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 6:44:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
1. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913.

2. Electing officials to the Fed would maximize responsibility to the constituency and the needs of Americans. Otherwise, vested bureacratcs with varying interests are controlling our monetary supply.

3. Yes, the Fed does make the economy better. It is called an inflationary monetary policy. It produces short term gains (roaring 20's), but then collapse when the interest rates are increased.

4. There are many ways to pull out of disastrous economic situations without the Fed. Ex. 1909 Bank Runs.

Also, the Fed caused many more disastrous economic situations than it helped us get out of via short term prosperous monetary regulation.

1. I was going to say 100, but changed it to 140, don't know why.

2. The only way elections could work if they were elected for a long period of time. However, that would create chaos for the Federal Reserve, when it needs stability.

3.That is showing a lack of knowledge regarding the Federal Reserve. The interest rates are low, when the economy is struggling, to build the economy up. As the economy gets better they will raise the interest rates. Think about the 90's , economy at its best, interest rates were high.

4. The only way to pull out of a recession without the Federal Reserve is fiscal policy. Although that does not have as many options as the Federal Reserve. In addition, fiscal policy is controlled by elected officials, not economists. As far as using the 1909 bank run as an example, that stems off the 1907 financial disaster, which caused the Federal Reserve to be created.

Also the Fed is not focused on short term, more on stability of the economy. More of the short term efforts to fix the economy come from fiscal policy.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 8:26:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. I was going to say 100, but changed it to 140, don't know why.

Because you don't know anything about the federal reserve. I thought the same way you did about two years ago (e.g. the guvvmennt juss deyr 2 hepp mi <3 and feddreeserff hepps dakkonomy get bettrr rite??), but then upon closer examination of the great depression, other depressions, and financial crises I learned that the government not only created those problems, but the ones in which they intervened were made them far worse. A good comparison is between the Great Depression and the Depression of 1920-21. The Depression of 1920-21 had high unemployment, a severe decrease in GNP, and was just as bad as the original downturn of 1929, but unlike the Great Depression, the government did not intervene with stimulus, programs, or anything, and the economy recovered by the summer of 1921. The Great Depression saw heavy intervention at the hands of Hoover and Roosevelt, and consequently was the worst in US history.

2. The only way elections could work if they were elected for a long period of time. However, that would create chaos for the Federal Reserve, when it needs stability.

State-controlled money-printing machines cause chaos, I wouldn't want anyone in the government in charge of creating money out of thin air. Look at the chaos in the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe. The Federal Reserve may intend to create stability by building up asset bubbles like the dot-com bubble or real estate bubble, but when that artificial money creation gets popped we have terrible busts that the government won't let work themselves out, so the recessions and depressions hurt.

3.That is showing a lack of knowledge regarding the Federal Reserve. The interest rates are low, when the economy is struggling, to build the economy up. As the economy gets better they will raise the interest rates. Think about the 90's , economy at its best, interest rates were high.

The federal reserve raises and lowers its federal funds rate which banks must charge higher than or equal to. In this sense, the federal reserve controls interest rates. However, absent the fed telling banks what their interest rates should be, the market works it out by itself, and better.

4. The only way to pull out of a recession without the Federal Reserve is fiscal policy. Although that does not have as many options as the Federal Reserve. In addition, fiscal policy is controlled by elected officials, not economists. As far as using the 1909 bank run as an example, that stems off the 1907 financial disaster, which caused the Federal Reserve to be created.

That's false. The depression of 1920-21 disproves your point as well as every depression without government intervention. In the depression of 1920-21, no fiscal or monetary policy was implemented. Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. The 1907 financial disaster was the result of an inflation stimulated by Secretary of the Treasury Leslie Shaw in the previous two years.

Also the Fed is not focused on short term, more on stability of the economy. More of the short term efforts to fix the economy come from fiscal policy.

The Fed is used as a political instrument as in the case with George Bush and Alan Greenspan to win reelection by artificially stimulating the economy. This short-term policy culminated in the Financial Crisis and Great Recession.

Any other questions?
-WSA
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 8:59:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 8:26:28 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
1. I was going to say 100, but changed it to 140, don't know why.

Because you don't know anything about the federal reserve. I thought the same way you did about two years ago (e.g. the guvvmennt juss deyr 2 hepp mi <3 and feddreeserff hepps dakkonomy get bettrr rite??), but then upon closer examination of the great depression, other depressions, and financial crises I learned that the government not only created those problems, but the ones in which they intervened were made them far worse. A good comparison is between the Great Depression and the Depression of 1920-21. The Depression of 1920-21 had high unemployment, a severe decrease in GNP, and was just as bad as the original downturn of 1929, but unlike the Great Depression, the government did not intervene with stimulus, programs, or anything, and the economy recovered by the summer of 1921. The Great Depression saw heavy intervention at the hands of Hoover and Roosevelt, and consequently was the worst in US history.

2. The only way elections could work if they were elected for a long period of time. However, that would create chaos for the Federal Reserve, when it needs stability.

State-controlled money-printing machines cause chaos, I wouldn't want anyone in the government in charge of creating money out of thin air. Look at the chaos in the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe. The Federal Reserve may intend to create stability by building up asset bubbles like the dot-com bubble or real estate bubble, but when that artificial money creation gets popped we have terrible busts that the government won't let work themselves out, so the recessions and depressions hurt.

3.That is showing a lack of knowledge regarding the Federal Reserve. The interest rates are low, when the economy is struggling, to build the economy up. As the economy gets better they will raise the interest rates. Think about the 90's , economy at its best, interest rates were high.

The federal reserve raises and lowers its federal funds rate which banks must charge higher than or equal to. In this sense, the federal reserve controls interest rates. However, absent the fed telling banks what their interest rates should be, the market works it out by itself, and better.

4. The only way to pull out of a recession without the Federal Reserve is fiscal policy. Although that does not have as many options as the Federal Reserve. In addition, fiscal policy is controlled by elected officials, not economists. As far as using the 1909 bank run as an example, that stems off the 1907 financial disaster, which caused the Federal Reserve to be created.

That's false. The depression of 1920-21 disproves your point as well as every depression without government intervention. In the depression of 1920-21, no fiscal or monetary policy was implemented. Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. The 1907 financial disaster was the result of an inflation stimulated by Secretary of the Treasury Leslie Shaw in the previous two years.

Also the Fed is not focused on short term, more on stability of the economy. More of the short term efforts to fix the economy come from fiscal policy.

The Fed is used as a political instrument as in the case with George Bush and Alan Greenspan to win reelection by artificially stimulating the economy. This short-term policy culminated in the Financial Crisis and Great Recession.



Any other questions?
-WSA

The majority of what you said is complete BS, conspiracy kind of stuff. That is cool if you believe in that, but I am looking at facts.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 9:00:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 8:59:10 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:26:28 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
1. I was going to say 100, but changed it to 140, don't know why.

Because you don't know anything about the federal reserve. I thought the same way you did about two years ago (e.g. the guvvmennt juss deyr 2 hepp mi <3 and feddreeserff hepps dakkonomy get bettrr rite??), but then upon closer examination of the great depression, other depressions, and financial crises I learned that the government not only created those problems, but the ones in which they intervened were made them far worse. A good comparison is between the Great Depression and the Depression of 1920-21. The Depression of 1920-21 had high unemployment, a severe decrease in GNP, and was just as bad as the original downturn of 1929, but unlike the Great Depression, the government did not intervene with stimulus, programs, or anything, and the economy recovered by the summer of 1921. The Great Depression saw heavy intervention at the hands of Hoover and Roosevelt, and consequently was the worst in US history.

2. The only way elections could work if they were elected for a long period of time. However, that would create chaos for the Federal Reserve, when it needs stability.

State-controlled money-printing machines cause chaos, I wouldn't want anyone in the government in charge of creating money out of thin air. Look at the chaos in the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe. The Federal Reserve may intend to create stability by building up asset bubbles like the dot-com bubble or real estate bubble, but when that artificial money creation gets popped we have terrible busts that the government won't let work themselves out, so the recessions and depressions hurt.

3.That is showing a lack of knowledge regarding the Federal Reserve. The interest rates are low, when the economy is struggling, to build the economy up. As the economy gets better they will raise the interest rates. Think about the 90's , economy at its best, interest rates were high.

The federal reserve raises and lowers its federal funds rate which banks must charge higher than or equal to. In this sense, the federal reserve controls interest rates. However, absent the fed telling banks what their interest rates should be, the market works it out by itself, and better.

4. The only way to pull out of a recession without the Federal Reserve is fiscal policy. Although that does not have as many options as the Federal Reserve. In addition, fiscal policy is controlled by elected officials, not economists. As far as using the 1909 bank run as an example, that stems off the 1907 financial disaster, which caused the Federal Reserve to be created.

That's false. The depression of 1920-21 disproves your point as well as every depression without government intervention. In the depression of 1920-21, no fiscal or monetary policy was implemented. Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. The 1907 financial disaster was the result of an inflation stimulated by Secretary of the Treasury Leslie Shaw in the previous two years.

Also the Fed is not focused on short term, more on stability of the economy. More of the short term efforts to fix the economy come from fiscal policy.

The Fed is used as a political instrument as in the case with George Bush and Alan Greenspan to win reelection by artificially stimulating the economy. This short-term policy culminated in the Financial Crisis and Great Recession.



Any other questions?
-WSA

The majority of what you said is complete BS, conspiracy kind of stuff. That is cool if you believe in that, but I am looking at facts.

Which is why you are religious and you support Obama.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 9:02:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 9:00:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:59:10 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:26:28 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
1. I was going to say 100, but changed it to 140, don't know why.

Because you don't know anything about the federal reserve. I thought the same way you did about two years ago (e.g. the guvvmennt juss deyr 2 hepp mi <3 and feddreeserff hepps dakkonomy get bettrr rite??), but then upon closer examination of the great depression, other depressions, and financial crises I learned that the government not only created those problems, but the ones in which they intervened were made them far worse. A good comparison is between the Great Depression and the Depression of 1920-21. The Depression of 1920-21 had high unemployment, a severe decrease in GNP, and was just as bad as the original downturn of 1929, but unlike the Great Depression, the government did not intervene with stimulus, programs, or anything, and the economy recovered by the summer of 1921. The Great Depression saw heavy intervention at the hands of Hoover and Roosevelt, and consequently was the worst in US history.

2. The only way elections could work if they were elected for a long period of time. However, that would create chaos for the Federal Reserve, when it needs stability.

State-controlled money-printing machines cause chaos, I wouldn't want anyone in the government in charge of creating money out of thin air. Look at the chaos in the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe. The Federal Reserve may intend to create stability by building up asset bubbles like the dot-com bubble or real estate bubble, but when that artificial money creation gets popped we have terrible busts that the government won't let work themselves out, so the recessions and depressions hurt.

3.That is showing a lack of knowledge regarding the Federal Reserve. The interest rates are low, when the economy is struggling, to build the economy up. As the economy gets better they will raise the interest rates. Think about the 90's , economy at its best, interest rates were high.

The federal reserve raises and lowers its federal funds rate which banks must charge higher than or equal to. In this sense, the federal reserve controls interest rates. However, absent the fed telling banks what their interest rates should be, the market works it out by itself, and better.

4. The only way to pull out of a recession without the Federal Reserve is fiscal policy. Although that does not have as many options as the Federal Reserve. In addition, fiscal policy is controlled by elected officials, not economists. As far as using the 1909 bank run as an example, that stems off the 1907 financial disaster, which caused the Federal Reserve to be created.

That's false. The depression of 1920-21 disproves your point as well as every depression without government intervention. In the depression of 1920-21, no fiscal or monetary policy was implemented. Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. The 1907 financial disaster was the result of an inflation stimulated by Secretary of the Treasury Leslie Shaw in the previous two years.

Also the Fed is not focused on short term, more on stability of the economy. More of the short term efforts to fix the economy come from fiscal policy.

The Fed is used as a political instrument as in the case with George Bush and Alan Greenspan to win reelection by artificially stimulating the economy. This short-term policy culminated in the Financial Crisis and Great Recession.



Any other questions?
-WSA

The majority of what you said is complete BS, conspiracy kind of stuff. That is cool if you believe in that, but I am looking at facts.

Which is why you are religious and you support Obama.

Yea. because I look at facts. Thank you for recognizing that!
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 9:03:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 9:02:46 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/13/2012 9:00:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:59:10 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/13/2012 8:26:28 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
1. I was going to say 100, but changed it to 140, don't know why.

Because you don't know anything about the federal reserve. I thought the same way you did about two years ago (e.g. the guvvmennt juss deyr 2 hepp mi <3 and feddreeserff hepps dakkonomy get bettrr rite??), but then upon closer examination of the great depression, other depressions, and financial crises I learned that the government not only created those problems, but the ones in which they intervened were made them far worse. A good comparison is between the Great Depression and the Depression of 1920-21. The Depression of 1920-21 had high unemployment, a severe decrease in GNP, and was just as bad as the original downturn of 1929, but unlike the Great Depression, the government did not intervene with stimulus, programs, or anything, and the economy recovered by the summer of 1921. The Great Depression saw heavy intervention at the hands of Hoover and Roosevelt, and consequently was the worst in US history.

2. The only way elections could work if they were elected for a long period of time. However, that would create chaos for the Federal Reserve, when it needs stability.

State-controlled money-printing machines cause chaos, I wouldn't want anyone in the government in charge of creating money out of thin air. Look at the chaos in the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe. The Federal Reserve may intend to create stability by building up asset bubbles like the dot-com bubble or real estate bubble, but when that artificial money creation gets popped we have terrible busts that the government won't let work themselves out, so the recessions and depressions hurt.

3.That is showing a lack of knowledge regarding the Federal Reserve. The interest rates are low, when the economy is struggling, to build the economy up. As the economy gets better they will raise the interest rates. Think about the 90's , economy at its best, interest rates were high.

The federal reserve raises and lowers its federal funds rate which banks must charge higher than or equal to. In this sense, the federal reserve controls interest rates. However, absent the fed telling banks what their interest rates should be, the market works it out by itself, and better.

4. The only way to pull out of a recession without the Federal Reserve is fiscal policy. Although that does not have as many options as the Federal Reserve. In addition, fiscal policy is controlled by elected officials, not economists. As far as using the 1909 bank run as an example, that stems off the 1907 financial disaster, which caused the Federal Reserve to be created.

That's false. The depression of 1920-21 disproves your point as well as every depression without government intervention. In the depression of 1920-21, no fiscal or monetary policy was implemented. Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. The 1907 financial disaster was the result of an inflation stimulated by Secretary of the Treasury Leslie Shaw in the previous two years.

Also the Fed is not focused on short term, more on stability of the economy. More of the short term efforts to fix the economy come from fiscal policy.

The Fed is used as a political instrument as in the case with George Bush and Alan Greenspan to win reelection by artificially stimulating the economy. This short-term policy culminated in the Financial Crisis and Great Recession.



Any other questions?
-WSA

The majority of what you said is complete BS, conspiracy kind of stuff. That is cool if you believe in that, but I am looking at facts.

Which is why you are religious and you support Obama.

Yea. because I look at facts. Thank you for recognizing that!

Very nice trolling.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 9:08:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Very nice trolling.

Don't make it so easy.....
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 9:52:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is my Ben Bernanke lecture series.
The one about a housing bubble is just priceless.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:00:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, the money supply was so much more stable before the FED:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

We also had a nice history of less business cycles that were less damaging before the FED:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 12:10:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 10:00:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Yes, the money supply was so much more stable before the FED:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Fluctuating inflation rates with no longer term effects are natural in a capitalist business cycle. If inflation rapidly spikes and drops, then the effects will be very short term. On the other hand, if the inflation is built up over time, when deflation occurs, the results are much more long term. This can only be achieved through the Fed.

If you notice on your graph, there were no long term build ups prior to the Fed.

We also had a nice history of less business cycles that were less damaging before the FED:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Same thing.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 12:18:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 12:10:35 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:00:57 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Yes, the money supply was so much more stable before the FED:

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Fluctuating inflation rates with no longer term effects are natural in a capitalist business cycle.

How is that good? How am I to decide to make an intelligent investment If I don't know If inflation or deflation will occur? There's no way one can do a cash flow analysis.

If inflation rapidly spikes and drops, then the effects will be very short term. On the other hand, if the inflation is built up over time, when deflation occurs, the results are much more long term. This can only be achieved through the Fed.

And explain to me why inflation is inherently wrong? The FED partially based it on the friedman k-percent rule in which inflation is kept at a constant rate.

If you notice on your graph, there were no long term build ups prior to the Fed.

Again, why is long-term inflation inherently bad?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 7:48:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The majority of what you said is complete BS, conspiracy kind of stuff. That is cool if you believe in that, but I am looking at facts.

You're looking at the facts and you got the existence of the institution you are mentioning off by 40 years.. yeah. When you want to grow up, you can critique any of what I said, particularly my rebuttal to your 2nd grade level knowledge of depressions. If you'd like to debate on this, I'd form the topic at your leisure.

Resolved: Government monetary and fiscal policy does not correct economic downturns.

If you're going to continue to insult me when you're chess pieces are eviscerated and your king is rolling around on its side, then debate me. If you don't, then concede that you were 180 degrees wrong like most Obama fanboys, and move on with your life.

-WSA
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 7:51:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/14/2012 7:48:04 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
The majority of what you said is complete BS, conspiracy kind of stuff. That is cool if you believe in that, but I am looking at facts.

You're looking at the facts and you got the existence of the institution you are mentioning off by 40 years.. yeah. When you want to grow up, you can critique any of what I said, particularly my rebuttal to your 2nd grade level knowledge of depressions. If you'd like to debate on this, I'd form the topic at your leisure.

Resolved: Government monetary and fiscal policy does not correct economic downturns.

If you're going to continue to insult me when you're chess pieces are eviscerated and your king is rolling around on its side, then debate me. If you don't, then concede that you were 180 degrees wrong like most Obama fanboys, and move on with your life.

-WSA

I was not trying to insult you man, sorry for that. I thought your stuff was a quarter conspiracy stuff. An example would be Bush working with greenspan. They may converse about ideas on the economy. However, they did not have some master plot to get Bush re-elected.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 8:25:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was not trying to insult you man, sorry for that. I thought your stuff was a quarter conspiracy stuff. An example would be Bush working with greenspan. They may converse about ideas on the economy. However, they did not have some master plot to get Bush re-elected.

"The Fed's loose monetary policy almost certainly was designed to help get Alan Greenspan reappointed in May 2004, and to help get George W. Bush reelected in November 2004; interest rates began rising within weeks of the election."
[1. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu...]

"One big reason Greenspan wanted things done this way, aside from the ideological imperative, was to help George W. Bush get re-elected in 2004."
[2. http://donkeypath.blogspot.com...]

"However, he knows that allowing the dollar to fall will encourage investors to buy gold especially in light of the budding inflation pressures. He is trying to balance the need to maintain over valued equity prices, help President Bush get re-elected, keep a lid on gold price excitement, and posture about not allowing inflation to resurface. Mr. Greenspan and company have just begun to raise rates, but they are highly unlikely to do so in a meaningful way until after the election. Even after the election, the rates are unlikely to rise very fast because of the weak state of the US economy."
[3. http://www.321gold.com...]

"So people were going to have to come to terms with the fact that they lost money; they were going to have to try to save and replace it. So there was going to be a big recession when George Bush came in. But rather than being honest and admitting that the Clinton era was a fantasy, was a boom, and now we had to live through the bust — and that would have been a perfect opportunity right away to repudiate what had happened under Clinton, and say, "Look, Clinton didn't give us a good economy, we had a bubble economy. And now the bubble has burst and we've got to clean up the Clinton mess and it's not going to be fun."

But, instead of doing that, he was like, "Well, we need to stimulate the economy, we need to fight off this recession." Sounds familiar, right? So, he wanted an economic stimulus.

And what was the economic stimulus that we got out of Bush? Deficit spending, cut taxes, increased government spending. And Alan Greenspan cooperated and slashed interest rates down to one percent."
[4. http://mises.org...]
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2012 10:44:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The alternative to the Ben Bernanke lecture series:

This talk features some pretty awesome moments including the hilarious juxtaposition of Peter Schiff's record with Ben Bernanke's, the intro is great, and the points about the depression of 1920-21 and housing crisis were particularly good.

Enjoy~
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 9:59:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 3:52:55 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 4/13/2012 2:42:02 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Comedy links normally go in misc.

Tell me some good reasons why the Federal Reserve is bad.:

I do not endorse the entirety of the Zeitgeist film, but I thought its portion on the FED was very well articulated and explained. It's worth 20 minutes of your life. And the last video is just wonderful to watch Bernanke squirm. The people, including Congress, is wising up to the FED.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2012 10:24:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Again, why is long-term inflation inherently bad?:

Is that a serious question?!?!

Because it decreases the value of currency to almost nothing. The greater the amount of cash in circulation, the more worthless it is because it no longer becomes a precious commodity. Go to Zimbabwe where they have to carry mountains of cash in wheelbarrows (that's NOT hyperbole) to pay for even the simplest things, and then ask why long-term inflation is bad.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)