RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ?

RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Yachtie -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 9:13:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Congress didn't mean to break up anything. They wanted a stable economy without repeated bank runs and panics and that is what a politically independent central bank does. quote: As to inflation, not so. Expanding (or contracting if needed) the money supply as to enable stable prices is not inflation. Wrong. The only way to do that would be to have a wage and price freeze and even then there is no way the money supply expansion and the population expansion could be precisely matched. Moderate inflation is the sign of a healthy economy. We had moderate inflation during the good times before the Fed and we've had it almost all the time since the fed. If Congress had no problem with the money trusts then Vanderlip saying what he did made no sense. "If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress." Congress should have been aboard from the outset if you were to be correct in your above bolded statement. It wasn't. The first bill sponsored by Aldrich (he had his name on it) failed. Also, how good has the FED been at containing inflation? How much purchasing power has the dollar lost since the FED has been doing what you say Congress wanted it to do? Is that loss in purchasing power representative of a stable economy? DK, moderate inflation, if below the rate of economic expansion, people don't notice their being fleeced. You're equating market forces causal rising prices with inflation. Rising prices are an attribute of inflation, but one can also have rising prices across ~various commodities not due to inflation but other forces such as, for instance, increases in demand or lower availability.

Phydeaux -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 9:19:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I lost interest in the video in less than a thirty seconds, once it said the bankers instigated all wars and assasinations........ Thats absolute nonsense. The Rothschilds didnt bankroll Napoleon but the did almost single handedly finance the British. Rothschild heard via his messengers that Wellington was victorious and realising there would be peace he bought as many UK Government Bonds as possible, knowing bond prices would rise. The US significantly bankrolled Napoleon when we bought Louisiana. We paid 50 million francs and canceled debt worth about another 15 million. It's one of those things that our history books try to ignore. We got about 1/3rd of our nation and gave Europe a bloody war. Only 1/2 of that statement is true. We got 1/3 of our country. We had plenty of reason to dislike britain (just as other people - like france did). France and britain had their own reasons to fight. And at the time, france had aided us in indepence. Memories of that ran long. War of 1812 comes in a few years remember?

Phydeaux -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 9:25:39 AM)
Yachtie is right about the Fed Reserve. Also interesting: Read the history of the original bank of the united states. Broken up by Andrew Jackson about as populist a president as we have ever had.

Yachtie -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 9:57:46 AM)
FR - Interesting links for the historically minded. Here, here, and here. Evidently the pics that were in the second link are no longer showing, though others did see them (pics of the Saturday Evening Post; Vanderlip quote). The 3rd link is that SEP article (scribd)

DomKen -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 1:08:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Rivero questions whether Congress has the power to delegate the coining of money but there has not been a Supreme Court case that I could find. Obviously the Constitution does not intend for Congressmen to mint coins and print currency themselves so it is clearly legal for them to delegate the job to the executive branch which is where the money is actually made despite the claims of this sort of conspiracy theorists. The US Mint makes all US coins and the Bureau of Printing and Engraving makes all paper money and all US securities. Both are agencies of the Department of the Treasury. US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 quote: The Congress shall have Power... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

DomKen -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 1:30:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Congress didn't mean to break up anything. They wanted a stable economy without repeated bank runs and panics and that is what a politically independent central bank does. quote: As to inflation, not so. Expanding (or contracting if needed) the money supply as to enable stable prices is not inflation. Wrong. The only way to do that would be to have a wage and price freeze and even then there is no way the money supply expansion and the population expansion could be precisely matched. Moderate inflation is the sign of a healthy economy. We had moderate inflation during the good times before the Fed and we've had it almost all the time since the fed. If Congress had no problem with the money trusts then Vanderlip saying what he did made no sense. "If it were to be exposed publicly that our particular group had gotten together and written a banking bill, that bill would have no chance whatever of passage by Congress." Congress should have been aboard from the outset if you were to be correct in your above bolded statement. It wasn't. The first bill sponsored by Aldrich (he had his name on it) failed. Also, how good has the FED been at containing inflation? How much purchasing power has the dollar lost since the FED has been doing what you say Congress wanted it to do? Is that loss in purchasing power representative of a stable economy? Consider for a moment what does 100 years of 1% inflation mean? Does it mean the dollar has lost half of its value? No. I'm having some trouble finding the right formula but the basic math is (1.99).99) repeated 97 more times. The result is much much lower than half. With actual interest rates running right around 3% on average over that period it is no shock that the dollar is worth much less than it was 100 years ago. But that is not an issue. Moderate inflation is not a bad thing. quote: DK, moderate inflation, if below the rate of economic expansion, people don't notice their being fleeced. You're equating market forces causal rising prices with inflation. Rising prices are an attribute of inflation, but one can also have rising prices across ~various commodities not due to inflation but other forces such as, for instance, increases in demand or lower availability. All those are causes of inflation. Inflation of that sort is a natural and necessary part of a healthy economy.

Yachtie -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 2:52:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: DK, moderate inflation, if below the rate of economic expansion, people don't notice their being fleeced. You're equating market forces causal rising prices with inflation. Rising prices are an attribute of inflation, but one can also have rising prices across ~various commodities not due to inflation but other forces such as, for instance, increases in demand or lower availability. All those are causes of inflation. Inflation of that sort is a natural and necessary part of a healthy economy. Okay, DK, are these the same? 1) 1000 people attend an auction. Each has their dollars for to spend. Only 20 identical items are on offer. Everyone wants one but each is only willing to pay as their own mind dictates. (these 1000 people, along with the seller, are making a market for the items on offer) In walks a man and expands the available money supply; to each man by doubling each man's funds for use at the auction. Will the items now go for a higher price (because there are now more dollars available by each to chase purchasing the items)? 2) Exactly as #1 above except that no man arrives to double the money supply. Instead, the number of people wanting to bid (demand) on the items doubles. Will the items now go for a higher price (because there are now more buyers chasing the same quantity being offered)? 3) Exactly as #1 except that just prior to auction the number of items on offer is halved. Will the items now go for a higher price (because the same number of buyers are chasing less quantity on offer)? 2 & 3 are essentially the same for this comparison. One is a change in demand while the other is in supply, both being to the price-rise side. #1 is wholly different from 2 and 3, yet according to you that is not so. The effect is the same with #1, but demand and supply remain constant unlike 2 or 3. Does #2 and #3 alter the purchasing power of the dollar like #1 does? Or is the rise in price merely due to supply and demand? Are all three inflation? Is inflation best defined as a rise in price? If so, why?

DomKen -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 3:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: DK, moderate inflation, if below the rate of economic expansion, people don't notice their being fleeced. You're equating market forces causal rising prices with inflation. Rising prices are an attribute of inflation, but one can also have rising prices across ~various commodities not due to inflation but other forces such as, for instance, increases in demand or lower availability. All those are causes of inflation. Inflation of that sort is a natural and necessary part of a healthy economy. Okay, DK, are these the same? 1) 1000 people attend an auction. Each has their dollars for to spend. Only 20 identical items are on offer. Everyone wants one but each is only willing to pay as their own mind dictates. (these 1000 people, along with the seller, are making a market for the items on offer) In walks a man and expands the available money supply; to each man by doubling each man's funds for use at the auction. Will the items now go for a higher price (because there are now more dollars available by each to chase purchasing the items)? Maybe. That "each is only willing to pay as their own mind dictates" caveat makes it unclear. quote: 2) Exactly as #1 above except that no man arrives to double the money supply. Instead, the number of people wanting to bid (demand) on the items doubles. Will the items now go for a higher price (because there are now more buyers chasing the same quantity being offered)? Again maybe with the same reason as above. quote: 3) Exactly as #1 except that just prior to auction the number of items on offer is halved. Will the items now go for a higher price (because the same number of buyers are chasing less quantity on offer)? getting repetitious maybe for the same reason as above. quote: 2 & 3 are essentially the same for this comparison. One is a change in demand while the other is in supply, both being to the price-rise side. #1 is wholly different from 2 and 3, yet according to you that is not so. Are all three inflation? Is inflation best defined as a rise in price? If so, why? No. I said an increase in the money supply and increases in demand are all causes of inflation. You seem to be conflating price inflation with more general inflation. Inflation is best described as decrease in the value of the currency. It involves, in a healthy economy, increases in prices and wages.

Yachtie -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 3:23:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: DK, moderate inflation, if below the rate of economic expansion, people don't notice their being fleeced. You're equating market forces causal rising prices with inflation. Rising prices are an attribute of inflation, but one can also have rising prices across ~various commodities not due to inflation but other forces such as, for instance, increases in demand or lower availability. All those are causes of inflation. Inflation of that sort is a natural and necessary part of a healthy economy. Okay, DK, are these the same? 1) 1000 people attend an auction. Each has their dollars for to spend. Only 20 identical items are on offer. Everyone wants one but each is only willing to pay as their own mind dictates. (these 1000 people, along with the seller, are making a market for the items on offer) In walks a man and expands the available money supply; to each man by doubling each man's funds for use at the auction. Will the items now go for a higher price (because there are now more dollars available by each to chase purchasing the items)? Maybe. That "each is only willing to pay as their own mind dictates" caveat makes it unclear. No! Each man knows how high he's willing to go. Now everyone can go proportionately higher. quote: 2) Exactly as #1 above except that no man arrives to double the money supply. Instead, the number of people wanting to bid (demand) on the items doubles. Will the items now go for a higher price (because there are now more buyers chasing the same quantity being offered)? Again maybe with the same reason as above. quote: 3) Exactly as #1 except that just prior to auction the number of items on offer is halved. Will the items now go for a higher price (because the same number of buyers are chasing less quantity on offer)? getting repetitious maybe for the same reason as above. quote: 2 & 3 are essentially the same for this comparison. One is a change in demand while the other is in supply, both being to the price-rise side. #1 is wholly different from 2 and 3, yet according to you that is not so. Are all three inflation? Is inflation best defined as a rise in price? If so, why? No. I said an increase in the money supply and increases in demand are all causes of inflation. You seem to be conflating price inflation with more general inflation. Inflation is best described as decrease in the value of the currency. It involves, in a healthy economy, increases in prices and wages. I'm not conflating anything. I'm attempting to point out the difference between natural rise / fall of prices (supply / demand) as opposed to inflation caused by monetary policy in devaluation of the currency. Inflation is best described as decrease in the value of the currency. It involves, in a healthy economy, increases in prices and wages. I agree with that. But I disagree that it's healthy. an increase in the money supply and increases in demand One is natural, the other is not.

DomKen -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 3:45:20 PM)
The money supply must increase if the population is growing or there will be deflation and deflation is much worse than the same rate of inflation. Since that increase in the money supply cannot be precisely matched to the increase in population a small increase in the net money supply is the best option and that does inevitably result in general inflation just as people getting raises does (which also would not be possible if the money supply was static). Also quote: No! Each man knows how high he's willing to go. Now everyone can go proportionately higher. That's not what you wrote the first time. If I'm at an auction and I value something at x it is not a given that if my wealth increases I will change my valuation of that item.

MrRodgers -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 4:04:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Nothing new there. At the Battle of Waterloo, Mayer Rothschild had his spies. Besides having bankrolled both sides, he had even more to get wealthy by. His spies got word to him before anyone else. He went to the exchange and had his people begin dumping bonds. Everyone else, seeing this (Mayer knew something; Wellington lost?), began to dump theirs. The prices dropped dramatically. When they were low enough, his agents began buying. IIRC, he ended up almost owning the Bank of England. It's said one reason Lincoln was killed was because of how he intended to handle the war debt. He was going to screw the Bankers. I've heard this before but I am not so sure if only because of the aristocratic and business passion of the south could have had a truly disturbed Booth take a shot and really...get lucky. But Lincoln did have the treasury issue a new US currency for the whole country but the private banks still pursued their corruption. All Lincoln could do was fine and tax these banks out of business. There was no legal mechanism to force a US currency upon the economy. But with the Navy, the FBI, the CIA and the mob all angry with JFK, it may well have been his executive order of 11110 that confiscated all fed notes to be replaced with treasury silver certificates, was the last straw,so...he had to go. So the CIA section charged with assassin. Castro and failing, all they had to do was turn their guns around and..... 'Lincoln's Bank Wars' says essentially the same thing about a struggle to keep America from simply becoming the farm and industrial supplier for the British and European establishment.

Yachtie -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 4:22:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The money supply must increase if the population is growing or there will be deflation and deflation is much worse than the same rate of inflation. Since that increase in the money supply cannot be precisely matched to the increase in population a small increase in the net money supply is the best option and that does inevitably result in general inflation just as people getting raises does (which also would not be possible if the money supply was static). Also quote: No! Each man knows how high he's willing to go. Now everyone can go proportionately higher. That's not what you wrote the first time. If I'm at an auction and I value something at x it is not a given that if my wealth increases I will change my valuation of that item. Agreed as to The money supply must increase if the population is growing or there will be deflation. The money supply need not grow any more than to achieve zero inflation. Of course, that is not possible so moving between, say perhaps, 1/2% inflation - deflation keeps the supply around that zero point. Deflation and inflation are both bad in a smooth, stable economy. A 1-2% inflation rate can be absorbed by a good economy, but that in itself does not make it beneficial. Inflation is a tool of the banks and for the banks. It robs purchasing power of the Dollar. That's one of the scam parts of the system. It's what the banks skim for themselves at our expense. Just DO NOT let it get out of control. It's quite possible for people to increase their net wealth in a near zero inflation/deflation environment (hovering around the zero point). Increases would come from increased production, sales, etc and not because of some artificial rise. As to the auction, agreed, it's not a given. But the principle says more money chasing the same number of items - prices increase.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 4:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I lost interest in the video in less than a thirty seconds, once it said the bankers instigated all wars and assasinations........ Thats absolute nonsense. The Rothschilds didnt bankroll Napoleon but the did almost single handedly finance the British. Rothschild heard via his messengers that Wellington was victorious and realising there would be peace he bought as many UK Government Bonds as possible, knowing bond prices would rise. The US significantly bankrolled Napoleon when we bought Louisiana. We paid 50 million francs and canceled debt worth about another 15 million. It's one of those things that our history books try to ignore. We got about 1/3rd of our nation and gave Europe a bloody war. You cant blame Jefferson for wanting to enlarge the States though. I think if he hadn`t of done, sooner or later the US would have clashed with France. It is interesting that some Senators from the Eastern seaboard voted against the treaty to protect the stranglehold they had over foreign trade.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 4:44:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jola37 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I lost interest in the video in less than a thirty seconds, once it said the bankers instigated all wars and assasinations........ Thats absolute nonsense. Iraq ? Syria ? Libya ? These are wars designed to try to save the dollar. Forget WMD's, this was a smoke screen to fool us. Iraq maybe but not Libya or Syria. I think you could have a valid claim re Iraq and the petrodollar.

Politesub53 -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 4:46:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jola37 It's the same in the UK by the UK btw, I'm not pointing fingers here. I have recently learnt that in London, we have speculators estimating where and when the next war will be, enabling banks and arms dealers to invest in them. The ethos behind this thread is just to spread the word that the banking world stinks and has blood on it's hands. Speculating and initiating are two different things though. I would be interested to hear where you got the claims about London from. The fact is, the arms industry makes vast profits and arms production has always been a reasonable investment, but this only hold true if you are on the winning side.

DomKen -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 5:08:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Agreed as to The money supply must increase if the population is growing or there will be deflation. The money supply need not grow any more than to achieve zero inflation. Of course, that is not possible so moving between, say perhaps, 1/2% inflation - deflation keeps the supply around that zero point. Deflation and inflation are both bad in a smooth, stable economy. A 1-2% inflation rate can be absorbed by a good economy, but that in itself does not make it beneficial. Inflation is a tool of the banks and for the banks. It robs purchasing power of the Dollar. That's one of the scam parts of the system. It's what the banks skim for themselves at our expense. Just DO NOT let it get out of control. No moderate deflation is much worse. A 20 year period, 1870 to 1890, almost destroyed this country. I'm no fan of bankers, I worked with them for a while, but I do know math and the math says a functioning healthy economy must have moderate inflation. Simply due to the lag of any price or wage increase or money supply increase working through the system. Add in the impossibility of precisely matching the increase in population and money supply and the very serious problem of avoiding deflation moderate inflation is a necessity. quote: It's quite possible for people to increase their net wealth in a near zero inflation/deflation environment (hovering around the zero point). Increases would come from increased production, sales, etc and not because of some artificial rise. Wrong. Without an expansion of the money supply any increase in one person's wealth only comes only as a direct result of taking that money from someone else.

DomKen -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 5:12:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I lost interest in the video in less than a thirty seconds, once it said the bankers instigated all wars and assasinations........ Thats absolute nonsense. The Rothschilds didnt bankroll Napoleon but the did almost single handedly finance the British. Rothschild heard via his messengers that Wellington was victorious and realising there would be peace he bought as many UK Government Bonds as possible, knowing bond prices would rise. The US significantly bankrolled Napoleon when we bought Louisiana. We paid 50 million francs and canceled debt worth about another 15 million. It's one of those things that our history books try to ignore. We got about 1/3rd of our nation and gave Europe a bloody war. You cant blame Jefferson for wanting to enlarge the States though. I think if he hadn`t of done, sooner or later the US would have clashed with France. It is interesting that some Senators from the Eastern seaboard voted against the treaty to protect the stranglehold they had over foreign trade. I'm not blaming Jefferson he supported our sole ally and greatly expanded the nation in one fell swoop. However considering what Napoleon did with that money is there any doubt the US would have been on a list of "rogue" nations if such existed back then? I've always found it strange that our history textbooks spend a lot of time on the Louisiana Purchase but all that is said is that we bought the territory from France. Nothing about it being Napoleon or that he sold it to finance his war in Europe. It is my belief we'd be better off if we learned all of our history warts and all.

Yachtie -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 5:14:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm no fan of bankers, I worked with them for a while, but I do know math and the math says a functioning healthy economy must have moderate inflation. Simply due to the lag of any price or wage increase or money supply increase working through the system. Add in the impossibility of precisely matching the increase in population and money supply and the very serious problem of avoiding deflation moderate inflation is a necessity. quote: It's quite possible for people to increase their net wealth in a near zero inflation/deflation environment (hovering around the zero point). Increases would come from increased production, sales, etc and not because of some artificial rise. Wrong. Without an expansion of the money supply any increase in one person's wealth only comes only as a direct result of taking that money from someone else. False! I can increase my wealth above you simply by being more efficient in many ways. Outselling you. Out producing you. Being more competitive. None of that is taking from you.

DomKen -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 5:17:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm no fan of bankers, I worked with them for a while, but I do know math and the math says a functioning healthy economy must have moderate inflation. Simply due to the lag of any price or wage increase or money supply increase working through the system. Add in the impossibility of precisely matching the increase in population and money supply and the very serious problem of avoiding deflation moderate inflation is a necessity. quote: It's quite possible for people to increase their net wealth in a near zero inflation/deflation environment (hovering around the zero point). Increases would come from increased production, sales, etc and not because of some artificial rise. Wrong. Without an expansion of the money supply any increase in one person's wealth only comes only as a direct result of taking that money from someone else. False! I can increase my wealth above you simply by being more efficient in many ways. Outselling you. Out producing you. Being more competitive. None of that is taking from you. Only if the money supply increases. If there is a set number of dollars in the economy for one person to get more another person must have less.

Yachtie -> RE: Is this common knowledge in the USA ? (9/28/2013 5:23:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Only if the money supply increases. If there is a set number of dollars in the economy for one person to get more another person must have less. False. It's not a zero sum game. Your statement assumes no dollars are ever spent. In order for you to be correct monetary velocity would have to be zero. The way I get wealthier than you is by having more dollars pass through my hands than yours.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125