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.

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.

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.

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;

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?

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.

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.

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)?

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)?

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)?

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?

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.

quote:

No! Each man knows how high he's willing to go. Now everyone can go proportionately higher.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.