Calling all Zeitgeisters

Originally posted by kmax87
Any action that helps to produce equity between two or more groups which without any external intervention would allow some to gain an incomparable advantage in society can be desribed as an action propped up by taxation.

My point is the runs and crashes cause social upheavel that lead to a demand for social welfare of some sort, or large areas of social depression, because the financial system is unstable. If stability requires some form of propping up, then its the lesser of two evils, in that it doesnt wait for things to go bad before responding. The old stitch in time saves nine argument...

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Do you really think America was more prosperous in the 19th Century than now?

Was any country more prosperous in the 19th century than now?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Was any country more prosperous in the 19th century than now?

Great Britain

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Great Britain

Pop quiz. And did they have a Centralized Banking system at the time? And from which nation is the world's biggest bond market administered?

For the supplementary bonus ... Can you say Libor?

Edit: The quiz was for metalman's benefit. Oops nearly forgot...😀

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Was any country more prosperous in the 19th century than now?

I don't think so, so why the claim?

The US reached its peak of global economic, political, cultural and military dominance in the decades after WW2. The Fed was in existence then.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't think so, so why the claim?

The US reached its peak of global economic, political, cultural and military dominance in the decades after WW2. The Fed was in existence then.

Are you giving the FRS credit for the USA's economic dominance after WW2?

If so explain why you think that is. If not, what is your point?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Great Britain

Very GOOD, ATY, Bless You !
Hail, Brittania ! Briattania Rooo000OOOLZ The Waves !
The British Empire is responsible for bringing civilization to the planet, followed by the USA.
Anyone says different is ignorant.
The world is about to enter a dark age that will last ten millenia after the white race vanishes from the planet, which won't take much longer.
I hope you liberal self-hating whites are happy about what's left when your kids inherit the world.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Very GOOD, ATY, Bless You !
Hail, Brittania ! Briattania Rooo000OOOLZ The waves !
The British Empire is responsible for bringing civilization to the planet, followed by the USA.
Anyone says different is ignorant.
The world is about to enter a dark age that will last ten millenia after the white race vanishes from the planet, which won't take much ...[text shortened]... you liberal self-hating whites are happy about what's left when your kids inherit the world.

I mildly dislike you. I would hate you if you were significant enough to hate.

There is an east Asian landlord at the bar ranting about people who dont pay rent.

I have a sudden urge to impale him with a spear.

Originally posted by kmax87
Could the US have become the all powerful nation it is today without the Federal Reserve System?

Maybe, and maybe not. Is being an all powerful nation really that desirable? Do individual Americans benefit from American imperialism? Did British people benefit from Mercantilism or the extent and power of the British empire?

Comes down to a difference of opinion between Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton during the second Washington administration. Washington signed on to the BUS (Bank of the US) not due to the power of Hamilton's arguments, but due to a land deal that saw the boundaries of DC, adjacent to Mt. Vernon, making the Washington estate vastly more valuable.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Do you really think America was more prosperous in the 19th Century than now?

Very definitely!

Originally posted by kmax87
The real argument for or against a Federal Reserve System (Central Banks for the rest of us), is whether or not you would want your Congress (which would be hard pressed to organise a beer in a brewery) to determine the way in which money flows in America, and hence the world, or whether you would want a privately run bank, with an inordinate amount of Govern ...[text shortened]... al hazard lock-ups of recent past, I for one as a citizen of this planet much prefer the latter.

The real argument is whether the money supply needs to be organized, or is it simply better to trust the democracy of free markets?

If the argument is between Congress and bankers, the bankers win every time, but let them be private bankers who will lose their money if they play fast and loose, as opposed to a central bank which plays fast and loose, and then fast and looser.

Originally posted by kmax87
I thought the banking system was very unstable during that post civil war pre-ww1 period, with runs on banks common, and investor panic a prevalent feature?

EDIT: I also thought it was that very instability that helped put forward the case for a centralized bank.

Those were arguments for central banking, but false arguments, as the panics and bank runs were child's play compared to the type of meltdown that have happened under central bank systems, not just the Fed.

The instability, originates from bankers ignoring market factors in their lending decisions, and their erroneous lending propensities is increased by intervention of a central bank which encourages irresponsibility.

Is it better that a distrustful public runs to a bank to withdraw their money if they suspect the bank is in trouble? Or is it better that the public is totally confident of a system which can and has gone completely belly up, and kept alive on life support by taxpayer money, not even depositor money?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't think so, so why the claim?

The US reached its peak of global economic, political, cultural and military dominance in the decades after WW2. The Fed was in existence then.

Its global dominance was heavily due to the fact that its greatest economic competitors were defeated enemies. And its other competitors were allies which suffered dearly in the World War.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
Very GOOD, ATY, Bless You !
Hail, Brittania ! Briattania Rooo000OOOLZ The Waves !
The British Empire is responsible for bringing civilization to the planet, followed by the USA.
Anyone says different is ignorant.
The world is about to enter a dark age that will last ten millenia after the white race vanishes from the planet, which won't take much ...[text shortened]... you liberal self-hating whites are happy about what's left when your kids inherit the world.

The rule of the British empire was rather short, and dependent on it policies of mercantilism which involved central banking, as well as heavy doses of tariffs to control imports and exports. These proved to be not self supporting or beneficial in the long run. The breakaway of the American colonies was one of many evidences of the failure of mercantilism and protectionism.

Much cultural growth, and civilization both good and bad arose from the British empire, but clearly not all.