2 edits
Well it seems the Fed is going to monetize the debt further in the hopes to "stimulate" the economy once again. Does anyone really care if they do or how much? After all, no one expects them to ever pay back $16 trillion.
So those that are in love with Uncle Ben and the Fed, what will this new stimulus do for us? How many jobs will this sugar high produce for Obama? Has the Fed become merely a tool for Washington to try and temporarily elevate the stock market with possible short term stimulation of jobs right before elections?
For those of you in love with Uncle Ben and the Obama, what is the goal here? And if the goal is not reached, can we declare this a failure? In fact, is it even possible to prove that previous stimulus was a success? It seems to me that the Fed should have to prove that what they have done and are doing is beneficial in an academic way. If not, then what they are doing borders on religous fanaticism.
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's more like lubricating the dollar so that you pay more for such things as gas at the pumps and food. I call it, "lubriflatoin".
The goal is to counteract the efforts of the super wealthy to starve the economy of money. Money is like oil; it lubricates the economy. The super wealthy are like a car's oil resevoir that refuses to release any oil.
Speaking of lubcricating, it would be nice for a change when we are forced to grab our ankles.
As I understand it, this gives Ben Barnanke unlimited power to print money indefinately. Why? What is to be accomplished here? Is it now the job of the Fed to try and get the unemployment rate to less than 8%?
The Fed is out of control. The Fed will destroy the Republic.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Fed is the vehicle for the unsustainable fiscal path of the Federal government. Without it, they could go no further. With it, they can destroy a Republic. Now Congress and Obama need not pass any more unpopular simtulus packages. Now they just happen automatically every day for an indefinate period of time for an indefinate amount of money.
If only the US went back to the gold standard. That would solve all its problems.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat benefits do the super wealthy get from starving the economy? I want to understand your position so don't take this question the wrong way. Is there a certain level of wealth that after you reach it, you should be required to lend the rest of your money, or give it away?
The goal is to counteract the efforts of the super wealthy to starve the economy of money. Money is like oil; it lubricates the economy. The super wealthy are like a car's oil resevoir that refuses to release any oil.
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpThey get to bully the government into doing what they want.
What benefits do the super wealthy get from starving the economy? I want to understand your position so don't take this question the wrong way. Is there a certain level of wealth that after you reach it, you should be required to lend the rest of your money, or give it away?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
With a weak economy, they can buy anything for cheap. People become much more willing to prostitute themselves. This is part of the reason why there's so much porn now.
Also they can discriminate as they please without the government getting involved. They also can attempt to suppress rival populations so they don't compete with their kids for resources (this doesn't work, but I suspect they think it does). They can bully the government into attacking who they want, etc.
Basically, if the economy is weak, the rich are richer in comparison, because the rest of us are poorer.
http://web.archive.org/web/20041120220704/http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/print.cfm?contentid=251788
Norquist is the man who...famously announced that he and his brethren in the anti-government movement wanted to reduce the federal government to a size so small "that it could be drowned in a bathtub."
2 edits
Is there a certain level of wealth that after you reach it, you should be required to lend the rest of your money, or give it away?
...
If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree
[From Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), 14:466.]
The Right to Property applies to personal property, not private property/capital. If you live there, it's yours. If you don't live there then it's only yours because the government says it's yours and the government can then revoke that ownership if necessary without violating the Right to Property.
^ O'Hara, Phillip (September 2003). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, Volume 2. Routledge. p. 80. ISBN 0-415-24187-1.
"One must never confuse possession with ownership; possession is a physical phenomenon, while ownership is a socially constructed circumstance. Only a state can confer the legal situation called ownership."
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI would need to read more about property rights to understand your argument here. I have recently become interested in the history of property rights, but I haven't had time to look into it much beyond some internet searches. I don't understand the Jefferson quote that well. Did he mean that after you die they just divide up your wealth and hand it out to all comers?Is there a certain level of wealth that after you reach it, you should be required to lend the rest of your money, or give it away?
...If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree
[From Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ...[text shortened]... ed circumstance. Only a state can confer the legal situation called ownership."
Originally posted by dryhump
I would need to read more about property rights to understand your argument here. I have recently become interested in the history of property rights, but I haven't had time to look into it much beyond some internet searches. I don't understand the Jefferson quote that well. Did he mean that after you die they just divide up your wealth and hand it out to all comers?
Did he mean that after you die they just divide up your wealth and hand it out to all comers?
I believe so. He's saying the government confiscates the inheritance and splits it evenly among the citizens of the USA.
Here's some reading and links to get you started:
http://athousandyoung.blogspot.com/2010/01/right-to-own-property.html