Originally posted by uzlessuzless: You then need to show that a privately held fed (the case now) versus one that was actually part of the govt would have done a better job of contributing to this extended period of growth.
Where did I blame the Fed??
I merely suggested that to imply, as you did, that the FED is linked to the great prosperity of the 20th Century is wholly without merit unless you provide facts and show how the Fed has successfully intervened and caused the lengthy properity.
It is not enough to simply state the FED has a small role. You then need to show ...[text shortened]... warming, we should all become pirates!!
http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg
I thought the dispute here was whether the Fed did a better job contributing to 20th century prosperity than no central banking authority at all would have done (the system existing before the creation of the Fed).
Originally posted by no1marauderExactly. He's now in deflection mode, as usual.
uzless: You then need to show that a privately held fed (the case now) versus one that was actually part of the govt would have done a better job of contributing to this extended period of growth.
I thought the dispute here was whether the Fed did a better job contributing to 20th century prosperity than no central banking authority at all would have done (the system existing before the creation of the Fed).
Originally posted by PalynkaHa, you're the one deflecting. Try actually answering a question, for once.
Are you going to talk about the dollar being the international reserve currency without the Fed or are you just going to keep deflecting?
Originally posted by Palynka
Because the clocks didn't stop after the Fed was established. The 20th century was a period of unparalleled prosperity for the US. Do you disagree?
posted by uzless
Do you credit the Fed for the prosperity?
Some may argue the prosperity would have happened anyway, and perhaps been even greater.
To be clear, one might argue there was prosperity DESPITE the Fed's intervention in the markets.
Originally posted by uzlessuzless: To be clear, one might argue there was prosperity DESPITE the Fed's intervention in the markets.
Ha, you're the one deflecting. Try actually answering a question, for once.
[b]Originally posted by Palynka
Because the clocks didn't stop after the Fed was established. The 20th century was a period of unparalleled prosperity for the US. Do you disagree?
posted by uzless
Do you credit the Fed for the prosperity?
Some may argue the pr ...[text shortened]... lear, one might argue there was prosperity DESPITE the Fed's intervention in the markets.[/b]
Is it your supposition that a fully government run central bank would have intervened less? That seems highly unlikely.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's part 2 of the question i originally asked.
uzless: You then need to show that a privately held fed (the case now) versus one that was actually part of the govt would have done a better job of contributing to this extended period of growth.
I thought the dispute here was whether the Fed did a better job contributing to 20th century prosperity than no central banking authority at all would have done (the system existing before the creation of the Fed).
Palynka just gives opinions, never any facts.
I asked him to show how the fed caused the propsperity he asserts, and then the next step in his argument should be to show why a privately held fed would have done a better job than one that was part of the govt.
Palynka needs to step up and defend his opinions but instead he just deflects the question back to you. And most of you let him get away with it.
Originally posted by uzlessI answered that question in a post you previously quoted. 😕 Are you having problems reading? I'll post it again just for you:
Ha, you're the one deflecting. Try actually answering a question, for once.
[b]Originally posted by Palynka
Because the clocks didn't stop after the Fed was established. The 20th century was a period of unparalleled prosperity for the US. Do you disagree?
posted by uzless
Do you credit the Fed for the prosperity?
Some may argue the pr ...[text shortened]... lear, one might argue there was prosperity DESPITE the Fed's intervention in the markets.[/b]
I'm sure in your world of delusion, everything is possible. As long as the Fed is to blame, of course. For example, you might believe that even without a proper monetary authority the US dollar could still have been the international currency by excellence. Although I'm sure that with your imagination you can come up with some fictional story on how it could have been even better.
Like most of a country's institutions the Fed does not "create prosperity" directly. What it can do is create the right environment for prosperity to be possible. No institution is perfect (and I would prefer a truly federal Fed myself) but its track record is pretty good as monetary authorities go.
Now, are you going to address the issue of the dollar being the international reserve currency without the Fed or not? Last chance, I don't like to repeat myself much so show me you are worth my time.
Originally posted by no1marauderI do not have any supposition here. Stop reading things into what i said.
uzless: To be clear, one might argue there was prosperity DESPITE the Fed's intervention in the markets.
Is it your supposition that a fully government run central bank would have intervened less? That seems highly unlikely.
I've simply asked palynka to defend his opinion with facts. Of couse, he won't but it should be fun watching him talk about many things other than facts.
Originally posted by uzlessI'm sorry if I'm "reading things into what you said". What do you think the purpose of saying things is? I thought it was to communicate one's ideas but apparently you have a different purpose in mind.
I do not have any supposition here. Stop reading things into what i said.
I've simply asked palynka to defend his opinion with facts. Of couse, he won't but it should be fun watching him talk about many things other than facts.
2 edits
Originally posted by uzlessYou're asking facts about your proposed hypothetical non-Fed world? Wow. You're even thicker than I thought.
That's part 2 of the question i originally asked.
Palynka just gives opinions, never any facts.
I asked him to show how the fed caused the propsperity he asserts, and then the next step in his argument should be to show why a privately held fed would have done a better job than one that was part of the govt.
Palynka needs to step up and defend his op ...[text shortened]... t instead he just deflects the question back to you. And most of you let him get away with it.
I actually agree with you on the fact that the Fed should be a fully public institution but you're going to have an uphill struggle if you want to justify that opinion by looking at history. The Fed has been at the forefront of monetary policy for the whole century and no other (public) central bank has had a better track record over the XXth century. So history (e.g. facts) does not help our case, if anything it undermines it.
Now ask me the obvious question.
Originally posted by PalynkaI'll bite: "better track record" in what sense?
You're asking facts about your proposed hypothetical non-Fed world? Wow. You're even thicker than I thought.
I actually agree with you on the fact that the Fed should be a fully public institution but you're going to have an uphill struggle if you want to justify that opinion by looking at history. The Fed has been at the forefront of monetary pol ...[text shortened]... cts) do not help our case, if anything they undermine it.
Now ask me the obvious question.
Originally posted by Palynka*sigh*
I.[/i]
Now, are you going to address the issue of the dollar being the international reserve currency without the Fed or not? Last chance, I don't like to repeat myself much so show me you are worth my time.
Ok, you want to alter the subject? Fine *sigh again*.
We all know the reasons for the US dollar being the reserve currency for the world. Liquidity, availability, backing of the US taxpayer, blah blah blah. Sure, the fed helps in this regard.
Forget the fact though that when the US basically declared bankruptcy with Bretton-Woods and moved the world off the gold standard the rest of us were left with NO OTHER CHOICE. But hey, simple unexplained facts are a pain in the ass when one wants to frame the argument in their favour.
I don't actually blame the US for this move. They had no choice. And, they've been taxing the rest of the world through inflation, thus reducing their debt obligations to boot! Hell, they're trying to do it again with QE2!
One thing i'll say for the yanks, they have smart folks in those towers. Kinda makes you understand why things fly into them though.
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, good question. It wasn't that one I was expecting but it's true my choice of words was not the best.
I'll bite: "better track record" in what sense?
So what I meant was in the sense that the Fed has become the gold standard for monetary policy (note that I'm not saying it's flawless) and most central banks end up trying to emulate what the Fed does. It's hard to pin down because countries do not copy exactly the Fed model due to their own idiosyncrasies. For example the ECB follows pure inflation targeting because they needed to build sufficient credibility before engaging explicitly in trying to manage cyclical deviations. But still the policy responses of the ECB are pretty much taken out of the Fed's book.
Originally posted by PalynkaI actually agree with you on the fact that the Fed should be a fully public institution but you're going to have an uphill struggle if you want to justify that opinion by looking at history. The Fed has been at the forefront of monetary policy for the whole century and no other (public) central bank has had a better track record over the XXth century. So history (e.g. facts) does not help our case, if anything it undermines it.
You're asking facts about your proposed hypothetical non-Fed world? Wow. You're even thicker than I thought.
I actually agree with you on the fact that the Fed should be a fully public institution but you're going to have an uphill struggle if you want to justify that opinion by looking at history. The Fed has been at the forefront of monetary pol ...[text shortened]... ts) does not help our case, if anything it undermines it.
Now ask me the obvious question.
A) I never said the fed should be public (although it should),
B) The US Fed has had more success than other Feds because it has more influence. Hard to blame a garden hose for not filling up a pool as fast as a firehose....
Now ask me the obvious question
Where's darvlay?
Originally posted by uzlessHow am I altering the subject? I answered your question about prosperity and I gave a clear cut example on how something that massively benefits the US would not have been possible without the Fed. Yeah. Shame on me for doing so.
*sigh*
Ok, you want to alter the subject? Fine *sigh again*.
We all know the reasons for the US dollar being the reserve currency for the world. Liquidity, availability, backing of the US taxpayer, blah blah blah. Sure, the fed helps in this regard.
Forget the fact though that when the US basically declared bankruptcy with Bretton-Woods and moved ...[text shortened]... ve smart folks in those towers. Kinda makes you understand why things fly into them though.
Oh, and the Fed doesn't have the interests of Canada and the world as their number 1 priority? Shocking stuff.
By the way, you're completely delusional if you think a credible monetary authority is not absolutely essential in the dollar being the international reserve currency. "The Fed helps"? You should do stand-up.