2 edits
Originally posted by murrowWhat are you particularly interested in?
I have been reading up on the so-called Austrian school.
Not too impressed, but some interesting food for thought.
I would be interested in your and T's take on this:
http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
(Alan G-span on the glories of gold!)
I just skimmed through the article and I realize he goes through a lot of different things. It's a bit daunting to go through everything. 😞
If you're interested in the links between the gold standard and the great depression I would recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Golden-Fetters-Depression-1919-1939-Development/dp/0195101138
Although I'm definitely not an Eichengreen fan, I think he does a very good and thorough job and avoids the typical mistake (in my opinion) of looking almost exclusively at the US by having a more global perspective on a global crisis.
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionNo argument here. I am generally in favour of targeting steady inflation of say 3%. Right now I am in favour of a policy whereby through QE (targeting govt debt) the central bank(s) aim explicitly for a 5-7 year period of 5-10% inflation, to erode the real value of public and private debt, before returning explicitly to the 3% target.
The fluctuations are more problematic than a stable upward trend. Give me an economy with consistent 3% inflation to one with 0% average inflation but large volatility.
In the first case, you can predict future inflation pretty well so nominal rates can adjust to mitigate some of the losses. Plus, I would just make sure to keep my holdings of cash and ...[text shortened]... good or bad? I may not have or not want to wait for a long time horizon to net everything out.
edit: p.s. to get things really moving - instead of the central bank holding the gvt debt it buys on its balance sheet (with the intention of dumping it on the market in the future), they could simply have a bonfire. Helps keep public debt and the central bank's balance sheet under control, what? Side effect: inflation - bring it on!*
*for a specified period only
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaJust seemed G-span was doing a better job of explaining some of Metal Head's ideas -- in particular, that the switch in 1913 from the gold standard to the Federal Reserve system (i.e., the addition of paper reserves) led to a massive boom in credit which was always fundamentally unsustainable.
What are you particularly interested in?
See in particular the last 7 paras (from "A fully free banking system" ) - still quite a lot, sorry!
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirFinally - sorry, have been off work ill today and spending too much time surfing the net reminding myself about economics! - I found the following very clear, and kind of takes us back to the thread's topic and Shav's question...
A friend of mine was telling me about the US federal reserve.
Seemingly it's not quite as "federal" as the name suggests.
Anyways, he was saying that "the fed" is owned by private banks which are owned by various individuals (or families).
[...]
Can anyone explain the workings to me?
Cheers!
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty4.html
@Metal Head - here's a debunk of one of the pieces of ridiculous tripe I heard on your video (before I lost patience and switched it off) -- http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty2.html
Originally posted by PalynkaThat Reuters news article does not state the inflation rate. It only states the increases.
[b]When is the last time it fluctuated to near 0%?
Err...now?
http://in.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idINN1728111120090318
On a year-over-year basis, consumer prices were up 0.2 percent after being flat in January.
If you are saying the inflation rate fluctuates a lot I would like to see the data. Try to back up your claim ...[text shortened]... log/files/cpi_june08_1.gif
Run, Forrest, run!
Which evident fact will you try to deny now?
Your second link is for the UK economy, not the US. This link just shows that the UK does not have a consistent policy of low inflation. If anything, it proves my point.
Originally posted by telerionSo you are saying I should just believe every claim he makes is true? Would you accept everything I said without question? We both Know you wouldn't, so why do you expect me to accept a double standard?
Honestly, Pal, doesn't really need to give web links to everything. He's speaking from years of training in economics. A lot of websites are written by people with less knowledge of economics than Pal so unless he's citing data I don't see why a website should lend anymore credibility to his statements.
If it is so easy to prove he is stating a fact, why does he neglect to do so? Why is a very slight amount of deflation for a very short period of time a big risk of more deflation?
All I said is that I was skeptical, and I still am. In fact, I am even more skeptical than before. Nobody has given me a good reason that 0% would cause a slide into deflation, including you.
Talk is cheap. If it is so easy to prove, do so.
Originally posted by murrowHere is a clip from the first link you provided.
Finally - sorry, have been off work ill today and spending too much time surfing the net reminding myself about economics! - I found the following very clear, and kind of takes us back to the thread's topic and Shav's question...
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty4.html
@Metal Head - here's a debunk of one of the pieces of ridiculous tr ...[text shortened]... st patience and switched it off) -- http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty2.html
________________________________________________
While the Fed does collect interest on government bonds, the Treasury would have had to make such payment even if they Fed did not hold any bonds. Moreover, the Fed rebates a significant share of its net income to the Treasury each year, revenues the government would not have at all if the Fed owned no government bonds.
_________________________________________________________________
This brings up more questions than it answers.
Why would the Treasury have to make payments to the fed even if the Fed held no bonds?
If the Fed rebates a significant share of it's net income to the Treasury each year, why not all of it?
Why does the Fed hold bonds at all? It sounds like the Fed gives after getting (i.e. giving with one hand and taking with the other) but receives more than it gives.
The second link you provided says they found nothing in print. I can't find lots of things I know exist and I don't even know it is in print. Just because someone does not find something in print does not mean it did not happen. Even if it did not, what does it prove? Politicians can be trusted to look after the interests of the people? We all know better.
Even if the Fed was nationalized it probably would not change much. Nobody gets into high political positions unless they are working for the establishment. Even when politicians show themselves to be crooked the American people re-elect them.
Take the bailouts for example. Most people were against them but most politicians voted for them in the end. It was not hard to tell who voted for them, but instead of voting those politicians out of office the American people rewarded them for it and re-elected them. Probably because most Americans had no idea their elected representatives voted for the bailouts. Why pay attention when football is on TV?
Most Americans are getting exactly what they deserve. This is the price they pay for being ignorant and accepting vague explanations as good enough. Kind of like these debunk websites that explain little and rely on peoples faith that all conspiracies are theory when they are not.
Organized crime cannot exist without conspiracies. To deny conspiracies exist is to deny reality. If you think governments are not run like organized crime syndicates I strongly disagree with you.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/
I suggest you learn about the Rockefellers. They are a crime family. Follow the money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
Originally posted by murrowI thought the gold standard existed until 1933 when US citizens were prohibited from owning it except for rare coins.
Just seemed G-span was doing a better job of explaining some of Metal Head's ideas -- in particular, that the switch in 1913 from the gold standard to the Federal Reserve system (i.e., the addition of paper reserves) led to a massive boom in credit which was always fundamentally unsustainable.
See in particular the last 7 paras (from "A fully free banking system" ) - still quite a lot, sorry!
To be clear, I was not promoting a return to the gold standard. I do think gold and silver are good ways to protect your savings from inflation though.
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainIncreases in CPI are inflation, dummy.
That Reuters news article does not state the inflation rate. It only states the increases.
Your second link is for the UK economy, not the US. This link just shows that the UK does not have a consistent policy of low inflation. If anything, it proves my point.
As for your second argument, well,frankly it shows you're just a troll.
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainBut they have. Inflation depends not only on the supply of money but also the demand for it. The supply of money can be difficult to predict when the velocity of money deviates significantly from its usual rate. However, the demand for money can be even harder to predict! In part, you can predict it through GDP growth but there are other considerations such as the higher propensity to save in times of uncertainty.
So you are saying I should just believe every claim he makes is true? Would you accept everything I said without question? We both Know you wouldn't, so why do you expect me to accept a double standard?
If it is so easy to prove he is stating a fact, why does he neglect to do so? Why is a very slight amount of deflation for a very short period of time ...[text shortened]... ause a slide into deflation, including you.
Talk is cheap. If it is so easy to prove, do so.
The bottom line is that if you're targeting 0%, you're going to err to either side over time. This means that you'll run into deflationary periods.
Now to briefly address your point about just accepting things based on titles, you're correct that you should always be a critical thinker. Don't accept something just because some one with a degree says it's so. My last post was saying though that just citing web links doesn't really raise the credibility of Pal's statements because many of those links are written by people with even less credibility. Moreover, a critical mind should give more weight to the word of an expert than a layman. The expert may be wrong, but it is more likely that the layman is in error. Finally, I would ask why it is that you have embraced Money Masters so whole-heartedly, even calling it the "best film out there on [monetary theory]" when, as far as I can tell, MM wasn't even made by people with academic credibilty. Why do you trust them so much more than people with PhD's or near PhD's from top tier economics departments?
Originally posted by PalynkaThat does not tell you what the inflation rate (CPI) is, dummy. It certainly does not show that rate was close to 0%
Increases in CPI are inflation, dummy.
As for your second argument, well,frankly it shows you're just a troll.
You have nothing to support your claims, so you insult. Your weakness shows.
Originally posted by telerionAll I am doing is asking why. You act like it is a crime to expect an answer. Paly has not given anything factual and neither have you. I have never claimed the inflation rate does not fluctuate. I merely question Paly's assertion that a little dip into deflation will pull us into some deflationary trap or something. I didn't even reject it entirely, I'm willing to listen to his point of view. I am open minded, but he acts as if I should not be able to question the claim. Now you are doing the same.
But they have. Inflation depends not only on the supply of money but also the demand for it. The supply of money can be difficult to predict when the velocity of money deviates significantly from its usual rate. However, the demand for money can be even harder to predict! In part, you can predict it through GDP growth but there are other conside ...[text shortened]... much more than people with PhD's or near PhD's from top tier economics departments?
I agree that we cannot rely on all links for credibility, but he could provide something from a college website. You took economics in college and could likely find some credible info on the matter, right?
I am willing to consider the possibility my skepticism is not warranted, I always have. But do you really expect me to believe Paly would not jump at the chance to prove me wrong if he could? He clearly wants to discredit me badly. If he can prove me wrong, why doesn't he? Why don't you?
I never embraced the Money Masters wholeheartedly. I do think you have all had a hard time discrediting it despite your best efforts though. I don't think many economists really understand the complexities of how the Fed works. Paly is clearly bluffing his way through BS explanations that he does not even understand himself. Why doesn't he just admit he does not know? There is no shame in that. None of us can know everything.
The Money Masters is packed full of information. There is no way I can say that every claim they make is even accurate because it would take so much time to verify such an incredible amount of information. But out of all that information to choose from nobody can prove any of it wrong so far. I'd say it has remained solid and standing despite so many peoples efforts to topple those claims.
I don't care if a person has a degree or not. There are quacks in all sorts of educated professions. It is an indication of knowledge but not proof of competence. Give me an intelligent explanation to my simple questions and maybe I will be impressed. Avoiding them does not impress me. That just shows me he is running from the facts.
I would love to hear the theory behind his claim. I honestly thought he might teach me something I did not know. You can imagine how disappointed I was to learn nothing from him but how much he dislikes me. I don't think he can prove his case and it ticks him off. He seems to have nothing.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe CPI does show you what the inflation rate is. That's how it is calculated: changes to the CPI.
That does not tell you what the inflation rate (CPI) is, dummy. It certainly does not show that rate was close to 0%
You have nothing to support your claims, so you insult. Your weakness shows.
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainOkay, look both Pal and I (and maybe others in this thread) have had more economics training than just college. Hell, I teach macroeconomics to bright college students (I know that probably scares you 🙂 ). I have colleagues who work at either a Federal Reserve Bank or the Board of Governors. I've visited and presented work at several FRB's, and I can tell you (whether you believe me or not) that the MM video is straight propaganda. Now I haven't had the time this week to get into rebutting MM. I think I should have more time to do so over the next few days. Perhaps, if you would like, I'll start a new thread in this forum just for that purpose. I want to put my last question back to you though. Why do you trust the MM video? It's not credible among mainstream economists. Sure, it throws out a lot of information, but unless you have training in economics, how would you know whether that info is accurate or just ideology-driven noise?
All I am doing is asking why. You act like it is a crime to expect an answer. Paly has not given anything factual and neither have you. I have never claimed the inflation rate does not fluctuate. I merely question Paly's assertion that a little dip into deflation will pull us into some deflationary trap or something. I didn't even reject it entirely, I'm e. I don't think he can prove his case and it ticks him off. He seems to have nothing.