Originally posted by murrowThere are limits to the amount of money the US can steal this way, if they stretch it too far more and more countries will dump their dollars in reserve and switch to euros.
No 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.
edit: p.s. to get thi ...[text shortened]... eet under control, what? Side effect: inflation - bring it on!*
*for a specified period only
Originally posted by telerionChanged from what rate? It did not tell what rate it increased from, so how would we know what it is now?
The CPI does show you what the inflation rate is. That's how it is calculated: changes to the CPI.
He is trying to prove the CPI comes close to 0% and the link does not even do that.
Originally posted by telerionIf the money masters is such obvious propaganda it should be easy to prove, so why do you and Paly always give non specific answers that bring up more questions than answers?
Okay, 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 te ...[text shortened]... economics, how would you know whether that info is accurate or just ideology-driven noise?
My questions are very simple and straight forward. For example, the fed holds bonds and collects interest on them, so how did they pay for those bonds?
If you teach economics that is scary. How can you be an effective teacher without answering such basic questions? All I am doing by asking these questions is attempting to learn, just as your students are. Do they ask questions like the one above?
If you want to start a new tread that is fine. All I want is to know the truth. It does not matter what it is. I really would prefer you prove the MM wrong. It would set my mind at ease. It is not like I want to believe this stuff, but when you find out certain parts of history have been suppressed you have to consider the possibility we have been duped in other ways. Here are a few examples.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
Originally posted by KazetNagorraExactly - hence the expressly limited period of inflation to be targeted.
There are limits to the amount of money the US can steal this way, if they stretch it too far more and more countries will dump their dollars in reserve and switch to euros.
Obviouly not the sort of stunt you could pull more than once a century.
But a lot better than default...
Originally posted by Metal BrainDid you read the article?
I thought the gold standard existed until 1933 when US citizens were prohibited from owning it except for rare coins.
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.
Originally posted by Metal BrainI think you missed the point there.
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.
That link - the one I referred you to specifically - rebuts one of the lies on your ridiculous conspiracy theorist video.
Your precious video (at 6'00) states that the FRA was passed by just 3 senators. And that the Senate was not quorate.
In FACT,
"The House passed the bill 298-60 on the evening of Dec. 22, 1913. The Senate began debate the following day at 10am, and passed it 43-25 at 2:30pm."
Face it, your video is full hysterical crap. I can't speak for any more than the first 10 mins of course.
Originally posted by murrowYeah, but the US is already printing large amounts of dollars, I don't think it would be wise to further increase this.
Exactly - hence the expressly limited period of inflation to be targeted.
Obviouly not the sort of stunt you could pull more than once a century.
But a lot better than default...
Originally posted by Metal BrainDude, I'm afraid I have better things to do than trail around the internet showing you how you've been sucked into yet more conspiracy theory rubbish.
Follow the money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110
Here's one more rebuttal as a gesture of goodwill.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html
Now, please - go learn critical thinking before you get recruited by the scientologists!
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainNewsflash: We answered your questions in turn. The problem is that you've closed your mind, exactly in the same way some creationists have regarding evolution. And no matter how much evidence and solid arguments we place at your feet, they will not go through your thick (closed) skull.
If the money masters is such obvious propaganda it should be easy to prove, so why do you and Paly always give non specific answers that bring up more questions than answers?
I realized this for some time now and I have not been writing for you but at you, merely because someone else might be reading this thread and so would be informed properly.
3 edits
If you really need a website to back up what we are saying why don't you try the federal reserve website? They have this wonderful page called Fed101 where they explain the structure of the Federal Reserve System.
It's interactive and has a voice that reads the words on the screen (since I know that's a problem for you).
Here's a link:
http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/fed101
Originally posted by telerion[whisper] I think the Fed might be *in on it* [/whisper]
If you really need a website to back up what we are saying why don't you try the federal reserve website? They have this wonderful page called Fed101 where they explain the structure of the Federal Reserve System.
It's interactive and has a voice that reads the words on the screen (since I know that's a problem for you).
Here's a link:
http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/fed101
Originally posted by murrowThat website was in response to some guy named Marrs.
Dude, I'm afraid I have better things to do than trail around the internet showing you how you've been sucked into yet more conspiracy theory rubbish.
Here's one more rebuttal as a gesture of goodwill.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html
Now, please - go learn critical thinking before you get recruited by the scientologists!
I clearly stated that Kennedy reissued Lincoln's greenbacks. I never said Kennedy issued anything new. Furthermore, the Money Masters clearly states this in the film and that is all they said about it.
Sure the order allowed the Fed to replace the bills, AT HIGHER DENOMINATIONS. That means more than the face value of the notes. That is the reason for backing it with silver, to protect the value from depreciation. I'm sure that annoyed the fed.
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat part of this don't you understand?
That website was in response to some guy named Marrs.
I clearly stated that Kennedy reissued Lincoln's greenbacks. I never said Kennedy issued anything new. Furthermore, the Money Masters clearly states this in the film and that is all they said about it.
Sure the order allowed the Fed to replace the bills, AT HIGHER DENOMINATIONS. That means more ...[text shortened]... backing it with silver, to protect the value from depreciation. I'm sure that annoyed the fed.
The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O. 11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury Secretary.2
E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2
In fact, after the passage of the aforementioned bill and implementing executive orders, the Fed started issuing, for the first time, $1 bills. How did this reduce its " power?
EDIT: Here's an interesting take from a Fed hater:
By this executive order, the statutory authority of the President to issue silver certificates was delegated to the Treasury Secretary. In Kennedy's administration, the Treasury Secretary was Douglas Dillon, a man from a banking family and a known established "power" in the banking community. Kennedy delegated the authority to issue silver certificates to Dillon and his successors, and this power could be exercised "without the approval, ratification, or other action of the President."
The only reasonable conclusion which may be reached based upon the facts are the exact opposite of the argument made on the Net. For some 30 years, the President himself held the power to issue silver certificates. But some 5 months before his assassination, Kennedy delegated this power to Dillon, and via this order, Dillon could do as he pleased with this power. To assert that Kennedy was by Executive Order No. 11110 getting ready to issue silver certificates is contrary to the plain facts. Instead, Kennedy was surrendering this power and delegating it to the Treasury Secretary, who was someone from the banking industry. Clearly, it appears that this EO was issued to put the power to issue silver certificates into safe hands, that of a banker. There is no substance to this theory on the Net. I cannot understand how this particular order proves that Kennedy was about to issue silver certificates. Where is the proof that Kennedy was anything other than a pawn of the banking community?
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/EO11110.htm
It's peculiar that two conspiracy theorists can look at the same rather innocuous executive order and one conclude that it was an attempt to destroy the Fed and another that it proves its promulgator is a mere pawn of the banking community. 🙄
In addition to the Fed101 (which has great information about how the Federal Reserve System works and a user-friendly format) site, I wondered to add this link to a College of Charleston professor's rebuttal to some of these conspiracy myths.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html
It even addresses Metal Brains questions about who are the shareholders in the Fed (though we've already told him this) as well as his question about what the Fed does with the interest it earns from government bonds (ans: it rebates it to the US Treasury Dept).