|
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Maybe a little one-sided, but my argument still stands.
|
Yea I think that remains to be seen.
| quote: |
What is this socialism in disguise?
|
What are you talking about? Do you really think fiscal and monetary policies are socialism in disguise?? Really haha?? Please substantiate.
| quote: |
The market should decide whats best for the market. Where's the capitalism in giving economic controls to a centrally controlled bank?
|
Market externalities are taught in economics 101. Any economic realist should understand that markets are not the end all be all means towards pareto efficiency.
| quote: |
Who gets the bubble blowers blowing and bails them out when their bubbles burst?
|
Nobody is arguing that should be the role of the fed. Are you saying that the Fed shouldn’t do what it can to ward off a liquidity crisis. Or do what it can to avoid a recession leading to a depression?
| quote: |
Where in the constitution does Congress have the authority to establish a central bank?
|
Sigh … so we’re going down this path are we? Well if you want to get into the specifics article 1 section 8 of the constitution grants congress with the ability to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”. You figure it out.
| quote: |
Inflation brought on by increasing the money supply, as recently seen by the FED injecting billions of dollars into the monetary system to help the sub-prime losers who deserve to lose everything, is the very anti-thesis of a free market.
|
The injection was done to avoid a liquidity crisis. Are you saying the fed should have not intervened? Are you saying the fed should not have intervened during long term capital?? Tell me, how much did the CPI go up during this time?
| quote: |
A central bank controls price levels, not the market, and the market is the only thing that can accurately determine prices based all on supply and demand. I'm not saying we do without some oversight organization of the economy, but this current economic road we're on is not sustainable.
|
What fed action are you talking about? Injection of money to avoid a liquidity crisis or the lowering of the fed funds rate? Everything you’re saying is so extremely vague.
| quote: |
The dollar today is worth only $0.04 it was worth when the Fed took over in 1913. What happened to price stability?
|
Ummm what happened with wages? What’s been the trend with the purchasing power of the currency per dollar vs. dollar earned? Do you really think that if the Fed didn’t exist the average salary in the US would be $40,000 a year and we could buy a bagel for a fucking nickel while the rest of the world pays what they’re paying now??? Sigh, you’re giving me a headache.
| quote: |
Wasn't that what they were supposedly created for? The rampant inflation of the 1970's? What was the deal with that? Centrally controlled economies fail in the long run.
|
Wow. Ok. There’s so little that you understand about what Volker did to control inflation when he took control of the fed that I’m not going to continue this argument unless you start delving into specifics. Here’s a good case study you should read up on to discover why a central bank is critical: the great depression. Wow every economy with a central bank fails in the long run? FFS dude that's virtually the entire world  .
| quote: |
The root of the problem is our government is too damn big. There is a psychologically based theory that says when you have other people's money in your management, you tend to be much more wasteful and risky with it. That is what we have in this country. The government has the mindset of unlimited money. The more it gains weight, the harder it is for it to lose it. That is my thought on why reform is so slow in coming. This country can't run on bonds, loans, injections of fiat cash (inflationary) forever.
Progressive taxes and the IRS are the oppressors of the middle class. The myriad of loopholes allow sophisticated high net worth individuals to place their assets in tax deductibles or tax discounted vehicles like stocks, bonds, etc. Why pay 35% tax rate when you can pay at most 15% capitals gains? In fact, if you never sell, what do you pay on returns from dividends, etc? Much less compared to the middle class income earner. This complex confusion just goes to show the curruption of our tax system. Simplification is needed. The bureaucratic IRS with its billion dollar budgets and 100,000 employees needs to be eradicated.
The tax solution is either negative income tax, or fair tax. The negative income tax involves a $10,000 yearly payment to all employed persons. A flat income tax would also be implemented. The higher your income, the more taxes you pay, but if you live below the poverty level, you essentially are getting welfare money from the government. Do the math. This system would better replace this currupt progressive income tax we have now. It was be a step in the road towards no income taxes at all as they are against the constitutional freedoms we're supposed to have. Then, the fair tax would be a flat sales tax levied on all sales transactions. That would include everything that can be owned. Stocks, REITs, goods and services. No longer could the high net worth earners be able to hide their assets from fair taxation. Government spending would be reeled in and would depend on the inherent health of the economy. Less sales = less taxes. No more fraud squads breaking down people's doors, tax evaders, IRS, filing 1040's, audits, etc. What a much simpler system don't you think?!
|
And you just went off on the deep end about fiscal policy that has absolutely nothing to do with the fed. Figure out what the hell you’re arguing and then get back to me.
[/quote]
| quote: |
I don't care if you don't watch the videos or not. A few are closer to an hour long. But most of them are less than 10 minutes. They would much better articulate my views than I can writing them all out. It's too damn time-consuming and complex to have to describe in writing the details of my arguments, so the videos serve this purpose for me. But if you wanted a piece of my arguments in writing, this post is it. I can go on and on and on, but the post would be more like a book. |
Well here’s food for thought, I’ll watch your hour long videos if you spend the 3-6 months + it takes to read and understand several economics textbooks that I can recommend to understand the fundamentals. “It’s too damn time-consuming and complex to have to describe in writing the details of my arguments” when you’re unwilling to even try to transcribe what it is you’re arguing.
For starters try A MONETARY HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (1867-1960) by Milton Friedman & Anna J. Schwartz
___________________
Retro ...
Last edited by occrider on Sep-14-2007 at 07:19
|
