|
HR 1207 : Federal Reserve Transparency Act 2009 (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
volatility. you need to know that when you go in a super market on friday the price of bread is going to be nearly the same as it was on monday.
look at the volatility in fx markets or commodities markets. if the value of currency was as volatile as other commodities then it would provide a real hardship on many people.
another reason we need central banks is to ensure the authenticity of currency. If we allowed free markets to decide currencies, how would we know whether a specific currency was authentic? would we rely on moodys or S&P, the same private companies that had an enormous role in causing the current economic crisis? |
A simple argument that I can make, that can't be refuted, is the simple fact that people have been using gold and silver for thousands of years. It's pretty easy to tell that gold and silver are authentic. And no, we wouldn't be relying on moodys or S&P. It's nice that you bring them up though because it shows me that you do rely on them very heavily.
You've proved my points very well with your post and I thank you for that. :) |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
You are coming across as a very unintelligent human begin. |
Interesting.
| quote: | | So please, prove me wrong and explain why you are so strongly against the Austrian economic philosophies. |
I know you're new(ish) in this sub-forum, but this is a topic that I bring up quite frequently (often in the context of development). Neo-liberal economic policies have proven devastating in a real-life context. You don't have to look very hard to find condemnations of Friedman and the Chicago School's adaptation of Austrian economics that gained favor under Reagan.
But I know you don't want to talk about development economics, so I'll stick to what you're pretending to understand.
Austrian economics is based on the observations of individual agents; extrapolations are common, and though they've proven to be highly erratic predictors of systemic behavior, MISES folks tend to eschew statistical modeling and quantitative methodology in favor of intuitive guesswork. In other words, the Austrian school has no real basis in empirical fact.
This makes sense, as both you and culorut would rather infer economic principles from vague maxims about liberty that stem from your anti-government tendencies. You don't need facts; nay, you don't TRUST facts, because they tend to suggest that classical economics still rules the empirical world.
Furthermore, Austrian economics goes out of its way to avoid policy recommendations; it is an economic school based primarily on criticism of other schools. Through its "praxelogy" it deigns to prove (through anecdotal evidence) the shortcomings of other economic practitioners, and then all the Austrian economists gather together and wave their hands yelling "see? their model isn't perfect!" When asked for an alternative, usually they'll give some vague speech about returning to the good old days of a fixed exchange and then revert the focus squarely back on newfound shortcomings.
I don't know if that counts as an intelligent reason for disagreeing with a school or not, but you asked for a reason so I decided to humor you.
And note that I never said I think you're dumb because you believe in the Austrian school; rather, it's quite the opposite - I don't think you have the slightest what the Austrian school, much less any other school of economic thought, actually suggests. But then you could prove me wrong too. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
The Court of Appeals, Poole, Circuit Judge, held that federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.
|
this case was about a courts jurisdiction over the fed (for purpose of federal tort liability) not whether the fed is or should be considered a government agency.
this concept isn't really that difficult to grasp. the fed is part private and part public. the fed is private in that it does not take federal funds. it is public in that it is required to operate under federal law and that its governors are political appointments. the shares that are held by banks are not the same as normal corporate shares because the shares do not give the banks a traditional ownership interest in the fed. an ownership interest is the right to select management and share in corporate profits. the member banks do not have those rights. |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Interesting.
I know you're new(ish) in this sub-forum, but this is a topic that I bring up quite frequently (often in the context of development). Neo-liberal economic policies have proven devastating in a real-life context. You don't have to look very hard to find condemnations of Friedman and the Chicago School's adaptation of Austrian economics that gained favor under Reagan.
But I know you don't want to talk about development economics, so I'll stick to what you're pretending to understand.
Austrian economics is based on the observations of individual agents; extrapolations are common, and though they've proven to be highly erratic predictors of systemic behavior, MISES folks tend to eschew statistical modeling and quantitative methodology in favor of intuitive guesswork. In other words, the Austrian school has no real basis in empirical fact.
This makes sense, as both you and culorut would rather infer economic principles from vague maxims about liberty that stem from your anti-government tendencies. You don't need facts; nay, you don't TRUST facts, because they tend to suggest that classical economics still rules the empirical world.
Furthermore, Austrian economics goes out of its way to avoid policy recommendations; it is an economic school based primarily on criticism of other schools. Through its "praxelogy" it deigns to prove (through anecdotal evidence) the shortcomings of other economic practitioners, and then all the Austrian economists gather together and wave their hands yelling "see? their model isn't perfect!" When asked for an alternative, usually they'll give some vague speech about returning to the good old days of a fixed exchange and then revert the focus squarely back on newfound shortcomings.
I don't know if that counts as an intelligent reason for disagreeing with a school or not, but you asked for a reason so I decided to humor you.
And note that I never said I think you're dumb because you believe in the Austrian school; rather, it's quite the opposite - I don't think you have the slightest what the Austrian school, much less any other school of economic thought, actually suggests. But then you could prove me wrong too. |
I greatly appreciate your response.
Thank you! |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | back to school for the cretin it seems. instead of falling over here due to rampant stupidity, why dont you actually go and get a degree so you can then maybe school us all in economic and law related matters? |
All banks are members of the federal bank you ing idiot, they do not hold reserves but they are a part of the federal reserve system. What exactly do you not get? The banking system is private, that was the point why I posted that up.
I know you still believe that they did not the USA out of Trillions of dollars and are still trying to convince everyone otherwise even though the FED's cannot answer the question when asked where the money is.
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
A simple argument that I can make, that can't be refuted, is the simple fact that people have been using gold and silver for thousands of years. It's pretty easy to tell that gold and silver are authentic. |
you don't see the practical restraints for relying on gold and silver?
i can name one - the value of everything produced on earth is worth far more than the reserves of gold and silver.
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
And no, we wouldn't be relying on moodys or S&P. It's nice that you bring them up though because it shows me that you do rely on them very heavily. |
actually i don't. but it's impossible to be involved in anything finance related without relying on moodys or S&P. despite the reliance the market puts on those companies, it doesn't mean flaws don't exist in the system. for a great example, read about how derivatives and other synthetic securities were rated by these agencies.
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
You've proved my points very well with your post and I thank you for that. :) |
how so? |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
you don't see the practical restraints for relying on gold and silver? [/b][/i] |
No, I don't.
| quote: | | i can name one - the value of everything produced on earth is worth far more than the reserves of gold and silver. |
So then you don't believe that if we were using gold/silver as a society that their prices, when connected to the amount of gold/silver in the society, would come down? See, this is where I end up butting heads with people when I bring up this type of argument. We have gotten so used to the fact that a house may cost $200,000 USD but why would that have to translate to some sort of astronomical figure in gold or silver? The values would simply fix themselves by consumer demand.
Also, do you think China is acting unreasonably for jacking up its gold reserves? Nations across the world hold reserves in precious metals. Since it is plainly obvious that you think this is pointless, would you please make an argument as to why these countries are acting foolish for doing it themselves? If you think using gold and silver isn't feasible, why do you believe nations are holding these metals in reserves?
| quote: | | actually i don't. but it's impossible to be involved in anything finance related without relying on moodys or S&P. despite the reliance the market puts on those companies, it doesn't mean flaws don't exist in the system. for a great example, read about how derivatives and other synthetic securities were rated by these agencies. |
I honestly don't know what to say here. You don't rely on them but you sort of do with this post. So while I am confused with your post, you seem to be just as confused with your own confidence in moodys and s&p.
Read everything I have posted and your own counter-argument. It is pretty apparent that you don't even understand what it is that you and a couple others are even writing. You are defending a system that can't even defend itself. The very people who are running this system can't obviously do that, with the videos that were posted above. How the hell do you think you can? I'm not trying to come off as arrogant or rude here but seriously, how can you expect me to take you seriously if a spokesperson for the Fed can't even answer some simple questions?
Sorry... :( |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
So then you don't believe that if we were using gold/silver as a society that their prices, when connected to the amount of gold/silver in the society, would come down? See, this is where I end up butting heads with people when I bring up this type of argument. We have gotten so used to the fact that a house may cost $200,000 USD but why would that have to translate to some sort of astronomical figure in gold or silver? The values would simply fix themselves by consumer demand. |
The dollar value wouldn't matter. You're still talking a fraction of the total supply - that fraction would stay the same, so while you might only need an ounce of gold for a house, good luck getting it. The "prices" wouldn't change - the relative value of the currency would. In this case, gold.
| quote: | | The very people who are running this system can't obviously do that, with the videos that were posted above. |
It might be worth pointing out at some point that nobody watches youtube videos used as proxy arguments. That's pretty much a universal PDD thing. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
All banks are members of the federal bank you ing idiot, they do not hold reserves but they are a part of the federal reserve system. What exactly do you not get? The banking system is private, that was the point why I posted that up. |
i see you didn't understand a word of occrider's rebuttal. hardly surprising.
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
"The FTCA permits private parties to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States. The FTCA constitutes a limited waiver of sovereign immunity."
If there employees arn't federal agents, then how is it a federal agency? |
im not a lawyer and i didn't make the decision. but the fact remains that cretinrot's example has exactly ZERO to do with the nature of the fed.
i have to ask ********, what makes you think that the central bank ISN'T a federal agency? you do know that all central banks are federal agencies, regardless of country? what about this is so difficult for you to grasp? |
|
|
| DOOMBOT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
The dollar value wouldn't matter. You're still talking a fraction of the total supply - that fraction would stay the same, so while you might only need an ounce of gold for a house, good luck getting it. The "prices" wouldn't change - the relative value of the currency would. In this case, gold.[/b][/i] |
This post makes zero sense.
| quote: | | It might be worth pointing out at some point that nobody watches youtube videos used as proxy arguments. That's pretty much a universal PDD thing. |
Again, this isn't making much sense either. Are you saying that you don't care what the people who work at the Fed have to say? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
No, I don't.
So then you don't believe that if we were using gold/silver as a society that their prices, when connected to the amount of gold/silver in the society, would come down? See, this is where I end up butting heads with people when I bring up this type of argument. We have gotten so used to the fact that a house may cost $200,000 USD but why would that have to translate to some sort of astronomical figure in gold or silver? The values would simply fix themselves by consumer demand. |
absolutely not. read about supply and demand. if everything translated to a price in gold or silver, and you actually needed the gold or silver to acquire it, the demand for gold or silver would drastically increase causing the value of those commodities to soar to an unbelievable level. this is econ 101 - based on total free market economics.
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
I honestly don't know what to say here. You don't rely on them but you sort of do with this post. So while I am confused with your post, you seem to be just as confused with your own confidence in moodys and s&p. |
there was nothing confusing. i don't invest at this point in my life, but i recognize the importance of those companies. nevertheless, i also see a flaw in the system. there's nothing confusing or contradictory in my post.
| quote: | Originally posted by DOOMBOT
Read everything I have posted and your own counter-argument. It is pretty apparent that you don't even understand what it is that you and a couple others are even writing. You are defending a system that can't even defend itself. The very people who are running this system can't obviously do that, with the videos that were posted above. How the hell do you think you can? I'm not trying to come off as arrogant or rude here but seriously, how can you expect me to take you seriously if a spokesperson for the Fed can't even answer some simple questions?
Sorry... :( |
when you speak to congress you do so under oath. i.e., you better be 100% certain before you open your mouth, especially when it is publicized. i take nothing away from the fact that she said nothing. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
I think your disagreement is in the semantics. The Federal Reserve isn't a federal agency in the same sense as the Environmental Protection Agency or the IRS. It's autonomous (which was purposeful), but still tied to the authorities invested in it by Congress.
It isn't an agglomeration of private banks, either. It's really a public institution comprised of private lenders and borrowers. Or some such description. |
|
|
|
|
