spierce wins.
won’t be able to sleep tonight
you made your case and lost get outta here you loser
my advice to you is to read something about Weimar Republic
“U.S. Rescue May Reach $23.7 Trillion” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZ27ITF7gaoQ quote: The Treasury’s $700 billion bank-investment program represents a fraction of all federal support to resuscitate the U.S. financial system, including $6.8 trillion in aid offered by the Federal Reserve, Barofsky said in a report released today. 6.8 trillion !
“Bailout cop busy on the beat” http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/21/news/economy/tarp_cop_barofsky/?postversion=2009042103 quote The report also warns federal officials, in great detail, against expanding a Federal Reserve-run program to allow investors to use cheap government financing to purchase questionable mortgage-backed securities. The program poses “significant fraud risks,” according to the report. yet, geniuses on this forum suggest that this is “business as usual” and no audit is required
What kind of Audit would eliminate this? It’s easier to just change the entire Fed personnel
If more transparency is on the table I’m all in favor of it, but I would prefer abolishing the Federal Reserve and getting off of a fiat currency all together. Spierce and Marcus Phoenix spit venom whenever anyone presents any opinions of the Austrian School so it was no surprise to see one of them in here belittling TS, but why is everyone else in this thread so pro-Fed and anti-Ron Paul? I would much rather have Ron Paul as Commander-In-Chief than Obama or McCain.
Bankin’ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If more transparency is on the table I’m all in > favor of it, but I would prefer abolishing the > Federal Reserve and getting off of a fiat currency > all together. > > Spierce and Marcus Phoenix spit venom whenever > anyone presents any opinions of the Austrian > School so it was no surprise to see one of them in > here belittling TS, but why is everyone else in > this thread so pro-Fed and anti-Ron Paul? I would > much rather have Ron Paul as Commander-In-Chief > than Obama or McCain. yes, because a ex-gyno stuck in 18th century politics and economics is so much better.
user654 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > “U.S. Rescue May Reach $23.7 Trillion” > > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si > d=aZ27ITF7gaoQ > > quote: > The Treasury’s $700 billion bank-investment > program represents a fraction of all federal > support to resuscitate the U.S. financial system, > including $6.8 trillion in aid offered by the > Federal Reserve, Barofsky said in a report > released today. > > 6.8 trillion ! What a retarded figure. It’s akin to taking all of the unfunded potential liabilities, projecting them out 100 years, and comparing them to current revenue. Only a math retard would do that. ohh…wait…most libertopians and anti-Fed people do the same. Why don’t you take a second and read his report. Foremost among his figures is the estimation that 100% of all guaranteed debt defaults and results in 0% recoveries. Yeah, stupid estimate.
user654 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > spierce: > > Comparing Bernake to lieutenant is what I consider > laughable. As I mentioned before, just because his > role was secondary doesn’t mean it should not be > investigated/audited. > > I prefer using sources that one can reference, > such as Bloomberg, as opposed to “Street”. The > fact that the facilities were in place does not > mean they couldn’t be misused. My attempt to > connect those two is certainly not ridiculous as > the purpose is to basically pump money into banks > without enough transparency and oversight and > accept any kind of collateral. Please watch this > hearing and then tell me about how you can find > out these sort of information about off-balance > sheet operations on the websites: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqM2tFOxLQ > > Your invectives and lack of references make your > last paragraph a good description of you. Great, you keep getting your “news” from secondary sources, I’ll live and work in the real world, where real work is done at real jobs. Living in a libertopian fantasy land doesn’t get you shit for jobs or experience. I am all for CONFIDENTIAL committee oversight. What I always find humorous is that people like you are always good at chewing other people’s cud, but you’re never able to form any coherent thoughts of your own. This is why you’re main way of conveying anything is posting YouTube videos. It’s like going to a video store and never seeing 100 movies but they are actually the same movie, just 100 copies of it mixed different ways.
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bankin’ Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If more transparency is on the table I’m all in > > favor of it, but I would prefer abolishing the > > Federal Reserve and getting off of a fiat > currency > > all together. > > > > Spierce and Marcus Phoenix spit venom whenever > > anyone presents any opinions of the Austrian > > School so it was no surprise to see one of them > in > > here belittling TS, but why is everyone else in > > this thread so pro-Fed and anti-Ron Paul? I > would > > much rather have Ron Paul as Commander-In-Chief > > than Obama or McCain. > > > yes, because a ex-gyno stuck in 18th century > politics and economics is so much better. You are one nasty person, Spierce. Whether you agree or disagree with Ron Paul’s economic opinions the fact that he used to be a doctor, or an ex-gyno if you prefer, is completely irrelevant. More to the point, I won’t patronize you by going into how the Fed causes inflation or why that is bad for people with savings because it is clear that you already know how all of this works and feel that the positives outweigh the negatives but the argument isn’t nearly as clear or as clean as you’d like to make it. The stagflation of the 1970s with regard to monetary policy, the fact that these people are unelected, the ambiguity of where this fake money goes are all valid criticisms of our current system. Also, Milton Friedman’s ‘Helicopter’ analogy with regard to expansion of the money supply is a poor one, because the people that spend the money first have a huge advantage over the people that don’t ever spend the money (or get it really late in the game). I could go into a long drawn out analogy with a counterfeiter that spends money locally and build from there, but in the interest of getting to bed I’ll save it. The point that I’m trying to make is that by writing off anti-Fed thought as ‘18th Century Politics’ does not speak well to your critical thinking on the issue. Because you take such an interest in defending the Federal Reserve and insult anyone with a different viewpoint I’m genuinely interested in whether you work for the Fed or have some family tie or something.
Why abolish the Fed? The rapid growth of late 20th century economic boom is the direct result of moving away from teh gold standard. Inflation can be a problem to any system. And Ron Paul is a dou che. Being a doctor does not mean you can run a sound and effective economy. Being a doctor is a trade skill where little innovation is involved (for most doctors).
I maintain that the Fed is engaged in a form of legalized counterfeiting. They are essentially stealing from the American citizenry and lending out the fake money (stolen wealth) to unknown recipients that get to purchase items at T-1 prices. When your great grandfather graduated high school he could marry his high school sweetheart, go get a job, and purchase a home while she stayed home with the children. For the vast majority of families this is no longer the case. The primary reason both parents work in many, perhaps most, families is not because of the women’s right movement nearly as much as it is a result of the husband’s real wages failing to keep up with inflation. If you would like to expand on your attribution of a boom in the late 20th century to the Federal Reserve I would love genuinely to hear your argument. You are certainly correct in that inflation can occur in any system. I read an article several years ago about how when a new king would come in he’d issue a compulsory order to have everyone bring in their ratty old coins with his dad’s face on them and, for a nominal fee, he’d replace them with a shiny coin with his face on them. The people would bring in their 2 oz coins and return with 1.5 oz coins and the new king would have a number of half ounces that he didn’t have before. There was also of course the coin clipping which is why the sides of coins now have a texture. More recently in order to inflate a government would have to dig the money (gold) out of the ground. But none of these are nearly as effective a tool for stealing from the public as our current system. Joe Blow doesn’t know what causes inflation and he can’t see it happening and even if he could there is a good chance that he would not understand what’s going on without having his hand held. I could go on and on about the Fed, but the main argument is that their stated purpose, or one of their stated purposes, is to control inflation when in actuality they are the cause of inflation. With regard to Ron Paul, him being a doctor is not relevant. I’m sure you follow something, say football, and you not having experience in the NFL does not make your opinions less valid. This is not to say his arguments are valid, this is only to say his previous profession has no bearing on his knowledge of said subject. I see virtually eye to eye with Ron Paul in the economic realm, but disagree with him on many others issues, Iran’s nuclear program being the largest and most glaring example. But, unlike every current American politician that I’m aware of Ron Paul does not blow in the wind. He has his convictions and he votes those convictions. In a day when politicians are constantly changing their stance on issues according to who bought them at the moment it is a breath of fresh air seeing a person that votes based on what he believes is right.
Bankin’ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this is only > to say his previous profession has no bearing on > his knowledge of said subject. Maybe, but it calls his logic, motives, sanity, etc. into question. Not to say an ob/gyn is akin to a garbage man or meth addict, but the point can be argued to a lesser degree, which I think is what spierce is getting at. -my 2c
Bankin’ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I maintain that the Fed is engaged in a form of > legalized counterfeiting. They are essentially > stealing from the American citizenry and lending > out the fake money (stolen wealth) to unknown > recipients that get to purchase items at T-1 > prices. > > When your great grandfather graduated high school > he could marry his high school sweetheart, go get > a job, and purchase a home while she stayed home > with the children. For the vast majority of > families this is no longer the case. The primary > reason both parents work in many, perhaps most, > families is not because of the women’s right > movement nearly as much as it is a result of the > husband’s real wages failing to keep up with > inflation. > > If you would like to expand on your attribution of > a boom in the late 20th century to the Federal > Reserve I would love genuinely to hear your > argument. > > You are certainly correct in that inflation can > occur in any system. I read an article several > years ago about how when a new king would come in > he’d issue a compulsory order to have everyone > bring in their ratty old coins with his dad’s face > on them and, for a nominal fee, he’d replace them > with a shiny coin with his face on them. The > people would bring in their 2 oz coins and return > with 1.5 oz coins and the new king would have a > number of half ounces that he didn’t have before. > There was also of course the coin clipping which > is why the sides of coins now have a texture. > More recently in order to inflate a government > would have to dig the money (gold) out of the > ground. But none of these are nearly as effective > a tool for stealing from the public as our current > system. Joe Blow doesn’t know what causes > inflation and he can’t see it happening and even > if he could there is a good chance that he would > not understand what’s going on without having his > hand held. I could go on and on about the Fed, > but the main argument is that their stated > purpose, or one of their stated purposes, is to > control inflation when in actuality they are the > cause of inflation. > > With regard to Ron Paul, him being a doctor is not > relevant. I’m sure you follow something, say > football, and you not having experience in the NFL > does not make your opinions less valid. This is > not to say his arguments are valid, this is only > to say his previous profession has no bearing on > his knowledge of said subject. > > I see virtually eye to eye with Ron Paul in the > economic realm, but disagree with him on many > others issues, Iran’s nuclear program being the > largest and most glaring example. But, unlike > every current American politician that I’m aware > of Ron Paul does not blow in the wind. He has his > convictions and he votes those convictions. In a > day when politicians are constantly changing their > stance on issues according to who bought them at > the moment it is a breath of fresh air seeing a > person that votes based on what he believes is > right. One thing that people constantly ignore is whether long-term wages have kept up with long-term costs. The answer is, yes, they have. Thus, the inflation argument is ridiculous, unfounded, and quite frankly, ignorant. The only people who would lose money would be those who have everything in the bank in a checking account, or a low-bearing interest account, that’s it. As far as a gold backed currency being inflation proof. That’s a bunch of hogwash, you can still devalue the currency very easily with gold, you just simply change how much your currency equates to in gold. Wow, hard. By your reasoning then a gold based currency would be inherently deflationary since there wouldn’t be enough gold to contain all of the wealth an economy produces forever. Which is the laughable part of anti-fed people. First off, they think that gold, or any asset in general, can contain an infinite wealth economy. Second they think gold is some sort of panacea. Like it will suddenly get rid of debt since you “can’t get too much in debt with gold”, which is a fvcking joke. If you can’t then why was there gold runs on the UST in the 19th and 20th centuries? Why was the US the world’s largest deadbeat debtors. Why did states continually default on debt? The history doesn’t fit the model, or at least the purported one of gold buggers. I don’t have to give Ron Paul sh!t for “sticking to his guns”, because a guy who sticks to his guns when wrong isn’t admirable, he’s stupid. Being able to admit when you’re wrong, when all of the data and facts prove you wrong, is key. Ron Paul can’t admit he is wrong, nor can Peter Schiff or any other Austrian tools. RP is an ex-gyno for a first career and a politician for a 2nd. He wasn’t trained in finance, economics, or anything else relating to the field. He’s a smart guy, but a wrong one.
> You are one nasty person, Spierce. Whether you > agree or disagree with Ron Paul’s economic > opinions the fact that he used to be a doctor, or > an ex-gyno if you prefer, is completely > irrelevant. > > More to the point, I won’t patronize you by going > into how the Fed causes inflation or why that is > bad for people with savings because it is clear > that you already know how all of this works and > feel that the positives outweigh the negatives but > the argument isn’t nearly as clear or as clean as > you’d like to make it. The stagflation of the > 1970s with regard to monetary policy, the fact > that these people are unelected, the ambiguity of > where this fake money goes are all valid > criticisms of our current system. Also, Milton > Friedman’s ‘Helicopter’ analogy with regard to > expansion of the money supply is a poor one, > because the people that spend the money first have > a huge advantage over the people that don’t ever > spend the money (or get it really late in the > game). I could go into a long drawn out analogy > with a counterfeiter that spends money locally and > build from there, but in the interest of getting > to bed I’ll save it. The point that I’m trying to > make is that by writing off anti-Fed thought as > ‘18th Century Politics’ does not speak well to > your critical thinking on the issue. > > Because you take such an interest in defending the > Federal Reserve and insult anyone with a different > viewpoint I’m genuinely interested in whether you > work for the Fed or have some family tie or > something. Nasty, sure, I’ll take that. Abolishing the Fed is an 18/19th century idea. It hearkens back to when we were almost purely an agrarian economy with the ability to have decentralized financial institutions. However, that model doesn’t work anymore. I have no interest in defending the Fed other than the plain fact that any other model that you people put out there simply doesn’t work. Provide a realistic model that makes sense and I may agree with it. As Winston Churchill said. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One thing that people constantly ignore is whether > long-term wages have kept up with long-term > costs. > > The answer is, yes, they have. Is that so? The makeup of the home flies in the face of that argument and a quick google search produced several charts such as this one: http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+(1964-2004) and graphs such as this one: http://illusionofprosperity.blogspot.com/2007/12/historical-real-hourly-wages.html that don’t agree. If you have convincing evidence to the contrary I would love to see it. > Thus, the > inflation argument is ridiculous, unfounded, and > quite frankly, ignorant. The only people who > would lose money would be those who have > everything in the bank in a checking account, or a > low-bearing interest account, that’s it. That simply isn’t true. Let’s take a simplified example. Say you are a merchant in Montana and the Fed starts pumping money into banks in New York. The banks lend this money to local merchants that use the same wholesalers as you. These local merchants purchase goods, shifting the demand curve for goods to the right while the supply curve is held constant. This results in an increase in prices for you at the present time while the new money has yet to come into your hands yet. > > As far as a gold backed currency being inflation > proof. That’s a bunch of hogwash, you can still > devalue the currency very easily with gold, you > just simply change how much your currency equates > to in gold. Wow, hard. By your reasoning then a > gold based currency would be inherently > deflationary since there wouldn’t be enough gold > to contain all of the wealth an economy produces > forever. > Which is the laughable part of anti-fed people. > First off, they think that gold, or any asset in > general, can contain an infinite wealth economy. > Second they think gold is some sort of panacea. > Like it will suddenly get rid of debt since you > “can’t get too much in debt with gold”, which is a > fvcking joke. If you can’t then why was there > gold runs on the UST in the 19th and 20th > centuries? Why was the US the world’s largest > deadbeat debtors. Why did states continually > default on debt? > No doubt. While it would be easier for the public to understand, revaluing the currency to a different amount of gold defeats the purpose altogether. This practice should be strictly prohibited in the highly unlikely event that we ever return to an asset backed currency. While we’re on this topic other creative measures to inflate, such as the one William Jennings Bryan advocated in his famous ‘Cross of Gold’ speech should be prohibited as well. To go full circle. I understand your critiques and am well aware that you are not alone in your thought process. I respectfully maintain that we would be better off with a system that made inflating more difficult, whether or not that is the ‘according to Hoyle’ Gold Standard is not the main point.
Bankin, The fact is that the people are much wealthier today than in 1964. How many people in 1964 had internet connections? How many had flat screen tvs? What was the medical care like compared to today? What sort of safety features came standard in a car? Anti-lock brakes? Airbags? What was the average life span in 1964 compared to today? I could go on of course, but you get the picture. Seems to me in every measurable sense the quality of life has markedly improved, how to explain this general increase in wealth if income is falling?
Spierce Let’s have a look again on your ego-boosting macho comments: “yes, because a ex-gyno stuck in 18th century politics and economics is so much better.” This is about FED audit, not “RP for president” campaign. As far as I’m concerned, he’s a man of integrity (which cannot be said about most of the politicians). The rest is irrelevant as we are discussing FED audit (hope you don’t suffer from amnesia). Also, let’s not forget that he’s been serving on several financial services committees for many years and thus had opportunity to acquire necessary knowledge. Also, one has to notice that in your previous comments you embrace “Street” and project yourself as “working in the real word” (as if I’m from parallel universe) and yet criticize RP for not being financial professional. He doesn’t have to be – all it needs is common sense. 6.8 trillion is a figure from special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program Neil Barofsky and represents potential exposure (nobody claimed it’s a loss), however, combined with the fact that the program poses "significant fraud risks” it is really not difficult to understand why audit is needed (except for you and your doughnut fan club). Comparing record of Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing of May 5, 2009 hosted on youtube to secondary sources clearly shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Youtube is not originator of the information, only storage and sharing host in this case. Again, watch the video and then come back! In addition to that, I offered you references from Bloomberg, Money.cnn, SeekingAlpha, MarketOracle. You have offered mostly invectives and empty words. Quote Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve (HR 1207) now has 275 co-sponsors, and the numbers keep growing! HR 1207’s companion bill in the Senate, S 604, has already attracted 17 co-sponsors.