Essential Economics for Politicians

First, your link to the Fed says that the BOG is the agency. I am not disputing what the link says. And I am not disputing that the link to the Fed says ....."Fed's monetary policy-setting body, the Federal Open Market Committe--about how to reach those goals do not require approval by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government." and neither are you. But they cease to be a free market participant when they create fiat money like they did during QE1 thru QE3. The market has to be free to fail as well. That is when savers like you and I get to snatch up some assets at much cheaper then the inflated prices caused by an increase in the money supply. Former Special Inspector General for the TARP program wrote a pretty good account of how the government allowed the Fed to bailout their friends in the financial sector. It's a good read and I highly recommend it. Or you can just google Neil Barofsky podcast interview at Econtalk and listen during traffic hour. My fuss is that the most recent crisis is not the first crisis of its kind. The Fed is the cause of the boom and bust cycles clear back to the great depression. Even there you can see that the Fed began inflating the money supply in the early 20's. Predictably, the stock market went crazy, all caused by the increase in the money supply.
Factual inaccuracies aside, how does any of what you said support your argument that there should be less government intervention and more free market?
 
Factual inaccuracies aside, how does any of what you said support your argument that there should be less government intervention and more free market?

You're going down the rabbit hole Laced, you will be disappointed to learn it leads nowhere, it's an empty space.

Peter Shiff (sp?) wrote a pretty good book that detailed the origin, and intended purpose of the federal reserve.

This clown is on CNBC all the time, he whips the conspiracy nuts into a lather...
 
You'd be absolutely right if I were trying to change minds

It's not even that, BIZ will ask you a million questions, as if he is carefully contemplating and forming thoughtful responses, but than just comes up with nothing and he'll resent you for not agreeing with him....
 
It's not even that, BIZ will ask you a million questions, as if he is carefully contemplating and forming thoughtful responses, but than just comes up with nothing and he'll resent you for not agreeing with him....
I did notice that his argument tends to be more complex than it need be. And he cites a lot of facts (which I dispute) and I have trouble figuring out how they even relate to the point he's making. However, it's been civil and respectful between us. It's been vigorous but pleasant.
 
I did notice that his argument tends to be more complex than it need be. And he cites a lot of facts (which I dispute) and I have trouble figuring out how they even relate to the point he's making.

He'll cut and paste non-sequiturs all day long...

However, it's been civil and respectful between us. It's been vigorous but pleasant.

Until you really start to probe and question his convictions and call BS on them....resentment time...
 
He'll cut and paste non-sequiturs all day long...



Until you really start to probe and question his convictions and call BS on them....resentment time...
I did learn something. To my surprise more people than I expected dispute that the Feds is a government agency, which I took for granted given that the Federal Reserve itself states so - not just the BOG. After a little research, I found that a significant minority has that view.
 
I did learn something. To my surprise more people than I expected dispute that the Feds is a government agency, which I took for granted given that the Federal Reserve itself states so - not just the BOG. After a little research, I found that a significant minority has that view.
You will find that, "significant minority" is overly represented in here.
 
Factual inaccuracies aside, how does any of what you said support your argument that there should be less government intervention and more free market?
I actually think that there should be more government intervention. Government should outlaw fiat money and fractional banking. The chances of that happening is almost nil. "Fragile by Design" by Charles Calomiris does a nice job of describing the cyclical incentives that politicians face when dealing with the reality of the Feds operations. The only thing that will stop "money printing" is the complete devaluing of the dollar.
 
I actually think that there should be more government intervention. Government should outlaw fiat money and fractional banking. The chances of that happening is almost nil. "Fragile by Design" by Charles Calomiris does a nice job of describing the cyclical incentives that politicians face when dealing with the reality of the Feds operations. The only thing that will stop "money printing" is the complete devaluing of the dollar.
You basically share Peter Schiff's view.
 
The fringe economist have an antiquated view of the market because they know Roman history. The Fed like Rome is debasing the U.S. dollar through the creation of fiat money. Caesar did it buy clipping gold coins, melting the clippings to create more coins, albeit of a lesser weight, to pay for the expenses of the massive Roman Empire. As these coins circulated throughout Roman Markets, merchants demanded additional gold coins to meet the original weight requirements of a gold coin to say buy a basket of fish that cost a single gold coin last week! How's that for antiquated inflation? The Roman people started to notch their original unclipped coins to tell the difference because Caesar, instead of clipping coins was now just shaving the coins. In response, whatever gold coins Caesar collected in taxes he would have them fully melted, adding a baser metal this time, hence the term debasing, to meet the weight requirements. Eventually, it was a debased currency that destroyed an 800 year old empire.

An antiquated view of the market? Is there a fundamental difference?
I think we understand "antiquated" differently. "Antiquated" to me means outdated. It doesn't reflect the reality of modern economic reality. It has a negative connotation. You seem to understand it to mean something totally different.
 
It's not even that, BIZ will ask you a million questions, as if he is carefully contemplating and forming thoughtful responses, but than just comes up with nothing and he'll resent you for not agreeing with him....

I love Sarekʻs answer to how they should respond to the menacing probe that is vacuming the ocean in search of Humpback whales. You have to get some understanding. Some wisdom as opposed to Wezdumb. Now scram and stop looking for sympathizers

 
I did notice that his argument tends to be more complex than it need be. And he cites a lot of facts (which I dispute) and I have trouble figuring out how they even relate to the point he's making. However, it's been civil and respectful between us. It's been vigorous but pleasant.
You found my response complex? I was just scratching the surface!! No wonder you have disputes. Lets dig deeper. We have awhile before we get down to the depth of Wezʻs rabbit hole.
 
I did learn something. To my surprise more people than I expected dispute that the Feds is a government agency, which I took for granted given that the Federal Reserve itself states so - not just the BOG. After a little research, I found that a significant minority has that view.
I am willing to concede that they are an unfunded agency. Itʻs that they operate without any operational mandates from our elected officials.
 
Back
Top