The original post can be found here 11 Reasons Why The Federal Reserve Is Bad
You oversimplify on EVERY point
#1. If the government just printed its way out of its debts that would instantly cause hyperinflation. All confidence would be lost in the dollar, countries wouldn’t lend to us anymore, and the people wouldn’t trust the government to pay its bills ever. They’d then need to introduce a new currency backed by something, which would stabilize the dollar and one day cause another depression as the currency doesn’t increase with the growth in the economy. Fiat currency has actually had much better results then hard money, and governments have time and time again misused fiat currency to be irresponsible. If it were up to Obama or Bush, we’d have hit hyperinflation by now…..the federal reserve is the one checkpoint we’ve had to slightly keep bureaucrats in check.
#2 This is both true and untrue. In some cases they print more money, in some cases they transfer money to other debt (e.g selling bonds). The first case is called diluting the currency. The same thing happens with companies when they sell off more shares in second/third offerings to raise funds. This is generally done when it doesn’t make too much sense to borrow because they have bad credit. It always ticks off the shareholders because it devalues their current share holdings. Same thing happens when you print more money, you dilute the currency, causing inflation, causing devalueation of your current currency holdings.
#3 – I commented on your other post about how silly your argument is, read it there for the complete comment, but essentially there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
#4 – again you oversimplify. The last century has seen more prosperity and fewer runs on banks in history, in large part because of centralized banking. The federal reserve (and most economists) prefer a little inflation (e.g 2%) as it is easier to control inflation then deflation. Restricting the money supply has more predictable results then offering cheaper debt.
#5 – unfortunately you downplay politics when it plays a heavier hand then it should. The role of the federal reserve is to ensure bubbles don’t occur, therefore they don’t pop. However, because of politicians, the bubbles occur and the federal reserve is too afraid to be the party pooper to do what’s right. In essense, if they did what they were supposed to do, then we’d be in good shape…but instead they do what politicians want (usually).
#6. Their power to do so is the reason we haven’t had runs on banks. They screwed up during the depression, but there are so many other very bad factors like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, almost all elements of the new deal, and yes, the constriction of the money supply. However, if they were unable to print money, then you’d have the same bank defaults just with no one to blame.
#7. Not fully government, not fully private either. Their chairman is appointed by the president, and most of the profits go to the US treasury.
#8. Transparency is debateable, and a tough subject. There should be more, but it isn’t simple. If everyone knew what the federal reserve knew, there would be less trust in the system. Less trust equates to more hoarding and less transfer of goods and services. So though there needs oversight, the public cannot be aware of everything or the economy would never move forward
#9 The federal reserve bank of NY has also always been the most stable, and it is by far the largest and has the largest gold reserve in the world.
#10. Fractional reserve isn’t a con, it’s quite simple actually, and has greatly helped out our economy. We’d still be grinding grain and milking our own cows if it weren’t for banking. I may actually agree that there is no real need for reserve requirements..reserves only exist to mitigate against fear. If the people are trusting and don’t run on the bank then the reserves are unnecessary, and more money can flow into the system. Though, I don’t know that I agree that they’ve come up with the right framework just yet, I think in time we may be able to progress to this, but only after several generations of stability.
#11. I agree there should be some sort of auditing watchdog. But the information that it takes out would have to be heavily detacted to be made public. Then you get into the whole ‘who watches the watchers’ debate…..yay, another oversight committee…
Do your history, America wasn’t doing just fine without them. They survived on bailouts from banks (JP Morgan did it on 2 occasions). When the guy died…who else was going to bail out the greedy Amercian government? Thus the Federal Reserve was established.
Our financial system may seem unstable to you, but it is still more stable then it historically ever has been.
Of course there’s room for improvement, but you aren’t suggesting improvement, you’re suggesting a downgrade. Your suggestions are simple minded, not founded on anything. They are ideological, not practical.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
RE: Canada: The uncensored Afghan Torture Documents. The Liberals Have Sabotaged Parliament
The article can be read here
You have to love when someone who knows nothing about a situation claims said situation is a grave attack on Democracy, and further lays specific blame at the feet of the leader of a party. Well, I don't love it, in fact it drives me up the wall.
Writer Murray Dobbin grossly marginalizes what constitutes a breach of national security in his statement: "if there are 10 pages out of the 40,000 in question that have anything to do with genuine national security I will eat all of them". The very fact that the documents tell a story about how we detain prisoners, likely includes vast amounts of data regarding transport of prisoners, process for transfers, locations, travel times, leaders within the Afghan military who are in charge of certain processes, leaders within the Canadian military who are in charge of these processes, etc...etc. All of this information would be VERY useful to the Taliban, and easily accounts for hundreds, if not thousands of pages worth of content. If my suggestion is true, I'd love to sit and watch Murray eat these pages along with his foot as he finally decides to shut his mouth. The truth is that when you live in a nation of peace, where the extent of adversity in your day is trying to determine how you can best badmouth the ruling party - you obviously haven't spent enough time trying to think like the ennemy. Almost any data, is useful data.
With regards to parliament, MPs show time and time again that they lack sensitivity to the consequences of their actions in order to play politics. It's disgraceful, but that's democracy. I'm quite sure Murray would be one of these people, he'd likely leak sensitive information having NO idea of the ramifications of doing so because his only intent is disgracing the Conservatives.
We're trying to keep our troops alive. Murray, you'd obviously rather endanger their lives in order to fulfill your dream of what constitutes democracy. You are a disgrace to Canada, and you should be lumped in with Splitting the sky for a public flogging.
You have to love when someone who knows nothing about a situation claims said situation is a grave attack on Democracy, and further lays specific blame at the feet of the leader of a party. Well, I don't love it, in fact it drives me up the wall.
Writer Murray Dobbin grossly marginalizes what constitutes a breach of national security in his statement: "if there are 10 pages out of the 40,000 in question that have anything to do with genuine national security I will eat all of them". The very fact that the documents tell a story about how we detain prisoners, likely includes vast amounts of data regarding transport of prisoners, process for transfers, locations, travel times, leaders within the Afghan military who are in charge of certain processes, leaders within the Canadian military who are in charge of these processes, etc...etc. All of this information would be VERY useful to the Taliban, and easily accounts for hundreds, if not thousands of pages worth of content. If my suggestion is true, I'd love to sit and watch Murray eat these pages along with his foot as he finally decides to shut his mouth. The truth is that when you live in a nation of peace, where the extent of adversity in your day is trying to determine how you can best badmouth the ruling party - you obviously haven't spent enough time trying to think like the ennemy. Almost any data, is useful data.
With regards to parliament, MPs show time and time again that they lack sensitivity to the consequences of their actions in order to play politics. It's disgraceful, but that's democracy. I'm quite sure Murray would be one of these people, he'd likely leak sensitive information having NO idea of the ramifications of doing so because his only intent is disgracing the Conservatives.
We're trying to keep our troops alive. Murray, you'd obviously rather endanger their lives in order to fulfill your dream of what constitutes democracy. You are a disgrace to Canada, and you should be lumped in with Splitting the sky for a public flogging.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
RE: The Democrats, the Deficit, and Social Security
Article can be read here
This guy is just unbelievable.
First: An editorial in the NYT IS NOT official. I would accept a press release from the White House to be official. Since Obama said Medicare/Social Security would go untouched in his address, I would even say officially, they won't be touching those programs. (This is not to say they won't, Obama lies a lot after all, but the official stance of the White House is what it is, don't infer more)
Second: The problem with America's health care is that it is way too expensive. As a Canadian I find it funny when I travel and I get medical insurance which applies to every country except the US. By definition Health Care is expensive, but when doctors have average salaries well above that of other countries - you're going to have a problem. Americans as a whole get paid more then they're worth for a lot of jobs (sports coaches, athletes, doctors, union workers). But hey, that's their culture and I'm not the one to judge...but the offshoot of this culture is increased costs for certain industries such as health care. As the next dominoe falls, any public effort will be too expensive and likely mediocre (medicare/medicaid). Same goes for SS.
Third: Shamus actually makes the case that the solution to the deficit is to tax the rich as high as 90% - what a moron.
Deficit and debt were not caused by lack of income from loss of taxation, it's from over spending. Yes, you are correct, military is one of those big expenditures, but medicare, medicaid and social security are much worse. Worse yet, THEY DON'T SCALE!!! They may have appeared to work over the last 30 years, but the ratio of workers to those collecting SS benefits was much greater then it will ever be again (same goes for medicare/medicaid). This means that the cost of SS will balloon, while the income (those paying into it) will tapper. Fundamentally this means it's doomed. The solution is not more taxation, it's sadly a decrease in benefits that shouldn't have been promised to begin with.
The issue with increased taxation is that it stifles innovation, creativity and drive. Without those 3, there will be no prosperity.
IMHO, it is a travesty that SS might be gutted, I hate to think of how many people are going to have the rug slipped out from under them. But truth be told, if the US gets into hyper inflation because they default on all their debt then those people will face the same fate. The US was supposed to be the land of opportunity. What does this mean? It means if you work hard, save hard you can make it rich. It doesn't mean you can work hard, spend hard, then continue to live on the backs of taxpayers.
SS should only ever exist as a form of forced retirement planning. And no, I don't mean that measly few bucks that come off the paycheck, but a colossal amount coming off the paycheck. Then the amount you put in you get back with interest when you retire...that is a system that would work.
This guy is just unbelievable.
First: An editorial in the NYT IS NOT official. I would accept a press release from the White House to be official. Since Obama said Medicare/Social Security would go untouched in his address, I would even say officially, they won't be touching those programs. (This is not to say they won't, Obama lies a lot after all, but the official stance of the White House is what it is, don't infer more)
Second: The problem with America's health care is that it is way too expensive. As a Canadian I find it funny when I travel and I get medical insurance which applies to every country except the US. By definition Health Care is expensive, but when doctors have average salaries well above that of other countries - you're going to have a problem. Americans as a whole get paid more then they're worth for a lot of jobs (sports coaches, athletes, doctors, union workers). But hey, that's their culture and I'm not the one to judge...but the offshoot of this culture is increased costs for certain industries such as health care. As the next dominoe falls, any public effort will be too expensive and likely mediocre (medicare/medicaid). Same goes for SS.
Third: Shamus actually makes the case that the solution to the deficit is to tax the rich as high as 90% - what a moron.
Deficit and debt were not caused by lack of income from loss of taxation, it's from over spending. Yes, you are correct, military is one of those big expenditures, but medicare, medicaid and social security are much worse. Worse yet, THEY DON'T SCALE!!! They may have appeared to work over the last 30 years, but the ratio of workers to those collecting SS benefits was much greater then it will ever be again (same goes for medicare/medicaid). This means that the cost of SS will balloon, while the income (those paying into it) will tapper. Fundamentally this means it's doomed. The solution is not more taxation, it's sadly a decrease in benefits that shouldn't have been promised to begin with.
The issue with increased taxation is that it stifles innovation, creativity and drive. Without those 3, there will be no prosperity.
IMHO, it is a travesty that SS might be gutted, I hate to think of how many people are going to have the rug slipped out from under them. But truth be told, if the US gets into hyper inflation because they default on all their debt then those people will face the same fate. The US was supposed to be the land of opportunity. What does this mean? It means if you work hard, save hard you can make it rich. It doesn't mean you can work hard, spend hard, then continue to live on the backs of taxpayers.
SS should only ever exist as a form of forced retirement planning. And no, I don't mean that measly few bucks that come off the paycheck, but a colossal amount coming off the paycheck. Then the amount you put in you get back with interest when you retire...that is a system that would work.
Monday, February 8, 2010
RE: The US Economic Crisis: Jobs Continue to Vanish While the Media Applauds “Recovery”
You can view the article here
Man this drives me nuts.
I think the thing about unions that most upsets me, is when they negotiate a contract with a company that they must employ a certain percentage of unionized workers. This is discrimination. Last I checked unions don't fall under any affirmative action criteria. I could imagine how upset I would be if I started a job and they automatically signed me up in a union, I'd freak out. How dare they remove my right to negotiate my raises and terms of employment, as well as strip part of my wages that was actually taking away those 2 rights! If I kick ass at my job I want to be compensated for it, if I suck ass I should be penalized. Why work hard if you'll be rewarded the same as a dimwit who does nothing?
Seamous makes the claim that since the number of workers belonging to unions dropped by 771000, that this implies drop in benefits and wages overall.
You know what Seamous, that may very well be - but I would be willing to suspect that the businesses that pandered to unions (such as GM/Chrysler) had to lay off more people then their competition because their cost/worker was much too high. Those businesses couldn't weather a financial storm because they were bleeding by the wounds inflicted by the unions.
Unions have completely lost their way. They were once introduced to bring power back to the people, now they serve only to empower a select few and reward the lazy.
Man this drives me nuts.
I think the thing about unions that most upsets me, is when they negotiate a contract with a company that they must employ a certain percentage of unionized workers. This is discrimination. Last I checked unions don't fall under any affirmative action criteria. I could imagine how upset I would be if I started a job and they automatically signed me up in a union, I'd freak out. How dare they remove my right to negotiate my raises and terms of employment, as well as strip part of my wages that was actually taking away those 2 rights! If I kick ass at my job I want to be compensated for it, if I suck ass I should be penalized. Why work hard if you'll be rewarded the same as a dimwit who does nothing?
Seamous makes the claim that since the number of workers belonging to unions dropped by 771000, that this implies drop in benefits and wages overall.
You know what Seamous, that may very well be - but I would be willing to suspect that the businesses that pandered to unions (such as GM/Chrysler) had to lay off more people then their competition because their cost/worker was much too high. Those businesses couldn't weather a financial storm because they were bleeding by the wounds inflicted by the unions.
Unions have completely lost their way. They were once introduced to bring power back to the people, now they serve only to empower a select few and reward the lazy.
RE:Liberals Get a War President of Their Very Own
View Article Here
For GR this wasn't half bad, though I have to say I get more and more irritated at disgruntled leftists for waving their hands in anger at Obama's support of the war in Afghanistan. Read 'The Audacity Of Hope' - he specifically addresses his support for it, and condemns Iraq.
Personally I never liked the guy, during the primaries I thought he was full of hot air and relied only on eloquence. When I read his book I couldn't believe how overly verbose it was in it's good grammar, and how terrible it was for content....it was several hundreds pages of saying nothing. Though I remember saying to my wife: 'At least he clearly states his position on Afghanistan and would focus on that war rather then Iraq...that I agree with'.
Imagine my surprise when everyone jumped on his back for doing what he said.
I don't care if you dislike the guy, in fact I don't like him....but at least dislike him for the right reasons.
Further, quit whining about America's militarism...that problem doesn't lie with America, it lies with Humanity. No country is exempt from militarism. Ultimately, you live in a democracy of rich privileged people - and just like a rich privileged kid will do anything he can to stay that way, so America will continue to flex its muscles to protect its position.
For GR this wasn't half bad, though I have to say I get more and more irritated at disgruntled leftists for waving their hands in anger at Obama's support of the war in Afghanistan. Read 'The Audacity Of Hope' - he specifically addresses his support for it, and condemns Iraq.
Personally I never liked the guy, during the primaries I thought he was full of hot air and relied only on eloquence. When I read his book I couldn't believe how overly verbose it was in it's good grammar, and how terrible it was for content....it was several hundreds pages of saying nothing. Though I remember saying to my wife: 'At least he clearly states his position on Afghanistan and would focus on that war rather then Iraq...that I agree with'.
Imagine my surprise when everyone jumped on his back for doing what he said.
I don't care if you dislike the guy, in fact I don't like him....but at least dislike him for the right reasons.
Further, quit whining about America's militarism...that problem doesn't lie with America, it lies with Humanity. No country is exempt from militarism. Ultimately, you live in a democracy of rich privileged people - and just like a rich privileged kid will do anything he can to stay that way, so America will continue to flex its muscles to protect its position.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
RE: Will Obama’s Corporate Tax Breaks Create Jobs
Reference Article: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17407
I found it very irritating when the author stated the following:
"Instead of cutting back on war spending or bank bailouts, or taxing the rich and corporations, Obama is freezing social spending, while refusing to spend money to create jobs."
This is insanely misleading and is actually a downright lie. Firstly the bank bailout was a one time act, one which he spent a lengthy time in his state of the union address saying he hated doing it - and is planning to even tax the banks to try to recoup the cost of the bailout. Secondly, I quote from his State of the union address: "Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected"[1]
Obama was quite clear that the bulk of US social spending will continue. A far cry from freezing social spending.
Next, the comment: "Exports can only be increased if U.S. workers make even lower wages, since U.S. products must compete on the world market with the slave wages of China and India"
This is just retarded. Have you seriously not considered quality? no...because you're a union member/labor activist and don't care about quality. The reason Toyota destroyed you guys in Detroit is because they make a good car, not because of slave wages. Competing on the international market is a place for commodities (cheapest wins) and quality (best quality wins). I would hope my government would encourage domestic quality. The US used to be the staple country for quality and now it's losing that status, he's just trying to bring it back.
You like to shove in so casually 'thus the importance of unions'. It's because of unions that Detroit has failed and gotten billions in bailouts (which you fortuitously fail to mention), they bring companies under by bullying employers, using legislation that was once created to try to protect the worker. I'm appaled at their behaviour and find it shameful
[1]State Of the Union Address
I found it very irritating when the author stated the following:
"Instead of cutting back on war spending or bank bailouts, or taxing the rich and corporations, Obama is freezing social spending, while refusing to spend money to create jobs."
This is insanely misleading and is actually a downright lie. Firstly the bank bailout was a one time act, one which he spent a lengthy time in his state of the union address saying he hated doing it - and is planning to even tax the banks to try to recoup the cost of the bailout. Secondly, I quote from his State of the union address: "Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected"[1]
Obama was quite clear that the bulk of US social spending will continue. A far cry from freezing social spending.
Next, the comment: "Exports can only be increased if U.S. workers make even lower wages, since U.S. products must compete on the world market with the slave wages of China and India"
This is just retarded. Have you seriously not considered quality? no...because you're a union member/labor activist and don't care about quality. The reason Toyota destroyed you guys in Detroit is because they make a good car, not because of slave wages. Competing on the international market is a place for commodities (cheapest wins) and quality (best quality wins). I would hope my government would encourage domestic quality. The US used to be the staple country for quality and now it's losing that status, he's just trying to bring it back.
You like to shove in so casually 'thus the importance of unions'. It's because of unions that Detroit has failed and gotten billions in bailouts (which you fortuitously fail to mention), they bring companies under by bullying employers, using legislation that was once created to try to protect the worker. I'm appaled at their behaviour and find it shameful
[1]State Of the Union Address
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)