18 Feb 2014 4:50 pm
Contrary to what you may believe, I actually support a metal based monetary system.Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 12:32 am » wrote:
That would be me, and anyone else who has read our founding documents and understands the purpose of Article 1, Sec. 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Now, before you explain how a metal based monetary system won't allow growth, let me say this: My argument is not against an elastic money supply. My argument is against a private corporation with secret ownership that never gets audited having a franchise on issuing currency. That's a RICO violation on wheels.
Your school has omitted this from your education and given you pure **** to chew You're probably under the impression that the federal reserve bank is a government agency. It isn't.
That is the general premise. The cure for high inflation is high unemployment. Businesses lay off workers and these unemployed workers spend less. The economy should go into a recession and businesses would normally slash prices to encourage sales. The inflation is normally self correcting.Funny you should mention that. Isn't it axiomatic that inflation, unemployment and interest rates are inter-related, and any time that any two are in double digits the other will be automatically driven into single digits? They do teach that, do they not? Yet Carter had all three in double digits, didn't he? You don't suppose an "invisible hand" might have had a finger on the scale?
This didn't happen on it's, so monetary measures needed to be taken. Increasing rates makes it more expensive to do business.
That's the purpose of stimulus according to the left. According to neocons, it's to take money directly out of the treasury and transfer it immediately into the pockets of the people who need it least. The repukes - in congress and on this board - had a CONNIPTION about unemployment bennies - the universally agreed most stimulative money that the government can possibly inject into the economy. Then they went after SNAP - again, very stimulative. But Goldman Sach's perfectly "legal" insider franchise on trading Treasury Bonds? They defend it.
That depends on the risk involved and the leveraged used. Lower interest rates makes it easier for people to make money from margins/leverage/debt. It punishes savers and investors and rewards speculators and spenders. But accumulating debt is not always bad, so long as there is risk. Margin debt is the highest its ever been since the financial crisis. This could either mean one of two things:One more thing I would like to ask you about. Isn't it true that, more and more as reaganomics continues, a big piece of our so-called "economy" is nothing more than two vampires trading debt instruments at great profit without a customer or a service or a product - just "making" MONEY? And when the "economy" is basically witchcraft, how the **** can we have a meaningful discussion about it? Again, I put economists with climatologists: two camps that peddle likely stories and nicely cooked narratives which are careful to protect important agendas - in the case of economists, pretending the federal reserve is not a scam on the public (As if borrowing every dollar into circulation from people who have nothing but a magical dollar-issuing franchise is somehow "good" for our country).
1) Investors are so confident in their ability to make winning trades, they feel they will be able to pay off their debts
2) Investors just feel that asset prices will rise forever.
Obviously the latter was the case when it came to the financial crisis.
As for having a meaningful discussion about it, you can't. The market generally leans bullish, and any negative (or bearish) news is generally frowned upon in the markets.
Also, as far as I know, we don't have Reaganonmics. Reaganomics involved at least 4 economic pillars, one of which was actually implemented.