Liberal Forum

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 8:00 pm » wrote: Who is calling the Federal Reserve a criminal enterprise?

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.

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 8:00 pm » wrote: Looking at the economy entails looking more at GDP. I don't just look at the unemployment rate. I look at the people who are in the labour force, as well as the people who have left it. I look at the types of jobs created. I look at the type of jobs lost. I look at industrial production. I look at everything, or, at least the issues that are relevant. During the 1980's, the problems with the economy were high unemployment and high inflation.

The reason why the economy was bad under Carter (and the 1970's) was because there were more than 6 financial quarters of shrinking GDP, while inflation was average 7 - 9% annually, which shouldn't happen (not to say that it shouldn't happen, but it's unusual). The unusual part is when the economy experiences high unemployment and high inflation. High unemployment is a cure for high inflation, as slow growth in the economy reduces demand for goods and services to keep prices from rising. As a result, businesses are not as profitable, hence, they lay workers off and they buy less good and services.

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?

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 8:00 pm » wrote:The entire purpose of stimulus (fiscal stimulus anyway) is to get money to flow throughout the economy. None of this military spending made its way into the economy. It would have been no different if the Government decided to purchase 1 million shares of Berkshire Hathaway. All they would have been doing was enriching a few shareholders. And sure, that money would have also flow through the economy, but the multiplier effect would have been near nil...

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.

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).