Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Ron Paul and reigning in the Fed | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 15 2009, 09:51 AM (107 Views) | |
| HoosierLars | Jul 15 2009, 09:51 AM Post #1 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
http://gata.org/node/7589 The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time. It is Congress' constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. This was the issue that got me involved in politics 35 years ago. It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue. |
| |
![]() |
|
| hoosierinhogville | Jul 15 2009, 11:21 AM Post #2 |
|
Coach
|
Point? |
| |
![]() |
|
| IUCOLTFAN | Jul 15 2009, 12:35 PM Post #3 |
|
Coach
|
Lars.........I thought the Fed wasnt the problem.............change of heart? |
![]() | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jul 15 2009, 01:06 PM Post #4 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
Colt, some posters here have attempted to distort my position on the Fed. I've made the case why it has the potential to do good and stabilize our economic system. However, the Fed has the potential to make poor tactical decisions that cause serious problems. It would be like someone arguing that police departments should all be disbanded over what happened to Rodney King. I will continue to fight against excessive government spending and tyranny. Without these two forces dominating our government, the Fed will promote a healthier, stronger economy. With these two forces in control, they will do whatever the fuck they want, regardless of whether there is a Federal Reserve or not. I've posed many thoughtful questions trying to get the anti-Fed camp to think about and explain their positions. One of my favorites that has gone unanswered, is how would the US gold supply be increased to match the skyrocketing growth that occurred from 1900 to 1960? If the wealth of the country has increased ten fold due to the growth of our industrial base, real estate, infrastructure, etc, how could the government possibly buy enough gold to match the corresponding increase in the money supply? The answer is that would have been impossible/unpractical. |
| |
![]() |
|
| troubleatiu | Jul 16 2009, 06:16 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Coach
|
now wait a minute lars. ive attempted to answer that several times. your idea of "vast wealth increase" is simply inflation and debasement of the currency. think about the cost of a brand new, 2-story, state-of-the-art house built and sold in say...1940. maybe it went for 40-50k. the same comparable house today in todays dollars will go for 500k. but if you bought it in gold...they both would have cost relatively the same in ounces needed. where you and i differ on this is you seem to think gold would have to be expanded the same as the dollar has in order to keep the economy going. thats not the case. all that was accomplished by abandoning the gold standard was to allow the government to spend more money than they had. wanna spend? print money. you cant print gold. theyve dont that now to the tune of $11 trillion and counting. i dont think were ever going to agree on this, but i have tried. |
![]() "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger "What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler "Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified | |
![]() |
|
| eelbor | Jul 16 2009, 08:29 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Zen Master
|
There are flies in the ointment with the gold standard. Gold's value will only stay stable as long as there are not any revolutionary technological improvements in the ability to extract gold from its matrix, or a massive new find from devaluing what is already here. If you came and dumped several million kgs of gold on the market, it collapses and metal hoarders will be left holding the bag. See what happened to aluminum prices in the 1800's. If you were able to cheaply pull gold from the world's ocean water there is a large reserve waiting for you. The amounts of some metallic minerals are actually greater in the oceans than on land: they include nickel, zinc, gold and silver. There are about 2.4x 10^9 kg of gold in the world's oceans. That would be enough to give every human alive about 0.8 pounds of gold. |
![]() "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder. | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jul 16 2009, 09:28 AM Post #7 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
The US population has grown by almost 4x since 1900, so even if you think the average standard of living hasn't changed, that required a 4x growth in wealth, and a 4x increase in the money supply. When you factor in the increase in services like indoor plumbing and electricity and phones almost nation wide, and other improvements in our infrastructure, e.g. interstate highway system and dams, you're talking about a vast amount of wealth. Much of this wealth has been enabled by our fractional reserve banking system that always banks to pay interest on deposits and loan most of that money (wealth) out at a higher rate. That system works amazingly well until there is a panic, and a run on the banks. Enter the Federal Reserve... If you can't agree that there has been a vast increase in wealth since 1900, you probably don't believe the earth is round when you see photos from space. :D |
| |
![]() |
|
| thePhilosopher | Jul 16 2009, 10:36 AM Post #8 |
![]()
All-Star
|
I'm back after a long hiatus, and it appears that Lars is starting to put two and two together but he's not quite there yet. Growth, especially in more recent times, has been in consumer spending, artificially created bubbles and has been aided by interest rate cuts. We're starting to see what happened to "growth" in the housing market, but I'm afraid we haven't seen the end of it by a long shot. As long as there's a Federal Reserve playing puppetmaster with the US economy, we'll always be subjugated to the TYRANNY of private bankers given very great, public power. There has been a great amount of increase in standard of living this century, but for the later part of it, its all phony and based on debt and basically a controlled system, not free enterprise and real wealth. And to your point about runs on banks, Lars, the Fed didn't get it done in the Great Depression, it only got worse as time went on and certain parts of the country or certain companies issued their own currency because things got so bad. At any rate, it feels good to get back on the merry-go-round! Now if we could only get Sir Brian over here some times so we can teach him that freedom is a good thing and tyranny is bad. :p |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jul 16 2009, 01:24 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Coach
|
Lars, when you speak of "wealth" and the idea that there is more of it to go around now, do you based that on 1900 standards or adjustments for the relativity factor? |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| HoosierLars | Jul 16 2009, 03:15 PM Post #10 |
![]()
3 in a row
|
I don't know what the "relativity factor" is. In 1900 people had no indoor plumbing, rode around on horses, and busted their asses 60+ hrs per week just to put food on the table. The growth in standard of living has been amazing. large increase in standard of living = large increase in wealth and when the population grows by 4x, 4 * large increase in standard of living = 4 * large increase in wealth |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:44 PM Jul 10
|
















7:44 PM Jul 10