Ron Paul’s Amendment To Audit The Federal Reserve Approved
-
-
Yes you're absolutely right. That's market theory in general, not Keynesian or Austrian. You're absolutely right. And that's exactly what I'm trying to tell you. The Fed can manipulate the markets by lowering interest rates. The bust will come when they take the interest rate and set it to a normal value. The boom comes when the Fed, aka "they", lowers it. Just think of it like that. Because you gave me half of the argument in your long speech there, just extend the logic a bit.
The point is that they aren't CAUSING the booms and busts. They're countering them. When the bust happens (And it will, with or without the Fed), they lower interest rates in order to COUNTERACT that, and end the bust before it gets too bad. Of course, those interest rates have to have somewhere to go... So when things get near the top, they gradually raise interest rates so they'll have some breathing room for the next bust.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
The point is that they aren't CAUSING the booms and busts. They're countering them. When the bust happens (And it will, with or without the Fed), they lower interest rates in order to COUNTERACT that, and end the bust before it gets too bad. Of course, those interest rates have to have somewhere to go... So when things get near the top, they gradually raise interest rates so they'll have some breathing room for the next bust.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
A) give me an example of when booms and busts, like what you see now since the fed has been in force since 1913, happened so rashly in america. or even still, give me an example of when the market wouldn't correct itself when a central bank was in place around the world. B) before the great depression, there was another minor depression, around 1920 or 1919 or something, and it only lasted a year or two. does anyone know about it? no, not as greatly as the great depression, which lasted for about a decade. this is because FDR was known to "solve the great depression". he and the fed actually exaggerated the problem, by trying to correct it. now about the smaller, lesser known depression, that lasted for a short time because nobody even TRIED to correct it, at all. the fed was just enacted only a few years prior, and the market corrected itself. C) if the fed tries to correct it with changing the interest rates, then the market becomes skewed. soon, the fed will have to necessarily bring the interest rates back up to nominal conditions, in which time the bust will come BECAUSE OF THAT, and we will have a depression. mark my words. when you see this happen, you will really wake up. the bust will come because people will get out of that sector of the market (housing AND education), and people will be really hurting. badly. people will leave the sector because interest rates are not what they were (which is actually now), and the bubble will have popped. So what i'm getting at is that this is all started with the fed. when the fed counteracts, it acts against the will of the market, causing confusion in the market, and causing a bubble in the sector.
-
A) give me an example of when booms and busts, like what you see now since the fed has been in force since 1913, happened so rashly in america. or even still, give me an example of when the market wouldn't correct itself when a central bank was in place around the world. B) before the great depression, there was another minor depression, around 1920 or 1919 or something, and it only lasted a year or two. does anyone know about it? no, not as greatly as the great depression, which lasted for about a decade. this is because FDR was known to "solve the great depression". he and the fed actually exaggerated the problem, by trying to correct it. now about the smaller, lesser known depression, that lasted for a short time because nobody even TRIED to correct it, at all. the fed was just enacted only a few years prior, and the market corrected itself. C) if the fed tries to correct it with changing the interest rates, then the market becomes skewed. soon, the fed will have to necessarily bring the interest rates back up to nominal conditions, in which time the bust will come BECAUSE OF THAT, and we will have a depression. mark my words. when you see this happen, you will really wake up. the bust will come because people will get out of that sector of the market (housing AND education), and people will be really hurting. badly. people will leave the sector because interest rates are not what they were (which is actually now), and the bubble will have popped. So what i'm getting at is that this is all started with the fed. when the fed counteracts, it acts against the will of the market, causing confusion in the market, and causing a bubble in the sector.
I could have sworn I had just explained how the boom/bust cycle is unrelated to the Fed... And you seemed to agree with that until you realized the point I was making.
josda1000 wrote:
A) give me an example of when booms and busts, like what you see now since the fed has been in force since 1913, happened so rashly in america. or even still, give me an example of when the market wouldn't correct itself when a central bank was in place around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1796%E2%80%931797[^] - Fixed by the Bankruptcy Act of 1800 after 4 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819[^] - Recovered naturally after 4 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837[^] - Recovered naturally after 5 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857[^] - Fixed the same year by drastically reducing tariffs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873[^] - Recovered naturally after 6 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884[^] - Part of a larger recession - Was stopped from getting MUCH worse by a bank bailout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893[^] - Recovered after 3 years because of the Gold Rush Here's the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes[^] All of these i
-
I agree with it 100%. We need to base our dollar on something hard, such as gold, silver, platinum, etc. It doesn't matter if it's a mix of these hard assets either, just as long as it's backed by, or actually is, commodity/commodities. They blamed the problem on the banks. Agreed. They think that the only way that the federal government would be able to solve it is by inflating. Agreed. So basically, I agree with it, 100%.
Do I take from your postings that you fully agree with the Austrian School of Economics as well as fully agree with the Chicago School of Economics? Frankly, they are competing theories not complementary. It is impossible to fully accept both. So, would you like to clarify your position, it is a little confused from where I stand.
-
I could have sworn I had just explained how the boom/bust cycle is unrelated to the Fed... And you seemed to agree with that until you realized the point I was making.
josda1000 wrote:
A) give me an example of when booms and busts, like what you see now since the fed has been in force since 1913, happened so rashly in america. or even still, give me an example of when the market wouldn't correct itself when a central bank was in place around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1796%E2%80%931797[^] - Fixed by the Bankruptcy Act of 1800 after 4 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819[^] - Recovered naturally after 4 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837[^] - Recovered naturally after 5 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857[^] - Fixed the same year by drastically reducing tariffs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873[^] - Recovered naturally after 6 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884[^] - Part of a larger recession - Was stopped from getting MUCH worse by a bank bailout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893[^] - Recovered after 3 years because of the Gold Rush Here's the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes[^] All of these i
All of those are the result of irresponsible use of loans and the inability to pay back the loans. Your solution to that is to let this super secretive private bank have absolute power over our currency and do as they please with it. Get real.
-
yeah i saw that... actually, i saw the hearing itself on their cctv. it was a godsend. i really can't wait to tape the rally in boston tomorrow, i swear there are going to be a ton of excited people on the street.
You should post a link of your recordings so we can see.
-
All of those are the result of irresponsible use of loans and the inability to pay back the loans. Your solution to that is to let this super secretive private bank have absolute power over our currency and do as they please with it. Get real.
CSS, go back to your cave... At least josda is debating the issue intelligently. You don't even understand your own position, let alone anyone elses'
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Do I take from your postings that you fully agree with the Austrian School of Economics as well as fully agree with the Chicago School of Economics? Frankly, they are competing theories not complementary. It is impossible to fully accept both. So, would you like to clarify your position, it is a little confused from where I stand.
Both theories advocate a return to a "freedom loving" currency, meaning a hard asset (commodity) standard. Austrians would like to go back to using actual gold coins/silver coins as the real currency, but would love the stepping stone of using certificates in order to exchange the certificate for the commodity at any time. That's the main difference in the philosophy, in my opinion. But both schools do agree, apparently, on the basis of where the inflation came from, and where the booms and bust really do originate. Both say that it comes from the central banking idea. The government can print money out of thin air, based on nothing. And we have since 1971. We were the richest country in the world, and it's been dying down since then. This is not just an accident: Currency is inflated when you push more of it into the economy, and is deflated by pulling it back. You can't easily inflate/deflate when using a hard money. You can even hear Ben Bernanke talk about this at a Congressional hearing held in the summer. youtube: Ron Paul questions Ben Bernanke on definition of inflation 07/21/2009[^] Since the principles of both schools are the same, definitions should also be the same, as stated above. But Bernanke is playing politics and trying to confuse the public. I was taught the definition of inflation back in third grade; how can people just change their minds about a simple definition when out of school? Anyway, I've gone overboard.
-
You should post a link of your recordings so we can see.
-
I could have sworn I had just explained how the boom/bust cycle is unrelated to the Fed... And you seemed to agree with that until you realized the point I was making.
josda1000 wrote:
A) give me an example of when booms and busts, like what you see now since the fed has been in force since 1913, happened so rashly in america. or even still, give me an example of when the market wouldn't correct itself when a central bank was in place around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1796%E2%80%931797[^] - Fixed by the Bankruptcy Act of 1800 after 4 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819[^] - Recovered naturally after 4 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837[^] - Recovered naturally after 5 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857[^] - Fixed the same year by drastically reducing tariffs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873[^] - Recovered naturally after 6 years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884[^] - Part of a larger recession - Was stopped from getting MUCH worse by a bank bailout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893[^] - Recovered after 3 years because of the Gold Rush Here's the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes[^] All of these i
actually in this case, this is speculation on my part, but i believe part of it probably has to do with fractional reserve banking. the only way a bank can fail is if they don't have enough actual currency to pay their holders the share that they want from their accounts... aka a bank run. banks did fail in just about every case you stated, but like i say, the only way that can happen is upon bank runs. banks also fail normally, because of lack of business, but depressions/recessions are caused by many bank failures. i want to make further speculation for each of the cases listed. 1796-1797: This is listed as being caused by speculation on land. This makes sense, because contracts on land were held by the crown, until we were separated from England. So of course, people wanted to expand their land size and claim more, because we were completely free. The market boomed, and in order to keep competitive, businesses selling land would lower interest rates. Once people were settled, the market had to make interest rates higher to keep profits up, therefore creating a bust. This bust was long overdue because we were technically under the Articles of Confederation in 1776, then under the Constitution in 1787. Nine years later, the bust by higher interest rates. Plus, under the Articles, we were paying back France for their help in the war. The Continental was inflated, therefore creating panic as well. Hence the term, "not worth a continental". 1819: The war of 1812 created inflation for the dollar. This is an easy one. When the government wants to go to war, inflation always occurs. During wars, we barely feel it as a population, because it seems that the dollar has actually GAINED in value, because we're not using all of the dollars. We only use some of the dollars; the dollars that we don't use go to the military industrial complex, and we don't touch it. So the boom occurred during the war, the bust happened after it. Notice the war ended in 1815, and then four years later the effects of the war come to fruition, because the dollars actually started going into circulation. The bust is always just a correction in the markets. By the way, the Second Bank of the United States was in place at this time, which was a central bank, just as the Fed is, so I didn't even really have to retort this one in my opinion. 1837: This was the correction (bust) after the Second Bank of the United States was rescinded. 1857: This was an actual FREE market correction. There was no central bank, the
-
CSS, go back to your cave... At least josda is debating the issue intelligently. You don't even understand your own position, let alone anyone elses'
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
Lets get something strait. I understand this issue more than you. You are on the loosing side, always remember that. You are wrong, don't you ever forget that.
-
actually in this case, this is speculation on my part, but i believe part of it probably has to do with fractional reserve banking. the only way a bank can fail is if they don't have enough actual currency to pay their holders the share that they want from their accounts... aka a bank run. banks did fail in just about every case you stated, but like i say, the only way that can happen is upon bank runs. banks also fail normally, because of lack of business, but depressions/recessions are caused by many bank failures. i want to make further speculation for each of the cases listed. 1796-1797: This is listed as being caused by speculation on land. This makes sense, because contracts on land were held by the crown, until we were separated from England. So of course, people wanted to expand their land size and claim more, because we were completely free. The market boomed, and in order to keep competitive, businesses selling land would lower interest rates. Once people were settled, the market had to make interest rates higher to keep profits up, therefore creating a bust. This bust was long overdue because we were technically under the Articles of Confederation in 1776, then under the Constitution in 1787. Nine years later, the bust by higher interest rates. Plus, under the Articles, we were paying back France for their help in the war. The Continental was inflated, therefore creating panic as well. Hence the term, "not worth a continental". 1819: The war of 1812 created inflation for the dollar. This is an easy one. When the government wants to go to war, inflation always occurs. During wars, we barely feel it as a population, because it seems that the dollar has actually GAINED in value, because we're not using all of the dollars. We only use some of the dollars; the dollars that we don't use go to the military industrial complex, and we don't touch it. So the boom occurred during the war, the bust happened after it. Notice the war ended in 1815, and then four years later the effects of the war come to fruition, because the dollars actually started going into circulation. The bust is always just a correction in the markets. By the way, the Second Bank of the United States was in place at this time, which was a central bank, just as the Fed is, so I didn't even really have to retort this one in my opinion. 1837: This was the correction (bust) after the Second Bank of the United States was rescinded. 1857: This was an actual FREE market correction. There was no central bank, the
Well, I'm no economist, so I'm mostly limited to what I can research and deduce. I do agree that bank failures are a result of fractional reserve banking, but how else can a bank make money? If all they do is keep everyone's money in a box, then where would they get the income to stay in business? You'd have to PAY to store your money, the same way you rent a safe deposit box today. So I think it's safe to say that banks in general are reliant on fractional reserve banking, whether the currency is backed by gold or not, and whether we have a Fed or not. As to the specific cases...
josda1000 wrote:
1796-1797: This is listed as being caused by speculation on land. ... Once people were settled, the market had to make interest rates higher to keep profits up, therefore creating a bust.
In your own words, the market caused the bust, not a central bank. But interest rate changes caused by the market are a result of perception... An interest rate on a loan is calculated based on the probability of default (Of the person not being able to pay it back). If the borrower is deemed risky, the interest rate is increased for them. If people think the market will turn south, then it's only natural for interest rates to rise in general. This, in turn, weakens the market... Perception becomes reality.
josda1000 wrote:
1857: This was an actual FREE market correction
The correction was helped along because the government lowered tariffs. The government was seen as "solving the problem." The tariff reduction helped the economics, but I would theorize that the lifting of morale had a larger effect. Honestly, I think if the government claimed to have a magic rock that fixed everything, and enough people were dumb enough to believe it, the same thing would have happened. :)
josda1000 wrote:
1884: This was only a recession according to popular belief ... When the currency is not backed by gold or hard money, there's no reason for belief in it.
But belief doesn't really affect whether there'll be a bank run, does it? A bank run comes from enough people being worried that their money won't be there tomorrow. If they think the bank might fail, they take their money out. It's a result of fractional reserve banking. You make some good points, and as I'm no historian, it's difficult to dispute some of the specifics. I do agr
-
Lets get something strait. I understand this issue more than you. You are on the loosing side, always remember that. You are wrong, don't you ever forget that.
You can claim whatever you want, but your posts speak to the contrary. Make some intelligent deductions instead of quoting AJ's rhetoric, and people might respect you a little more.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Well, I'm no economist, so I'm mostly limited to what I can research and deduce. I do agree that bank failures are a result of fractional reserve banking, but how else can a bank make money? If all they do is keep everyone's money in a box, then where would they get the income to stay in business? You'd have to PAY to store your money, the same way you rent a safe deposit box today. So I think it's safe to say that banks in general are reliant on fractional reserve banking, whether the currency is backed by gold or not, and whether we have a Fed or not. As to the specific cases...
josda1000 wrote:
1796-1797: This is listed as being caused by speculation on land. ... Once people were settled, the market had to make interest rates higher to keep profits up, therefore creating a bust.
In your own words, the market caused the bust, not a central bank. But interest rate changes caused by the market are a result of perception... An interest rate on a loan is calculated based on the probability of default (Of the person not being able to pay it back). If the borrower is deemed risky, the interest rate is increased for them. If people think the market will turn south, then it's only natural for interest rates to rise in general. This, in turn, weakens the market... Perception becomes reality.
josda1000 wrote:
1857: This was an actual FREE market correction
The correction was helped along because the government lowered tariffs. The government was seen as "solving the problem." The tariff reduction helped the economics, but I would theorize that the lifting of morale had a larger effect. Honestly, I think if the government claimed to have a magic rock that fixed everything, and enough people were dumb enough to believe it, the same thing would have happened. :)
josda1000 wrote:
1884: This was only a recession according to popular belief ... When the currency is not backed by gold or hard money, there's no reason for belief in it.
But belief doesn't really affect whether there'll be a bank run, does it? A bank run comes from enough people being worried that their money won't be there tomorrow. If they think the bank might fail, they take their money out. It's a result of fractional reserve banking. You make some good points, and as I'm no historian, it's difficult to dispute some of the specifics. I do agr
Ian Shlasko wrote:
and that the Fed performs a positive service by lessening the amplitude of these waves.
Statistics please... Regardless the Fed is super secretive private bank that has absolute power over our currency and they do as they please with it. Everyone understands why a person like you Ian, would think it is okay for a small group of unelected self-perpetuated bankers to govern with near absolute power, raping and pillaging the masses.
-
Well, I'm no economist, so I'm mostly limited to what I can research and deduce. I do agree that bank failures are a result of fractional reserve banking, but how else can a bank make money? If all they do is keep everyone's money in a box, then where would they get the income to stay in business? You'd have to PAY to store your money, the same way you rent a safe deposit box today. So I think it's safe to say that banks in general are reliant on fractional reserve banking, whether the currency is backed by gold or not, and whether we have a Fed or not. As to the specific cases...
josda1000 wrote:
1796-1797: This is listed as being caused by speculation on land. ... Once people were settled, the market had to make interest rates higher to keep profits up, therefore creating a bust.
In your own words, the market caused the bust, not a central bank. But interest rate changes caused by the market are a result of perception... An interest rate on a loan is calculated based on the probability of default (Of the person not being able to pay it back). If the borrower is deemed risky, the interest rate is increased for them. If people think the market will turn south, then it's only natural for interest rates to rise in general. This, in turn, weakens the market... Perception becomes reality.
josda1000 wrote:
1857: This was an actual FREE market correction
The correction was helped along because the government lowered tariffs. The government was seen as "solving the problem." The tariff reduction helped the economics, but I would theorize that the lifting of morale had a larger effect. Honestly, I think if the government claimed to have a magic rock that fixed everything, and enough people were dumb enough to believe it, the same thing would have happened. :)
josda1000 wrote:
1884: This was only a recession according to popular belief ... When the currency is not backed by gold or hard money, there's no reason for belief in it.
But belief doesn't really affect whether there'll be a bank run, does it? A bank run comes from enough people being worried that their money won't be there tomorrow. If they think the bank might fail, they take their money out. It's a result of fractional reserve banking. You make some good points, and as I'm no historian, it's difficult to dispute some of the specifics. I do agr
I'm not an historian myself, obviously. I'm a programmer, just as you probably are. But to me, a lot of this is just common sense. I should clarify; perception does play into economics a lot. If people see that something is going wrong in a sector, they will back out of it, creating a bust. But this is precisely my point: when interest rates are set higher in a sector, people back out, creating a bust. But the people backing out of a sector is not the real cause of it, is it? it's the interest rate setting. Whether it's a free market setting it because they need more money based on profit, a free market setting it because they see that the loan could be risky, or the central bank setting it "to offset inflation", it is the interest rate setting that creates the bust. the boom is when the interest rate is set lower, whether the free market businesses want to compete or the central bank wants more consuming in that sector. So I should also clarify that I do agree that central banks do not have all of the argument against them; but why not get rid of them, if they are a major cause of it? if the market can correct itself, why have the central banks add to it?
-
You can claim whatever you want, but your posts speak to the contrary. Make some intelligent deductions instead of quoting AJ's rhetoric, and people might respect you a little more.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
I disagree, you are just a Wall Street groupie. Everyone knows that.
-
Both theories advocate a return to a "freedom loving" currency, meaning a hard asset (commodity) standard. Austrians would like to go back to using actual gold coins/silver coins as the real currency, but would love the stepping stone of using certificates in order to exchange the certificate for the commodity at any time. That's the main difference in the philosophy, in my opinion. But both schools do agree, apparently, on the basis of where the inflation came from, and where the booms and bust really do originate. Both say that it comes from the central banking idea. The government can print money out of thin air, based on nothing. And we have since 1971. We were the richest country in the world, and it's been dying down since then. This is not just an accident: Currency is inflated when you push more of it into the economy, and is deflated by pulling it back. You can't easily inflate/deflate when using a hard money. You can even hear Ben Bernanke talk about this at a Congressional hearing held in the summer. youtube: Ron Paul questions Ben Bernanke on definition of inflation 07/21/2009[^] Since the principles of both schools are the same, definitions should also be the same, as stated above. But Bernanke is playing politics and trying to confuse the public. I was taught the definition of inflation back in third grade; how can people just change their minds about a simple definition when out of school? Anyway, I've gone overboard.
-
Some might argue that the Central Banking system creates the market conditions. Others might argue that the Central Banking systems are responding to the requirements of the market - following not creating.
They have the power do to as they please with it. Enough theory and speculation. The fact is that ill gotten monetary powers have been consolidated and misplaced. Decentralization is the key to a more stable economy. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nobody, I repeat, nobody needs to be in a position of power where he/she can just print money out of thin air.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Gold and/or silver coins, maintained by the People under Congress and held by the Treasury. Not maintained AND held by a "central" private bank. Quote Selected Text
Gold and silver would be fantastic. However the central bankers have large stocks of it. They own and control most of the world's wealth. They really got us by the balls. So I think the first step would be to use United States Notes to replace the federal reserve notes. There are a lot of details and steps to liberate ourselves from the grip of the corruptoids but it must be done. No excuses, no bullshit, just do it...the sooner the better.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
No excuses, no bullsh*t, just do it...the sooner the better.
Reminds me of the Slayer lyrics to Divine Intervention: "No mercy, no reason, just PAIN!"