@derryb said:
In case you haven't noticed, your gold price is heavily dependent on the state of the currency it is priced in. It's price >is a reflection of faith in that currency. News concerning dollars is very relevant to PM price movements and a >declining dollar increases PM price. Any threat to or supply/demand issues concerning the dollar are of great >interest to the serious stacker.
Only in the short-term....longer-term, the dollar and gold can move any way they like.
There's a pretty well established inverse relationship between the dollar and gold. Sure there are hiccups.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
@derryb said:
If wages exceeded inflation the middle class would be growing,.
Wage inflation itself has nothing to do with the size of the middle class...except to the extent that if we had a gold standard or a dollar rule that prevented the Fed actions you guys so despise....the middle-class and wages would be CRUSHED during exogenous shocks like 2020.
@derryb said:
If wages exceeded inflation the middle class would be growing,.
Wage inflation itself has nothing to do with the size of the middle class...except to the extent that if we had a gold standard or a dollar rule that prevented the Fed actions you guys so despise....the middle-class and wages would be CRUSHED during exogenous shocks like 2020.
It would be so awesome to relive 1837, or 1873 or 1893. Oh, how much the whiners would whine. One can only dream.
@derryb said:
If wages exceeded inflation the middle class would be growing,.
Wage inflation itself has nothing to do with the size of the middle class...except to the extent that if we had a gold standard or a dollar rule that prevented the Fed actions you guys so despise....the middle-class and wages would be CRUSHED during exogenous shocks like 2020.
When wage inflation does not keep up with price inflation then quality of life must suffer. This has a direct affect on whether middle class grows or shrinks. If you can't understand this then you are lost.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
@derryb said:
When wage inflation does not keep up with price inflation then quality of life must suffer. This has a direct affect on >whether middle class grows or shrinks. If you can't understand this then you are lost.
One of us is lost, but it's not me.
My father's friends from the old neighborhood were blue-collar. Sometimes they got wage hikes over inflation, some times a bit less.
Here's what you forget or don't know: it's not only wages and assets, but LIABILITIES that matter. Most of my father's friends bought homes that cost $20,000 in the late-1960's and had 6% mortgages. A decade later, those homes cost $60,000 and mortgage rates were 10%.....a few years later the home cost $125,000 and mortgage rates were 14%.
Inflation STOLE money from the big bad banks...and gave it to debtors. Their mortgage payments including escrow taxes, insurance, etc...were $125-$150 a month. Eventually they sold their homes for $200,000 or $350,000 or even $500,000 a year. My aunt's home in Northern NJ she paid $16,000 in 1963. It's worth $700,000 today. Their mortgage payment was $85 a month.
Inflation hurts the middle class, huh ? Big Bad Banks always win, huh ?
Here's what you forget or don't know: Inflation is a hidden tax.
Skyrocketing home prices are irrelevant if one sells the inflated house and has to turn around and buy a different inflated house in order to have a place to live. Being rich on paper only counts if those riches don't have to be replaced when they are cashed in.
Liabilities? Simply a personal choice. Inflation? No choice.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
@derryb said:
When wage inflation does not keep up with price inflation then quality of life must suffer. This has a direct affect on >whether middle class grows or shrinks. If you can't understand this then you are lost.
One of us is lost, but it's not me.
My father's friends from the old neighborhood were blue-collar. Sometimes they got wage hikes over inflation, some times a bit less.
Here's what you forget or don't know: it's not only wages and assets, but LIABILITIES that matter. Most of my father's friends bought homes that cost $20,000 in the late-1960's and had 6% mortgages. A decade later, those homes cost $60,000 and mortgage rates were 10%.....a few years later the home cost $125,000 and mortgage rates were 14%.
Inflation STOLE money from the big bad banks...and gave it to debtors. Their mortgage payments including escrow taxes, insurance, etc...were $125-$150 a month. Eventually they sold their homes for $200,000 or $350,000 or even $500,000 a year. My aunt's home in Northern NJ she paid $16,000 in 1963. It's worth $700,000 today. Their mortgage payment was $85 a month.
Inflation hurts the middle class, huh ? Big Bad Banks always win, huh ?
William Jennings Bryan is happy.
.
You make it sound like banks are the victims here. But that would be an absolute lie.
If a bank's investments and loan portfolio falls behind inflation, then that is entirely the bank's fault for making poor choices.
@dcarr said:
You make it sound like banks are the victims here. But that would be an absolute lie.
If a bank's investments and loan portfolio falls behind inflation, then that is entirely the bank's fault for making >poor choices.
No bank foresaw double-digit inflation in the late-1960's.
The voters who facilitate this nonsense, year after year.
I don't believe this to be the case. Apparently, there are lots of people who are saying, "I didn't vote for this." So, it's not really the voters who are running anything.
No bank foresaw double-digit inflation in the late-1960's.
If I remember correctly, we didn't have high inflation rates until the mid-1970s.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
The voters who facilitate this nonsense, year after year.
The voters are not stupid, they know what is going on. They have simply surrendered because they have no acceptable, alternative choice on the ballot. Short of revolution nothing will change when it comes to the corruption in all of the chambers. What is needed is a "Clean House" political party that means what it says.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
@derryb said:
What is needed is a "Clean House" political party that means what it says.
And what would they do ? What would be their policies ?
For starters:
term limits
outlaw lobbying
eliminate wasteful spending
return the power of going to war to congress
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
So you have neophytes unfamiliar with foreign leaders and not knowledgeable about domestic issues, monetary policy, etc ? That's a prescription for disaster.
outlaw lobbying
Really ? So you don't want the American people to be able to petition the government as the Constitution allows ? Do you want newspapers outlawed, too ?
eliminate wasteful spending
Define "wasteful" ? I agree spending limitations can be implemented but you are mostly talking about entitlements and healthcare.
return the power of going to war to congress
Congress controls the purse strings and has a say but the President is the only leader the entire country votes on. You HAVE to entrust 1 man or woman to make that decision. What if Congress is in recess and the country was attacked -- you want to wait for everybody to get to Washington, DC ? Zoom video session ? What if it's down from an EMP pulse ?
So you have neophytes unfamiliar with foreign leaders and not knowledgeable about domestic issues, monetary policy, etc ? That's a prescription for disaster.
While experience counts for something look where 20+ years in congress has gotten us. A two or three term limit would allow for experience to remain in the halls at all times. Do you really want a congressman with 20+ years of feeding at the trough to keep his day job?
outlaw lobbying
Really ? So you don't want the American people to be able to petition the government as the Constitution allows ? Do you want newspapers outlawed, too ?
American people petitioning their government is not lobbying. When they have corporations do it on their behalf (unions?) it becomes lobbying.
eliminate wasteful spending
Define "wasteful" ? I agree spending limitations can be implemented but you are mostly talking about entitlements and healthcare.
Wasteful spending is any spending outside the US borders that does not provide a direct service/benefit to American taxpayers.
return the power of going to war to congress
Congress controls the purse strings and has a say but the President is the only leader the entire country votes on. You HAVE to entrust 1 man or woman to make that decision. What if Congress is in recess and the country was attacked -- you want to wait for everybody to get to Washington, DC ? Zoom video session ? What if it's down from an EMP pulse ?
Look where presidential proclamations of war have gotten us - continuous and numerous wars for decades. And that's not counting the expensive wars we fund but require other countries to send their sons and daughters as cannon fodder. I take it you are a warmonger. LOL
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
@derryb said:
While experience counts for something look where 20+ years in congress has gotten us. A two or three term limit >would allow for experience to remain in the halls at all times. Do you really want a congressman with 20+ years of >feeding at the trough to keep his day job?
Most elected officials can earn far MORE in the private sector -- as lawyers or businessmen -- then they do as representatives earning maybe $175,000 or whatever.
American people petitioning their government is not lobbying. When they have corporations do it on their behalf (unions?) it becomes lobbying.
So what ? What's the difference ?
If I work for GM or a steel company and my company lobbies on my behalf to prevent cheap imports, good or bad for the country, how is that different than if I do it myself ? There isn't.
Wasteful spending is any spending outside the US borders that does not provide a direct service/benefit to >American taxpayers.
That is not a definition of wasterful spending. Are you opposed to any foreign aid ? What if China or the EU invest and get the inside track on a country ?
Look where presidential proclamations of war have gotten us - continuous and numerous wars for decades. And >that's not counting the expensive wars we fund but require other countries to send their sons and daughters as >cannon fodder. I take it you are a warmonger. LOL
Why don't you tell us which wars from WW II on you support and oppose. Ditto alliances. Show us what an anti-war mongerer thinks.
Go down the list..... WW II (before Pearl Harbor and after)....Korea....Vietnam....Cold War....Iraq War 1....Bosnia....Iraq War II....Afghanistan....Ukraine....NATO...SEATO....CENTO...etc.
@derryb said:
While experience counts for something look where 20+ years in congress has gotten us. A two or three term limit >would allow for experience to remain in the halls at all times. Do you really want a congressman with 20+ years of >feeding at the trough to keep his day job?
Most elected officials can earn far MORE in the private sector -- as lawyers or businessmen -- then they do as representatives earning maybe $175,000 or whatever.
Most elected officials earn far more than their federal salary. Please explain how many become millionaires AFTER getting elected and then voting in favor of their corporate lobbyist
American people petitioning their government is not lobbying. When they have corporations do it on their behalf (unions?) it becomes lobbying.
So what ? What's the difference ?
The difference? The money that ends up in the pockets (campaign coffers) of politicians and where it came from?
If I work for GM or a steel company and my company lobbies on my behalf to prevent cheap imports, good or bad for the country, how is that different than if I do it myself ? There isn't.
Again, money does the talking and makes the decisions.
Wasteful spending is any spending outside the US borders that does not provide a direct service/benefit to >American taxpayers.
That is not a definition of wasterful spending. Are you opposed to any foreign aid ? What if China or the EU invest and get the inside track on a country ?
Money that is not spent for the direct benefit of Americans is wasted taxpayer money.
Look where presidential proclamations of war have gotten us - continuous and numerous wars for decades. And >that's not counting the expensive wars we fund but require other countries to send their sons and daughters as >cannon fodder. I take it you are a warmonger. LOL
Why don't you tell us which wars from WW II on you support and oppose. Ditto alliances. Show us what an anti-war mongerer thinks.
No wars since WWII have been in defense of this country. They have been to put puppets in power, to attempt revenge on perceived threats, to punish those who threaten the petrodollar and to sell the goods of American weapons producers.
Are you really this naive?
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
@derryb said:
Most elected officials earn far more than their federal salary. Please explain how many become millionaires AFTER >getting elected and then voting in favor of their corporate lobbyist
It's not that hard to be a millionaire. Anybody saving some $$$ with a home in the NY area is a millionaire. Most teachers are millionaires in this area.
Give us an example of voting for a corporate lobbyist. Most elected officials vote for social welfare pork that buys votes, not indirectly helping corporations.
Again, money does the talking and makes the decisions.
So what ? Shouldn't a company that employs thousands have the right to say what is good for it and what will hurt jobs ?
Money that is not spent for the direct benefit of Americans is wasted taxpayer money.
So indirectly benefitting the Ameerican people is a waste ?
No wars since WWII have been in defense of this country. They have been to put puppets in power, to attempt >revenge on perceived threats, to punish those who threaten the petrodollar and to sell the goods of American >weapons producers. Are you really this naive?
No, but you seem ignorant of basic American history. You remind me of a blowhard who insisted the only reason we were in Vietnam was to protect Exxon's oil interests. When I informed him Vietnam HAD no oil deposits, he blamed Coca-Cola.
I get it - in your world it’s the unions vs. “democracy”. The unions aren’t much different than any other large, corrupt organization, but the unions aren’t running the financial system & government policy. The Fed is.
Gov.com never misses a chance to tax ordinary citizens, but the politicians will never bite the hand of big money donors such as the banking cartel or the unions- , so taxing political donations is just a pipe dream.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
I get it - in your world it’s the unions vs. “democracy”. The unions aren’t much different than any other large, >corrupt organization, but the unions aren’t running the financial system & government policy. The Fed is.
Gov.com never misses a chance to tax ordinary citizens, but the politicians will never bite the hand of big money >donors such as the banking cartel or the unions- , so taxing political donations is just a pipe dream.
The Fed is transparent and accountable, everything they do is public within minutes. That's not the case with those who feed off the government teat.
Banks aren't Top 10 in terms of donors and not even Top 50 for many individually. Again, you haven't done the research.
Also...a "cartel" isn't 4,000 institutions that employ a few million Americans.
@jmski52 said:
The Fed isn’t being audited. So much for transparency. And as for your “research”, are you privy to their off-the books contributions? Obviously not.
@jmski52 said:
The Fed isn’t being audited. So much for transparency. And as for your “research”, are you privy to their off-the > >books contributions? Obviously not.
No I'm not....there are none.
The Fed is audited every day by the BIS and GAO and the markets. Not sure what you expect to find....since you clearly don't understand monetary economics, I don't know what you would be looking for.
@jmski52 said:
Oh, where is this audit report that you speak of? Surely it’s being reported somewhere.
An audit would be looking for evidence of criminality, such as bribes, payoffs, market manipulation…….
Why don't you tell us about your "reasonable doubt" on those issues ?
You're just making nonsense up or regurgitating slop from conspiracy websites. No serious investor or financial commentator believes what you are spewing.
Where is the report auditing the Fed? You’re the one saying that they’re being audited every day.
You tell me - what’s the purpose of an audit?
Why isn’t the privately-owned Fed subject to an audit from top to bottom, like every other private enterprise can be?
Surely the government has an abiding interest in certifying that such a large amount of money is being managed properly - especially when potential tax issues could be involved, wouldn’t you agree?
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
Where is the report auditing the Fed? You’re the one saying that they’re being audited every day.
You tell me - what’s the purpose of an audit?
Come on.....the Fed releases daily, weekly, and monthly data on the balance sheet all the time. They've been doing it for YEARS. Data on the System Open Market Account from the NY Fed (SOMA) is available on the NY Fed's website.
This is standard stuff going back to the late-1970's. Not sure why you don't know about it.
Why isn’t the privately-owned Fed subject to an audit from top to bottom, like every other private enterprise can >be?
It's not privately owned. You are mistaken.
The Fed doesn't need to be audited. It published tons of data. An audit is meaningless. Would you then want the auditor to be audited ?
Surely the government has an abiding interest in certifying that such a large amount of money is being managed > >properly - especially when potential tax issues could be involved, wouldn’t you agree?
There are no tax issues. The Fed is an agent of the U.S. Treasury.
There is no "money being managed." You clearly haven't taken any banking or monetary courses.
@jmski52 said:
Where is the report auditing the Fed? You’re the one saying that they’re being audited every day.
You tell me - what’s the purpose of an audit?
Come on.....the Fed releases daily, weekly, and monthly data on the balance sheet all the time. They've been doing it for YEARS. Data on the System Open Market Account from the NY Fed (SOMA) is available on the NY Fed's website.
This is standard stuff going back to the late-1970's. Not sure why you don't know about it.
Why isn’t the privately-owned Fed subject to an audit from top to bottom, like every other private enterprise can >be?
It's not privately owned. You are mistaken.
The Fed doesn't need to be audited. It published tons of data. An audit is meaningless. Would you then want the auditor to be audited ?
Surely the government has an abiding interest in certifying that such a large amount of money is being managed > >properly - especially when potential tax issues could be involved, wouldn’t you agree?
There are no tax issues. The Fed is an agent of the U.S. Treasury.
There is no "money being managed." You clearly haven't taken any banking or monetary courses.
.
Are you denying that the Federal Reserve has member/owner banks that hold "stock" in the Federal Reserve Corporation and sometimes receive dividends based on that stock ?
@dcarr said:
Are you denying that the Federal Reserve has member/owner banks that hold "stock" in the Federal Reserve >Corporation and sometimes receive dividends based on that stock ?
Do you understand CEREMONIAL investments ? In an average year the Fed makes about $50 billion in profits. Divide that by 4,000 banks assuming they paid it all out. It's nothing. They pay out 6% and it goes to the surplus capital accounts at the Fed, FHLBB, etc.
I have been listening to bank earnings CC's for 30+ years. I have NEVER heard dividends or potential dividends from any Fed bank or GSE mentioned on an earnings call relative to a shortfall or an earnings surprise. Earthquakes rank higher in mentions.
@dcarr said:
Are you denying that the Federal Reserve has member/owner banks that hold "stock" in the Federal Reserve >Corporation and sometimes receive dividends based on that stock ?
Do you understand CEREMONIAL investments ? In an average year the Fed makes about $50 billion in profits. Divide that by 4,000 banks assuming they paid it all out. It's nothing. They pay out 6% and it goes to the surplus capital accounts at the Fed, FHLBB, etc.
I have been listening to bank earnings CC's for 30+ years. I have NEVER heard dividends or potential dividends from any Fed bank or GSE mentioned on an earnings call relative to a shortfall or an earnings surprise. Earthquakes rank higher in mentions.
$50 billion (every year) isn't "nothing", and it is not spread equally among 4,000 banks - some of the big banks get a much larger share than the smaller banks.
You claim that the FED is not "privately owned".
But you did not deny that it has "shareholders" which are big bank corporations.
If the term "privately owned" doesn't apply, then "corporate owned" it is.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
$5000 gold ? Silly as $18 silver. Despite education, you guys making predictions about metals, miserably fail as >clairvoyants.
Not a prediction so much as a long-term forecast based on supply and demand fundamentals. If it happens, I would expect it to happen in the 2035-2040 time frame.
@dcarr said:
$50 billion (every year) isn't "nothing", and it is not spread equally among 4,000 banks - some of the big banks get a >much larger share than the smaller banks.
It's not even mentioned in earnings calls, and since the SEC watches those, I would think if any banks were leaving out material income factors they'd be in trouble. Your statement that this is big is false. Profits are kept at the Fed but credited to the banks against surplus capital.
You claim that the FED is not "privately owned".
But you did not deny that it has "shareholders" which are big bank corporations.
If the term "privately owned" doesn't apply, then "corporate owned" it is.
You're doing it again, splitting hairs, talking semantics. Monetary policy is independent of the shareholders.
The Green Bay Packers have shareholders. Do they get to pick the GM or Coach or call the plays ? No....it's ceremonial.
@dcarr said:
$50 billion (every year) isn't "nothing", and it is not spread equally among 4,000 banks - some of the big banks get a >much larger share than the smaller banks.
It's not even mentioned in earnings calls, and since the SEC watches those, I would think if any banks were leaving out material income factors they'd be in trouble. Your statement that this is big is false. Profits are kept at the Fed but credited to the banks against surplus capital.
You claim that the FED is not "privately owned".
But you did not deny that it has "shareholders" which are big bank corporations.
If the term "privately owned" doesn't apply, then "corporate owned" it is.
You're doing it again, splitting hairs, talking semantics. Monetary policy is independent of the shareholders.
The Green Bay Packers have shareholders. Do they get to pick the GM or Coach or call the plays ? No....it's ceremonial.
Fed profits and benefits are not independent of the shareholders.
If you are saying that the corporate ownership of the Federal Reserve Bank is only "ceremonial", then they would have no issues in giving up that "ownership", right ? Propose a nationalization of the Federal Reserve and we will see how much they protest.
If 51% of the Green Bay Packers shareholders get together and decide to fire the General Manager (or anyone else in the organization), they can do that.
The Federal Reserve Bank is corporate-owned. The owners influence its actions.
@dcarr said:
If 51% of the Green Bay Packers shareholders get together and decide to fire the General Manager (or anyone else >in the organization), they can do that.
No they can't. Only the Board can do that and the Board -- and control person -- have to be approved by the NFL Office and Commissioner.
The Federal Reserve Bank is corporate-owned. The owners influence its actions.
Again, no evidence for this statement and decades of experience of the Fed doing what bankers do NOT like -- like right now. You simply say stuff that has no basis in reality in order to justify false assumptions.
@dcarr said:
If 51% of the Green Bay Packers shareholders get together and decide to fire the General Manager (or anyone else >in the organization), they can do that.
No they can't. Only the Board can do that and the Board -- and control person -- have to be approved by the NFL Office and Commissioner.
The Federal Reserve Bank is corporate-owned. The owners influence its actions.
Again, no evidence for this statement and decades of experience of the Fed doing what bankers do NOT like -- like right now. You simply say stuff that has no basis in reality in order to justify false assumptions.
The Green Bay Packers are the only publicly-owned NFL team. So it does operate like a corporation, with a board of directors.
But all other NFL teams are privately-owned and the owners of those teams can hire and fire General Managers at will.
Evidence that the Federal Reserve is influenced by its member/owner banks can be found by looking at which financial institutions were rescued in 2008 and which were not. Prior to the 2008 financial implosion the banks were all too happy to rake in a lot of money. Had the Federal Reserve been truly independent, they would have stopped the party much earlier, before it got out of hand.
Evidence that the Federal Reserve is influenced by its member/owner banks can be found by looking at which financial institutions were rescued in 2008 and which were not.
This, in addition to what Yellen told Congress a couple months ago when she was asked if a regional bank in Oklahoma would be afforded the same consideration as the large institutions that she fronts for. Her answer was , "no, only my favorite systemically important buddies will get help"
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
This, in addition to what Yellen told Congress a couple months ago when she was asked if a regional bank in >Oklahoma would be afforded the same consideration as the large institutions that she fronts for. Her answer was , >"no, only my favorite systemically important buddies will get help"
She never said that. Let's see the quote.
There is a difference in GSIBs and a small thrift that has 4 branches and a market capitalization of $200 MM. I invest in and have covered those banks in the past. Huge difference.
As for 2008: Bear Stearns got "rescued" for $2/share (after trading at $120 only a few months earlier). Lehman Brothers went to $0/share.
Comments
There's a pretty well established inverse relationship between the dollar and gold. Sure there are hiccups.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Wage inflation itself has nothing to do with the size of the middle class...except to the extent that if we had a gold standard or a dollar rule that prevented the Fed actions you guys so despise....the middle-class and wages would be CRUSHED during exogenous shocks like 2020.
It would be so awesome to relive 1837, or 1873 or 1893. Oh, how much the whiners would whine. One can only dream.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
When wage inflation does not keep up with price inflation then quality of life must suffer. This has a direct affect on whether middle class grows or shrinks. If you can't understand this then you are lost.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
One of us is lost, but it's not me.
My father's friends from the old neighborhood were blue-collar. Sometimes they got wage hikes over inflation, some times a bit less.
Here's what you forget or don't know: it's not only wages and assets, but LIABILITIES that matter. Most of my father's friends bought homes that cost $20,000 in the late-1960's and had 6% mortgages. A decade later, those homes cost $60,000 and mortgage rates were 10%.....a few years later the home cost $125,000 and mortgage rates were 14%.
Inflation STOLE money from the big bad banks...and gave it to debtors. Their mortgage payments including escrow taxes, insurance, etc...were $125-$150 a month. Eventually they sold their homes for $200,000 or $350,000 or even $500,000 a year. My aunt's home in Northern NJ she paid $16,000 in 1963. It's worth $700,000 today. Their mortgage payment was $85 a month.
Inflation hurts the middle class, huh ? Big Bad Banks always win, huh ?
William Jennings Bryan is happy.
Here's what you forget or don't know: Inflation is a hidden tax.
Skyrocketing home prices are irrelevant if one sells the inflated house and has to turn around and buy a different inflated house in order to have a place to live. Being rich on paper only counts if those riches don't have to be replaced when they are cashed in.
Liabilities? Simply a personal choice. Inflation? No choice.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
And every asset in the universe be BOOMIN! Well, everything cept for the gutter. Keep on inflating. RGDS!
Total Debt is also at an all-time high. So, who's running the show?
I knew it would happen.
@jmski52 asked “Total Debt is also at an all-time high. So, who's running the show?”
The voters who facilitate this nonsense, year after year.
.
You make it sound like banks are the victims here. But that would be an absolute lie.
If a bank's investments and loan portfolio falls behind inflation, then that is entirely the bank's fault for making poor choices.
.
No bank foresaw double-digit inflation in the late-1960's.
The voters who facilitate this nonsense, year after year.
I don't believe this to be the case. Apparently, there are lots of people who are saying, "I didn't vote for this." So, it's not really the voters who are running anything.
No bank foresaw double-digit inflation in the late-1960's.
If I remember correctly, we didn't have high inflation rates until the mid-1970s.
I knew it would happen.
4% in 1967 and 7% in 1971-72. 12% in 1974 and 15% in 1980.
The voters who facilitate this nonsense, year after year.
The voters are not stupid, they know what is going on. They have simply surrendered because they have no acceptable, alternative choice on the ballot. Short of revolution nothing will change when it comes to the corruption in all of the chambers. What is needed is a "Clean House" political party that means what it says.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
And what would they do ? What would be their policies ?
Bulgaria Hedge need not apply. SeMPeR! I'm happy with the current party, economy is BOOMIN! LG!!
For starters:
term limits
outlaw lobbying
eliminate wasteful spending
return the power of going to war to congress
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Drain the swamp!! Hahaha. Hahaha
People are such suckers.
There will never be a "clean slate party" because the actions necessary would indeed herald the "good old days".
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
So you have neophytes unfamiliar with foreign leaders and not knowledgeable about domestic issues, monetary policy, etc ? That's a prescription for disaster.
Really ? So you don't want the American people to be able to petition the government as the Constitution allows ? Do you want newspapers outlawed, too ?
Define "wasteful" ? I agree spending limitations can be implemented but you are mostly talking about entitlements and healthcare.
Congress controls the purse strings and has a say but the President is the only leader the entire country votes on. You HAVE to entrust 1 man or woman to make that decision. What if Congress is in recess and the country was attacked -- you want to wait for everybody to get to Washington, DC ? Zoom video session ? What if it's down from an EMP pulse ?
.
People, ok.
Corporations, no.
.
While experience counts for something look where 20+ years in congress has gotten us. A two or three term limit would allow for experience to remain in the halls at all times. Do you really want a congressman with 20+ years of feeding at the trough to keep his day job?
American people petitioning their government is not lobbying. When they have corporations do it on their behalf (unions?) it becomes lobbying.
Wasteful spending is any spending outside the US borders that does not provide a direct service/benefit to American taxpayers.
Look where presidential proclamations of war have gotten us - continuous and numerous wars for decades. And that's not counting the expensive wars we fund but require other countries to send their sons and daughters as cannon fodder. I take it you are a warmonger. LOL
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
How about unions ? What about media corporations lobbying through their editorial pages and reporting ?
How about a private corporation ? What about a family-owned business ? What about an S-corporation ?
Your proposal to single out "corporations" -- which is just a way of conducting business -- is unconstitutional and irrelevant.
Corporations are just groups of people of varying sizes.
Most elected officials can earn far MORE in the private sector -- as lawyers or businessmen -- then they do as representatives earning maybe $175,000 or whatever.
So what ? What's the difference ?
If I work for GM or a steel company and my company lobbies on my behalf to prevent cheap imports, good or bad for the country, how is that different than if I do it myself ? There isn't.
That is not a definition of wasterful spending. Are you opposed to any foreign aid ? What if China or the EU invest and get the inside track on a country ?
Why don't you tell us which wars from WW II on you support and oppose. Ditto alliances. Show us what an anti-war mongerer thinks.
Go down the list..... WW II (before Pearl Harbor and after)....Korea....Vietnam....Cold War....Iraq War 1....Bosnia....Iraq War II....Afghanistan....Ukraine....NATO...SEATO....CENTO...etc.
Most elected officials earn far more than their federal salary. Please explain how many become millionaires AFTER getting elected and then voting in favor of their corporate lobbyist
The difference? The money that ends up in the pockets (campaign coffers) of politicians and where it came from?
Again, money does the talking and makes the decisions.
Money that is not spent for the direct benefit of Americans is wasted taxpayer money.
No wars since WWII have been in defense of this country. They have been to put puppets in power, to attempt revenge on perceived threats, to punish those who threaten the petrodollar and to sell the goods of American weapons producers.
Are you really this naive?
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
It's not that hard to be a millionaire. Anybody saving some $$$ with a home in the NY area is a millionaire. Most teachers are millionaires in this area.
Give us an example of voting for a corporate lobbyist. Most elected officials vote for social welfare pork that buys votes, not indirectly helping corporations.
So what ? Shouldn't a company that employs thousands have the right to say what is good for it and what will hurt jobs ?
So indirectly benefitting the Ameerican people is a waste ?
No, but you seem ignorant of basic American history. You remind me of a blowhard who insisted the only reason we were in Vietnam was to protect Exxon's oil interests. When I informed him Vietnam HAD no oil deposits, he blamed Coca-Cola.
A 90% tax on all political contributions would be a great place to start.
I knew it would happen.
How would that improve ANYTHING ?
Would that apply to government workers ? How about unions which represent government workers ?
If the Teamsters send 100 "volunteers" to man phone banks and knock on doors, is that a "political contribution" ?
I get it - in your world it’s the unions vs. “democracy”. The unions aren’t much different than any other large, corrupt organization, but the unions aren’t running the financial system & government policy. The Fed is.
Gov.com never misses a chance to tax ordinary citizens, but the politicians will never bite the hand of big money donors such as the banking cartel or the unions- , so taxing political donations is just a pipe dream.
I knew it would happen.
The Fed is transparent and accountable, everything they do is public within minutes. That's not the case with those who feed off the government teat.
Banks aren't Top 10 in terms of donors and not even Top 50 for many individually. Again, you haven't done the research.
Also...a "cartel" isn't 4,000 institutions that employ a few million Americans.
The Fed isn’t being audited. So much for transparency. And as for your “research”, are you privy to their off-the books contributions? Obviously not.
I knew it would happen.
What would such an audit reveal?
Have you ever been audited?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
No I'm not....there are none.
The Fed is audited every day by the BIS and GAO and the markets. Not sure what you expect to find....since you clearly don't understand monetary economics, I don't know what you would be looking for.
Oh, where is this audit report that you speak of? Surely it’s being reported somewhere.
An audit would be looking for evidence of criminality, such as bribes, payoffs, market manipulation…….
Maybe 87,000 new armed IRS agents could begin their careers there.
Why the Fed is never audited when they are at the center of the financial system should concern everyone - even you!
I knew it would happen.
Why don't you tell us about your "reasonable doubt" on those issues ?
You're just making nonsense up or regurgitating slop from conspiracy websites. No serious investor or financial commentator believes what you are spewing.
You ever taken an economics or finance course ?
Where is the report auditing the Fed? You’re the one saying that they’re being audited every day.
You tell me - what’s the purpose of an audit?
Why isn’t the privately-owned Fed subject to an audit from top to bottom, like every other private enterprise can be?
Surely the government has an abiding interest in certifying that such a large amount of money is being managed properly - especially when potential tax issues could be involved, wouldn’t you agree?
I knew it would happen.
Come on.....the Fed releases daily, weekly, and monthly data on the balance sheet all the time. They've been doing it for YEARS. Data on the System Open Market Account from the NY Fed (SOMA) is available on the NY Fed's website.
This is standard stuff going back to the late-1970's. Not sure why you don't know about it.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/soma-holdings
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/chapter-1-balance-sheet.htm#:~:text=The balance sheet, form FR,deposits—Miscellaneous," and certain
It's not privately owned. You are mistaken.
The Fed doesn't need to be audited. It published tons of data. An audit is meaningless. Would you then want the auditor to be audited ?
There are no tax issues. The Fed is an agent of the U.S. Treasury.
There is no "money being managed." You clearly haven't taken any banking or monetary courses.
.
Are you denying that the Federal Reserve has member/owner banks that hold "stock" in the Federal Reserve Corporation and sometimes receive dividends based on that stock ?
.
$5000 gold ? Silly as $18 silver. Despite education, you guys making predictions about metals, miserably fail as clairvoyants.
Do you understand CEREMONIAL investments ? In an average year the Fed makes about $50 billion in profits. Divide that by 4,000 banks assuming they paid it all out. It's nothing. They pay out 6% and it goes to the surplus capital accounts at the Fed, FHLBB, etc.
I have been listening to bank earnings CC's for 30+ years. I have NEVER heard dividends or potential dividends from any Fed bank or GSE mentioned on an earnings call relative to a shortfall or an earnings surprise. Earthquakes rank higher in mentions.
$50 billion (every year) isn't "nothing", and it is not spread equally among 4,000 banks - some of the big banks get a much larger share than the smaller banks.
You claim that the FED is not "privately owned".
But you did not deny that it has "shareholders" which are big bank corporations.
If the term "privately owned" doesn't apply, then "corporate owned" it is.
You will see $18 gutter again......and again.......and again.....and again. See that wasn't too hard. You are finally learning. RGDS!
Not a prediction so much as a long-term forecast based on supply and demand fundamentals. If it happens, I would expect it to happen in the 2035-2040 time frame.
It's not even mentioned in earnings calls, and since the SEC watches those, I would think if any banks were leaving out material income factors they'd be in trouble. Your statement that this is big is false. Profits are kept at the Fed but credited to the banks against surplus capital.
You're doing it again, splitting hairs, talking semantics. Monetary policy is independent of the shareholders.
The Green Bay Packers have shareholders. Do they get to pick the GM or Coach or call the plays ? No....it's ceremonial.
Fed profits and benefits are not independent of the shareholders.
If you are saying that the corporate ownership of the Federal Reserve Bank is only "ceremonial", then they would have no issues in giving up that "ownership", right ? Propose a nationalization of the Federal Reserve and we will see how much they protest.
If 51% of the Green Bay Packers shareholders get together and decide to fire the General Manager (or anyone else in the organization), they can do that.
The Federal Reserve Bank is corporate-owned. The owners influence its actions.
No they can't. Only the Board can do that and the Board -- and control person -- have to be approved by the NFL Office and Commissioner.
Again, no evidence for this statement and decades of experience of the Fed doing what bankers do NOT like -- like right now. You simply say stuff that has no basis in reality in order to justify false assumptions.
The Green Bay Packers are the only publicly-owned NFL team. So it does operate like a corporation, with a board of directors.
But all other NFL teams are privately-owned and the owners of those teams can hire and fire General Managers at will.
Evidence that the Federal Reserve is influenced by its member/owner banks can be found by looking at which financial institutions were rescued in 2008 and which were not. Prior to the 2008 financial implosion the banks were all too happy to rake in a lot of money. Had the Federal Reserve been truly independent, they would have stopped the party much earlier, before it got out of hand.
Evidence that the Federal Reserve is influenced by its member/owner banks can be found by looking at which financial institutions were rescued in 2008 and which were not.
This, in addition to what Yellen told Congress a couple months ago when she was asked if a regional bank in Oklahoma would be afforded the same consideration as the large institutions that she fronts for. Her answer was , "no, only my favorite systemically important buddies will get help"
I knew it would happen.
She never said that. Let's see the quote.
There is a difference in GSIBs and a small thrift that has 4 branches and a market capitalization of $200 MM. I invest in and have covered those banks in the past. Huge difference.
As for 2008: Bear Stearns got "rescued" for $2/share (after trading at $120 only a few months earlier). Lehman Brothers went to $0/share.
Yeah, great bailouts.
Oppenheimer technical forecast for gold for 2024:
That is my point.
Outsiders like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers do not get the same benefits as major member/owner banks of the Federal Reserve.