@jmski52 said: No apatite for taking on risk. Loss of innovation. No incentive. Mediocrity at best.
BS. All it means is that entrepreneurs would be required to have solid business plans that would attract investors with REAL money instead of cartel banking-created fiat. And gov.com politicians wouldn't be in the business of creating winners & losers or handing out fiat in return for votes.
well said
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
@derryb said:
Why does that value have to be high if it fully supports the population at a lower value? There are some very comfortable countries to live in that have relatively low GDP. When it comes to GDP, exactly why does size matter?
Please name those countries and explain how they are similar to the USA.
Are you thinking of Norway, or Luxembourg or Qatar?
I'm thinking more like Fiji, Aruba, Belize, St. Kitts, Maldives, Bahamas and many more. I said nothing about "similar to the USA," I said "very comfortable countries to live in." GDP is not the sole indicator of quality of life.
Those are great places for retired American folk who are able to double-dip on govt entitlements. 30% of the population of Belize and Fiji live in poverty.
So Belize and Fiji are "great places for retired American folk." I was correct in saying that GDP is not THE measure of a nation's quality of life.
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
@derryb said:
Why does that value have to be high if it fully supports the population at a lower value? There are some very comfortable countries to live in that have relatively low GDP. When it comes to GDP, exactly why does size matter?
Please name those countries and explain how they are similar to the USA.
Are you thinking of Norway, or Luxembourg or Qatar?
I'm thinking more like Fiji, Aruba, Belize, St. Kitts, Maldives, Bahamas and many more. I said nothing about "similar to the USA," I said "very comfortable countries to live in." GDP is not the sole indicator of quality of life.
Those are great places for retired American folk who are able to double-dip on govt entitlements. 30% of the population of Belize and Fiji live in poverty.
Looks like you've taken a cruise to the Caribbean and I'm sure you haven't been to Fiji or Maldives (unless part of your Govt paid cruise while in the Navy) so I'm sure youre experience and knowledge of those countries is extensive.
When are you moving?
BTW--the USA is a comfortable place to live in.
again you are mistaken, I was never in the navy. Why move, I could care less about GDP, you're the one so concerned about how important it is. Can't say that it affects my quality of life in any way. I'm 100% financially independent.
Dude, youve mentioned "GDP" many more times than I have. I mentioned it once in response to dcarr. Why the gaslighting?
@derryb said:
Why does that value have to be high if it fully supports the population at a lower value? There are some very comfortable countries to live in that have relatively low GDP. When it comes to GDP, exactly why does size matter?
Please name those countries and explain how they are similar to the USA.
Are you thinking of Norway, or Luxembourg or Qatar?
I'm thinking more like Fiji, Aruba, Belize, St. Kitts, Maldives, Bahamas and many more. I said nothing about "similar to the USA," I said "very comfortable countries to live in." GDP is not the sole indicator of quality of life.
Those are great places for retired American folk who are able to double-dip on govt entitlements. 30% of the population of Belize and Fiji live in poverty.
So Belize and Fiji are "great places for retired American folk." I was correct in saying that GDP is not THE measure of a nation's quality of life.
I would never live there. Aint no place a great as the USA. Nearly 1/3rd of the natural citizens of those countries live in poverty.
You are debating with yourself about GDP and quality of life. I was discussing the topic of the OP and stated the economy would be smaller and gold prices lower if still on the gold standard, in contrast to your opinion. You went off on big macs.
What new bonds? Unbacked money does not require issuing bonds in the first place. Excessive money printing still causes inflation in the cost of goods and services, but it does not create additional debt (or interest on that debt) to be paid by future generations.
You stated earlier that "Printing money at will" did not cause our huge and uncontrollable national debt, "backing" the money with interest-bearing bonds did.
So are not some bonds created when it's time to turn on the printing press, for the sole purpose of providing the FED a source to place/back the newly created money?
>
I'm not talking about dealing with the FED at all.
>
since the pictured US Notes were replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966, discussions about current US "money" always involve its issuer, the Federal Reserve. The FED is fully involved with all money issued since 1966.
US Notes were not replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966. They continued to circulate as legal tender and are still valid money today, even though they are not "backed" by government bonds.
I repeat: Unbacked money does not create additional debt (or interest on that debt) to be paid by future generations. Reintroducing US Notes would be a way of achieving this result.
since the pictured US Notes were replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966, discussions about current US "money" always involve its issuer, the Federal Reserve. The FED is fully involved with all money issued since 1966.
US Notes were not replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966. They continued to circulate as legal tender and are still valid money today, even though they are not "backed" by government bonds.
I repeat: Unbacked money does not create additional debt (or interest on that debt) to be paid by future generations. Reintroducing US Notes would be a way of achieving this result.
my bad, i meant to say they quit printing US notes in 1966. The FED is behind all money printed since then. This is why the currency now says "Federal Reserve Note."
Exactly what is this "unbacked money" you refer to?
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
@RedneckHB said "Warsh is slated to succeed Powell. I'm not sure i am reading prospects for higher growth in his regime."
I actually don't know enough about him to judge. But, he seems to be against Fed activism and to be a strong proponent of Fed independence. In the longer run, this would seem to be good for growth. (contingent, of course, on the hands you are dealt by the President, Congress, the business community and the rest of the world)
since the pictured US Notes were replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966, discussions about current US "money" always involve its issuer, the Federal Reserve. The FED is fully involved with all money issued since 1966.
US Notes were not replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966. They continued to circulate as legal tender and are still valid money today, even though they are not "backed" by government bonds.
I repeat: Unbacked money does not create additional debt (or interest on that debt) to be paid by future generations. Reintroducing US Notes would be a way of achieving this result.
my bad, i meant to say they quit printing US notes in 1966. The FED is behind all money printed since then. This is why the currency now says "Federal Reserve Note."
Exactly what is this "unbacked money" you refer to?
>
Unbacked money is simply paper money (or its electronic equivalent) that is issued directly by a government, without a corresponding issue of bonds to a central bank to "back" this money.
US Notes were issued directly into circulation by the Treasury Department rather than by the Federal Reserve. For decades they circulated side by side with Federal Reserve Notes, and were readily spent and accepted at face value by the public. The only difference was that US Notes were not backed by debt instruments such as bonds, and therefore did not result in an increase in the national debt and its corresponding interest burden.
For a more in-depth explanation of why “unbacked” fiat money is much less destructive to the economy than the “debt-backed” fiat money we use today, see www.fixourmoney.com .
@Higashiyama said: @RedneckHB said "Warsh is slated to succeed Powell. I'm not sure i am reading prospects for higher growth in his regime."
I actually don't know enough about him to judge. But, he seems to be against Fed activism and to be a strong proponent of Fed independence. In the longer run, this would seem to be good for growth. (contingent, of course, on the hands you are dealt by the President, Congress, the business community and the rest of the world)
Agreed the Fed needs to be independent, and by and large i believe it is, but when the cards they are dealt are always 2s and 6s they will never win and always be the scapegoat. To let the FED win requires a party on the other side to lose, and it would most likely be the one you didn't mention---J6P. I would expect to see much more hostile rhetoric toward Powell, especially in the 6 months preceeding the end of his term in May. The populace will need a villain, and then a "hero" to to replace him.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a very good WSJ Op Ed page article excerpting from a speech by Kevin Warsh, who was on the Fed during >the 2007/2008 financial crisis. Though he supports the existence of the Fed, he makes a strong case that severe >Mission Creep has put us in the bind that we currently face.
The Fed to me is one of the few Federal government institutions that WORKS. I will take the Fed and "Mission Creep" over the 535 bufoons we have who can't reign in entitlement spending or balance spending in the out years.
If you compare the U.S. economy with the numerous Panics that hit ever 20 years or so from1850 through 1907....or the hamstrung Fed during The Great Depression.....I think the Fed under our last 5-6 central bankers has done a GREAT job.
The mistake by the Fed in the 1930's was not to do what Warsh wants them to avoid today !
@GoldFinger1969 said: “I think the Fed under our last 5-6 central bankers has done a GREAT job.”
I would not agree with such a strong statement. For any assessment, of course, one needs to take account of the fact that it’s a very hard job. Volcker, Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen, and Powell are all exceptionally talented professionals and were dedicated public servants. However, I think future historians will conclude that Bernanke and Yellen intervened too aggressively and kept rates low for too long after the financial crisis, severely distorting capital allocation and allowing the 535 people you refer to to facilitate reckless Federal government borrowing. Once the severe crisis of 2007/2008 was dealt with, I believe we should have normalized things much more quickly.
Hig, inflation has not gotten out of control and loss of output -- GDP -- was kept to a minimum. When you compare the pre- and post-Fed years in this country especially since The Great Depression, they've done what they were supposed to.
Perfect ? Of course not. But I think the Fed has done its job much better than those entrused with fiscal policy have done theirs.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
Hig, inflation has not gotten out of control and loss of output -- GDP -- was kept to a minimum. When you compare the pre- and post-Fed years in this country especially since The Great Depression, they've done what they were supposed to.
aren't they supposed to be holding inflation to 2% annually? LOL
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
Hig, inflation has not gotten out of control and loss of output -- GDP -- was kept to a minimum. When you compare the pre- and post-Fed years in this country especially since The Great Depression, they've done what they were supposed to.
aren't they supposed to be holding inflation to 2% annually? LOL
@Overdate said:
The only difference was that US Notes were not backed by debt instruments such as bonds, and therefore did not >result in an increase in the national debt and its corresponding interest burden.
For a more in-depth explanation of why “unbacked” fiat money is much less destructive to the economy than the >“debt-backed” fiat money we use today, see www.fixourmoney.com .
I don't think it would make a difference. They are basically the same and have the same effect on nominal GDP.
The Fed creates credit irrespective of being backed by bonds, QE, etc. The key to inflation or destructive debt or money printing is the VELOCITY of money.
The Fed creates credit irrespective of being backed by bonds, QE, etc. The key to inflation or destructive debt or money printing is the VELOCITY of money.
key to inflation is supply of money
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
@Overdate said:
The only difference was that US Notes were not backed by debt instruments such as bonds, and therefore did not >result in an increase in the national debt and its corresponding interest burden.
For a more in-depth explanation of why “unbacked” fiat money is much less destructive to the economy than the >“debt-backed” fiat money we use today, see www.fixourmoney.com .
I don't think it would make a difference. They are basically the same and have the same effect on nominal GDP.
If US Notes are basically the same as Federal Reserve Notes, please explain how unbacked US Notes would lead to a $36.000,000,000,000 national debt requiring annual interest payments of $1,000,000,000,000.
@Overdate said:
The only difference was that US Notes were not backed by debt instruments such as bonds, and therefore did not >result in an increase in the national debt and its corresponding interest burden.
For a more in-depth explanation of why “unbacked” fiat money is much less destructive to the economy than the >“debt-backed” fiat money we use today, see www.fixourmoney.com .
I don't think it would make a difference. They are basically the same and have the same effect on nominal GDP.
If US Notes are basically the same as Federal Reserve Notes, please explain how unbacked US Notes would lead to a $36.000,000,000,000 national debt requiring annual interest payments of $1,000,000,000,000.
We can and will one day reset that "debt" to 0 with the simple keyboard stroke/click of the mouse. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
@Higashiyama said: @RedneckHB said "Warsh is slated to succeed Powell. I'm not sure i am reading prospects for higher growth in his regime."
I actually don't know enough about him to judge. But, he seems to be against Fed activism and to be a strong proponent of Fed independence. In the longer run, this would seem to be good for growth. (contingent, of course, on the hands you are dealt by the President, Congress, the business community and the rest of the world)
Agreed the Fed needs to be independent, and by and large i believe it is, but when the cards they are dealt are always 2s and 6s they will never win and always be the scapegoat. To let the FED win requires a party on the other side to lose, and it would most likely be the one you didn't mention---J6P. I would expect to see much more hostile rhetoric toward Powell, especially in the 6 months preceeding the end of his term in May. The populace will need a villain, and then a "hero" to to replace him.
.
The FED, is it independent ?
Not even remotely.
You want an independent FED ?
Then take ownership of it away from the large member/owner banks such as CitiBank, JP Morgan/Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, etc.
The current FED does the bidding of these large banks at the expense of the general public. That is the opposite of "independence".
It would be far better for the general public if the Treasury Department "owned" the FED entirely.
@dcarr said:
It would be far better for the general public if the Treasury Department "owned" the FED entirely.
.
If you think the Fed aint independent now, just wait 13 months. Lol
What would be far better for the general public would be for the 535 +1 to read some econ books.
But to your point, yeah, let's give the Govt more control. Lol. I always these Sunday night laughs.
.
You want bankers and financial types such as yourself to be in complete control of everyone and everything. That is a fascist arrangement and not even remotely "independent". At least if the Treasury Department owned the Fed, it would have some semblance of being democratic.
@jmski52 said: We can and will one day reset that "debt" to 0 with the simple keyboard stroke/click of the mouse. RGDS!
There goes your retirement plan, and everyone else's too.
If your retirement plan is invested to stocks, why would your retirement plan become worthless? Wouldn't the industries and companies still be there?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@dcarr said:
It would be far better for the general public if the Treasury Department "owned" the FED entirely.
.
If you think the Fed aint independent now, just wait 13 months. Lol
What would be far better for the general public would be for the 535 +1 to read some econ books.
But to your point, yeah, let's give the Govt more control. Lol. I always these Sunday night laughs.
.
You want bankers and financial types such as yourself to be in complete control of everyone and everything. That is a fascist arrangement and not even remotely "independent". At least if the Treasury Department owned the Fed, it would have some semblance of being democratic.
.
You're on a roll tonight. That bush is burning!! LOL.
Putting the Fed under direct control of the Govt would prove to be a very unwise move. However, you may get to see you wish come true in 13 months.
If your retirement plan is invested to stocks, why would your retirement plan become worthless? Wouldn't the industries and companies still be there?
If Treasury debt goes to zero with a click of the mouse, then the retirement plans consisting of 60% stocks and 40% bonds will suffer a significant loss in the bond portion of the portfolio. Also, if/when that happens, the companies might still exist but people will be selling everything, including their stocks. PMs will do much better.
He doesn't have one. Says he cashed it out back in 06 with the early penalty. Whoops! RGDS!
Once again, you contradict yourself.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said:
Also, if/when that happens, the companies might still exist but people will be selling everything, including their stocks. PMs will do much better.
What do you mean by "PMs would do much better"? Why would folk be selling "everything"? What do you mean by "everything"?
Stocks, bonds, metals, real estate, personal stuff................
People won't be buying much.
If folk are selling everyhing then someone must be buying it, no?
Did you mean to say there would be a reset to valuations? This can occur without even a single transactions being made.
Folk will still need.to buy almost everything they bought before. Software for their computers, cars to get to work or doctors or retail. Food for dinner. But maybe they'll only buy 2 or 3 dolls instead of 30, or 5 pencils instead of 250.
Then asking prices will keep dropping. Bill Holter notes that the prices of the assets that people own will go down while the prices of the things that people need (such as food) will be going up.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Then asking prices will keep dropping. Bill Holter notes that the prices of the assets that people own will go down while the prices of the things that people need (such as food) will be going up.
Oh, that reminds me, time to go pick the asparagus. THKS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Then asking prices will keep dropping. Bill Holter notes that the prices of the assets that people own will go down while the prices of the things that people need (such as food) will be going up.
That's happened many times before. Great buying opportunities.
And we were told grocery prices will be going down. Have faith man.
@Overdate said:
If US Notes are basically the same as Federal Reserve Notes, please explain how unbacked US Notes would lead to a $36.000,000,000,000 national debt requiring annual interest payments of $1,000,000,000,000.
No different than using a Silver or Gold Certificate for their face value.
The money in circulation -- M1, M2, whatever -- has nothing to do with the national debt.
@Overdate said:
If US Notes are basically the same as Federal Reserve Notes, please explain how unbacked US Notes would lead to a $36.000,000,000,000 national debt requiring annual interest payments of $1,000,000,000,000.
No different than using a Silver or Gold Certificate for their face value.
The money in circulation -- M1, M2, whatever -- has nothing to do with the national debt.
>
The national debt has nothing to do with how money is used, it has everything to do with how it is issued by the government. US Notes were issued directly by the Treasury - no borrowing was involved, therefore no adding to the national debt. Federal Reserve Notes (and their electronic equivalents) are issued by the government borrowing from the Fed - issuing interest-bearing bonds that increase the national debt.
For a more detailed comparison between unbacked money and debt-backed money, see www.fixourmoney.com .
@Overdate said:
The national debt has nothing to do with how money is used, it has everything to do with how it is issued by the >government. US Notes were issued directly by the Treasury - no borrowing was involved, therefore no adding >to the national debt. Federal Reserve Notes (and their electronic equivalents) are issued by the government >borrowing from the Fed - issuing interest-bearing bonds that increase the national debt.
No, credit and high-powered "money" is created by the Fed's Open Market Operations through the System Open Market Account of the NY Fed. It has nothing to do with what comes out of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Then asking prices will keep dropping. Bill Holter notes that the prices of the assets that people own will go down while the prices of the things that people need (such as food) will be going up.
.
This phenomenon could be described as "stagflation". And, as I have stated previously, it is the mechanism by which standards of living decline.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
credit and high-powered "money" is created by the Fed's Open Market Operations through the System Open Market Account of the NY Fed. It has nothing to do with what comes out of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
You don't seem to understand what a "United States Note" is. US Notes, Silver Certificates, and Gold Certificates have nothing directly to do with the Federal Reserve.
President Kennedy wanted more US Notes issued directly by the US Treasury, and fewer Federal Reserve Notes issued by the FRB. Unfortunately, he was assassinated. Some believe the assassination was a conspiracy to thwart his plan. Regardless, as a result of his executive order, a token quantity of red-seal $100 US notes were issued for series 1966 and 1966-A. None have been issued since then.
@Overdate said:
The national debt has nothing to do with how money is used, it has everything to do with how it is issued by the >government. US Notes were issued directly by the Treasury - no borrowing was involved, therefore no adding >to the national debt. Federal Reserve Notes (and their electronic equivalents) are issued by the government >borrowing from the Fed - issuing interest-bearing bonds that increase the national debt.
No, credit and high-powered "money" is created by the Fed's Open Market Operations through the System Open Market Account of the NY Fed. It has nothing to do with what comes out of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
>
The Fed’s open market operations consist of buying and selling government bonds. Where do you think those bonds originate? They are issued by the US government to finance its deficit spending, and they add to the national debt and its interest burden on taxpayers. If the Treasury Department issued money directly (US Notes or their electronic equivalents), it would not need to issue bonds and therefore would not cause an increase in the national debt. See www.fixourmoney.com .
high-powered "money" is created by the Fed's Open Market Operations through the System Open Market Account of the NY Fed
"High-powered money" from thin air. It's just too easy! Voila! Weimar's got nothin' on the U.S. Fed. At $37 trillion, the Fed has left Weimar in the dust. Amateurs!
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Bessent says that he isn't considering the revaluation of gold to market because that might cause the stock market to crash, but somehow the Mint is selling gold at a premium way over market prices with "no problemo". Me think gov.com speak with forked tongue.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
The Fed’s open market operations consist of buying and selling government bonds. Where do you think those bonds originate? They are issued printed by the US government to finance its deficit spending,
Fixed it for ya. Printing bonds, printing money. . . it's the same thing.
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
The Fed’s open market operations consist of buying and selling government bonds. Where do you think those bonds originate? They are issued printed by the US government to finance its deficit spending,
Fixed it for ya. Printing bonds, printing money. . . it's the same thing.
>
Then let me return the favor and fix it for you.
Printing bonds = printing interest-bearing securities, with taxpayers on the hook to pay that interest.
Printing money = printing official medium of exchange directly, no burdensome interest obligations, no continuous increase in national debt.
Comments
well said
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
So Belize and Fiji are "great places for retired American folk." I was correct in saying that GDP is not THE measure of a nation's quality of life.
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
Dude, youve mentioned "GDP" many more times than I have. I mentioned it once in response to dcarr. Why the gaslighting?
And congrats. Way to do the American Dream!!
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I would never live there. Aint no place a great as the USA. Nearly 1/3rd of the natural citizens of those countries live in poverty.
You are debating with yourself about GDP and quality of life. I was discussing the topic of the OP and stated the economy would be smaller and gold prices lower if still on the gold standard, in contrast to your opinion. You went off on big macs.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
US Notes were not replaced with Federal Reserve Notes in 1966. They continued to circulate as legal tender and are still valid money today, even though they are not "backed" by government bonds.
I repeat: Unbacked money does not create additional debt (or interest on that debt) to be paid by future generations. Reintroducing US Notes would be a way of achieving this result.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
my bad, i meant to say they quit printing US notes in 1966. The FED is behind all money printed since then. This is why the currency now says "Federal Reserve Note."
Exactly what is this "unbacked money" you refer to?
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
@RedneckHB said "Warsh is slated to succeed Powell. I'm not sure i am reading prospects for higher growth in his regime."
I actually don't know enough about him to judge. But, he seems to be against Fed activism and to be a strong proponent of Fed independence. In the longer run, this would seem to be good for growth. (contingent, of course, on the hands you are dealt by the President, Congress, the business community and the rest of the world)
>
Unbacked money is simply paper money (or its electronic equivalent) that is issued directly by a government, without a corresponding issue of bonds to a central bank to "back" this money.
US Notes were issued directly into circulation by the Treasury Department rather than by the Federal Reserve. For decades they circulated side by side with Federal Reserve Notes, and were readily spent and accepted at face value by the public. The only difference was that US Notes were not backed by debt instruments such as bonds, and therefore did not result in an increase in the national debt and its corresponding interest burden.
For a more in-depth explanation of why “unbacked” fiat money is much less destructive to the economy than the “debt-backed” fiat money we use today, see www.fixourmoney.com .
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Agreed the Fed needs to be independent, and by and large i believe it is, but when the cards they are dealt are always 2s and 6s they will never win and always be the scapegoat. To let the FED win requires a party on the other side to lose, and it would most likely be the one you didn't mention---J6P. I would expect to see much more hostile rhetoric toward Powell, especially in the 6 months preceeding the end of his term in May. The populace will need a villain, and then a "hero" to to replace him.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Audit the Fed and get a transparent look at it's books. It's a private cartel and there's no reason not to know where their money flows are going.
I knew it would happen.
What's in Ft. Knox means little unless it has all been a big lie.
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
30 Trillion U.S. dollar economy and $550 billion in gold.
A big ole nothingburger. No 'merican slag city cheeze required. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
The Fed to me is one of the few Federal government institutions that WORKS. I will take the Fed and "Mission Creep" over the 535 bufoons we have who can't reign in entitlement spending or balance spending in the out years.
If you compare the U.S. economy with the numerous Panics that hit ever 20 years or so from1850 through 1907....or the hamstrung Fed during The Great Depression.....I think the Fed under our last 5-6 central bankers has done a GREAT job.
The mistake by the Fed in the 1930's was not to do what Warsh wants them to avoid today !
@GoldFinger1969 said: “I think the Fed under our last 5-6 central bankers has done a GREAT job.”
I would not agree with such a strong statement. For any assessment, of course, one needs to take account of the fact that it’s a very hard job. Volcker, Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen, and Powell are all exceptionally talented professionals and were dedicated public servants. However, I think future historians will conclude that Bernanke and Yellen intervened too aggressively and kept rates low for too long after the financial crisis, severely distorting capital allocation and allowing the 535 people you refer to to facilitate reckless Federal government borrowing. Once the severe crisis of 2007/2008 was dealt with, I believe we should have normalized things much more quickly.
Hig, inflation has not gotten out of control and loss of output -- GDP -- was kept to a minimum. When you compare the pre- and post-Fed years in this country especially since The Great Depression, they've done what they were supposed to.
Perfect ? Of course not. But I think the Fed has done its job much better than those entrused with fiscal policy have done theirs.
aren't they supposed to be holding inflation to 2% annually? LOL
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
.
. > @derryb said:
Dang that Congress for giving away $8 Trillion.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I don't think it would make a difference. They are basically the same and have the same effect on nominal GDP.
The Fed creates credit irrespective of being backed by bonds, QE, etc. The key to inflation or destructive debt or money printing is the VELOCITY of money.
key to inflation is supply of money
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
If US Notes are basically the same as Federal Reserve Notes, please explain how unbacked US Notes would lead to a $36.000,000,000,000 national debt requiring annual interest payments of $1,000,000,000,000.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
We can and will one day reset that "debt" to 0 with the simple keyboard stroke/click of the mouse. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
@blitzdude said “We can and will one day reset that "debt" to 0 with the simple keyboard stroke/click of the mouse. RGDS!”
I sure hope that doesn’t happen while I’m holding treasuries. 🤣
.
The FED, is it independent ?
Not even remotely.
You want an independent FED ?
Then take ownership of it away from the large member/owner banks such as CitiBank, JP Morgan/Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, etc.
The current FED does the bidding of these large banks at the expense of the general public. That is the opposite of "independence".
It would be far better for the general public if the Treasury Department "owned" the FED entirely.
.
We can and will one day reset that "debt" to 0 with the simple keyboard stroke/click of the mouse. RGDS!
There goes your retirement plan, and everyone else's too.
I knew it would happen.
If you think the Fed aint independent now, just wait 13 months. Lol
What would be far better for the general public would be for the 535 +1 to read some econ books.
But to your point, yeah, let's give the Govt more control. Lol. I always these Sunday night laughs.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
.
You want bankers and financial types such as yourself to be in complete control of everyone and everything. That is a fascist arrangement and not even remotely "independent". At least if the Treasury Department owned the Fed, it would have some semblance of being democratic.
.
If your retirement plan is invested to stocks, why would your retirement plan become worthless? Wouldn't the industries and companies still be there?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
God bless> @PerryHall said:
He doesn't have one. Says he cashed it out back in 06 with the early penalty. Whoops! RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
You're on a roll tonight. That bush is burning!! LOL.
Putting the Fed under direct control of the Govt would prove to be a very unwise move. However, you may get to see you wish come true in 13 months.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
If your retirement plan is invested to stocks, why would your retirement plan become worthless? Wouldn't the industries and companies still be there?
If Treasury debt goes to zero with a click of the mouse, then the retirement plans consisting of 60% stocks and 40% bonds will suffer a significant loss in the bond portion of the portfolio. Also, if/when that happens, the companies might still exist but people will be selling everything, including their stocks. PMs will do much better.
He doesn't have one. Says he cashed it out back in 06 with the early penalty. Whoops! RGDS!
Once again, you contradict yourself.
I knew it would happen.
What do you mean by "PMs would do much better"? Why would folk be selling "everything"? What do you mean by "everything"?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
What do you mean by "everything"?
Stocks, bonds, metals, real estate, personal stuff................
People won't be buying much.
I knew it would happen.
If folk are selling everyhing then someone must be buying it, no?
Did you mean to say there would be a reset to valuations? This can occur without even a single transactions being made.
Folk will still need.to buy almost everything they bought before. Software for their computers, cars to get to work or doctors or retail. Food for dinner. But maybe they'll only buy 2 or 3 dolls instead of 30, or 5 pencils instead of 250.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
If folk are selling everyhing then someone must be buying it, no?
Scroll up. People won't be buying much.
I knew it would happen.
Then they won't be selling much.
Why would PMs do much better?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Then they won't be selling much.
Then asking prices will keep dropping. Bill Holter notes that the prices of the assets that people own will go down while the prices of the things that people need (such as food) will be going up.
I knew it would happen.
Oh, that reminds me, time to go pick the asparagus. THKS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
That's happened many times before. Great buying opportunities.
And we were told grocery prices will be going down. Have faith man.
Why would PMs do much better?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Great buying opportunities
When interest rates hit 15% in spite of the Fed's money printing? Maybe.
we were told grocery prices will be going down.
We've been told a lot of things.
Why would PMs do much better?
Because of historical precedent. Why do you think that PMs wouldn't do better?
I knew it would happen.
No different than using a Silver or Gold Certificate for their face value.
The money in circulation -- M1, M2, whatever -- has nothing to do with the national debt.
>
The national debt has nothing to do with how money is used, it has everything to do with how it is issued by the government. US Notes were issued directly by the Treasury - no borrowing was involved, therefore no adding to the national debt. Federal Reserve Notes (and their electronic equivalents) are issued by the government borrowing from the Fed - issuing interest-bearing bonds that increase the national debt.
For a more detailed comparison between unbacked money and debt-backed money, see www.fixourmoney.com .
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
No, credit and high-powered "money" is created by the Fed's Open Market Operations through the System Open Market Account of the NY Fed. It has nothing to do with what comes out of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
.
This phenomenon could be described as "stagflation". And, as I have stated previously, it is the mechanism by which standards of living decline.
.
You don't seem to understand what a "United States Note" is. US Notes, Silver Certificates, and Gold Certificates have nothing directly to do with the Federal Reserve.
President Kennedy wanted more US Notes issued directly by the US Treasury, and fewer Federal Reserve Notes issued by the FRB. Unfortunately, he was assassinated. Some believe the assassination was a conspiracy to thwart his plan. Regardless, as a result of his executive order, a token quantity of red-seal $100 US notes were issued for series 1966 and 1966-A. None have been issued since then.
>
The Fed’s open market operations consist of buying and selling government bonds. Where do you think those bonds originate? They are issued by the US government to finance its deficit spending, and they add to the national debt and its interest burden on taxpayers. If the Treasury Department issued money directly (US Notes or their electronic equivalents), it would not need to issue bonds and therefore would not cause an increase in the national debt. See www.fixourmoney.com .
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
high-powered "money" is created by the Fed's Open Market Operations through the System Open Market Account of the NY Fed
"High-powered money" from thin air. It's just too easy! Voila! Weimar's got nothin' on the U.S. Fed. At $37 trillion, the Fed has left Weimar in the dust. Amateurs!
I knew it would happen.
Bessent says that he isn't considering the revaluation of gold to market because that might cause the stock market to crash, but somehow the Mint is selling gold at a premium way over market prices with "no problemo". Me think gov.com speak with forked tongue.
I knew it would happen.
Fixed it for ya. Printing bonds, printing money. . . it's the same thing.
The price of gold is set by faith, or lack of, in the currency it is priced in.
>
Then let me return the favor and fix it for you.
Printing bonds = printing interest-bearing securities, with taxpayers on the hook to pay that interest.
Printing money = printing official medium of exchange directly, no burdensome interest obligations, no continuous increase in national debt.
See www.fixourmoney.com for details.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
