Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[10sicz.chick]

we need more so we can fully analyze the breadth of your....eh, fuckit. we want to see your tits.

 

 

 

i'll talk to dude about it and see what He thinks.

[lord_casek]

i'll talk to dude about it and see what He thinks.

 

i'll give you props. extra props if you write "ron paul 2008" on them.

[thinksmall]

There is a picture of my ass and my stencil in my profile.....created just for you.

 

hehe

 

:eek: :) :cool:

[thinksmall]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC7uVdf3Zo8&feature=related

 

This guy is really smart.

 

Ron Paul Revolution: All over the world!!!

[the.crooked]

Two things-

 

 

Themefromthebottom: hear hear.

 

 

 

Casek: you are awesome. hookin up the tits even in crossfire...

[angelofdeath]

haha, casek = pimp

he cant just be happy that there is a chick that likes ron paul, he has to push his luck.

[10sicz.chick]

Hey, As for the Fed printing money to finance wars, that's not what it does. If it did, the US government wouldn't be running a budget deficit - they would just print more money. The Fed has nothing to do with foreign policy. We fought the Spanish American War while we were on the gold standard, so I don't see how going back on it would keep us from being the world police.

 

 

If on average, our national debt has been increasing by 1.5 billion dollars a day, then where in the hell is the money coming from to fund our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

 

We spend IOU's and borrowed money....money from china for example. Our IOU's are the money we print out of thin air....that has no value because it isn't backed by anything but a promise. It cost most money to get a dollar into circulation than the monetary value it yields. Money production is debt production. The Fed is really good at rolling over debt. They charge up one credit card and then get another to pay off the first...meanwhile they are racking up balances on credit cards.

[10sicz.chick]

Oh..and "theme's brother", when you respond, can you dumb it down for me as i don't have a Masters or bachelors in econ and i get a handicap for my blondness.

 

 

Hey, this is Theme's brother, the one with the master's in Economics. I'm not a beltwayite, but I do work in the financial sector and I read a lot of literature on finance and economics. So I feel a have a decent grip of the issues, and there isn't a lot of support among economists for eliminating the Fed. I don't know of any serious serious economists that support it.

 

What do you mean when you say that the Fed has caused the purchasing power of the dollar in 2008 to be worth $.04? I'm not clear what this number means. Are you talking about the exchange rate? If you are then your numbers are way off.

 

As for the Fed printing money to finance wars, that's not what it does. If it did, the US government wouldn't be running a budget deficit - they would just print more money. The Fed has nothing to do with foreign policy. We fought the Spanish American War while we were on the gold standard, so I don't see how going back on it would keep us from being the world police.

 

As far as inflation, you're right that inflation kills capital, but is this something you're really worried about? You say that economists are the only people who urge you to buy stocks. Well stockholders tend to have a lot of capital, so they're the ones who would be most hurt by inflation.

 

You're also correct that going back on gold would virtually eliminate inflation, but the Fed can also do this. It ended the inflation of the late 70s and early 80s by limiting the growth of the money supply.

 

Listen, I'm not trying to say that the Fed is the greatest or most democratic institution ever. But you guys seem to have no idea what it actually does. If you think the Fed is "controlling our economy from the shadows," maybe you're just not reading the right media. There are a whole slew of magazines and newspapers that report on the Fed's every move.

 

I think the Iraq war was possibly the greatest mistake in the history of our country. I think that personal liberty is under threat because of the Patriot Act. I just don't see what the Fed has to do with any of this.

[Avesism]

when the fed was created the US dollar was worth one dollar. to buy that same thing that cost one dollar in 1913 (roughly from 1913-late 1920's) you now need a $1.96. the dollar has declined in value, that is, has been inflated away by 96%.

 

the fed does print money. governments have 3 ways to grow. they can tax. if they taxed us for everything they spend, the 2nd american revolution would of started around the time of the new deal. they can borrow. right now we borrow something like 2 billion dollars a day from the chinese. or they can inflate the money supply. the increase the money supply, therefore lowering the value of the dollars already in circulation.

 

without the FED we would not be the worlds police nor have the huge welfare state that we have. they create money out of thin air. the fed buys bonds by placing 0's on the computer screen. or they simply print more money to add to circulation.

 

the fed could probably technically eliminate inflation, but it cant. the political pressure for easy money and credit is to much. they have not stopped inflation, ever. as i said, we have lost 96% of the dollars value since 1913.

then again, im an austrian type gold bug, so i dont expect much of anyone side with me. the only time the austrians get a mention is when the booms bust.

 

 

If something that used to cost $1.00 now costs $1.96, then it's roughly twice as expensive. So money has lost half its value, not 96%.

 

It's true that the value of money has declined, which is another way of saying that the price of things has been rising. But wages have been rising too. I don't know what the actual number is for average income in 1913 and 2000, but I'm sure it more than doubled. So, on average, we're a lot better off than we were in 1913. And sometimes inflation is actually driven by increasing wages.

 

You're right that the fed prints money (or just creates it electronically). But the Fed does not fund the US government. There's two markets for US government bonds: the primary and the secondary market. This is kind of technical, but it's absolutely crucial to understanding what the Fed does. The primary market is when the government issues bonds -it's the government selling bonds to raise money. The secondary market is when people who have already bought the bonds resell them. The money in the secondary market goes to whoever owned the bond, not the government.

 

The Fed buys (and sells) bonds in the secondary market. It does not buy bonds in the primary market, precisely because this would be printing money and handing it to the government. And this would cause hyperinflation.

 

So the Fed is not responsible for the the welfare state and us being the world police. We still fought wars before it was created. And it's true that the Chinese are lending the US government some absurd amount of money, but the Fed has nothing to do with that either.

[lord_casek]

and would you also agree that there is nothing really federal about the federal reserve?

that it is really just another private bank?

[Avesism]

and would you also agree that there is nothing really federal about the federal reserve?

that it is really just another private bank?

 

 

Yeah, is has kind of a weird status. Technically the Fed isn't even part of the government. But they do have the power to print money, which anyone else would get thrown in jail for. I guess quasi-governmental would be the best way to describe it.

[lord_casek]

Yeah, is has kind of a weird status. Technically the Fed isn't even part of the government. But they do have the power to print money, which anyone else would get thrown in jail for. I guess quasi-governmental would be the best way to describe it.

 

check out "the creature from jekyll island" if you get a chance. you might gain some knowledge of the goings on, hell you might be very aware of it.

[angelofdeath]

"So the Fed is not responsible for the the welfare state and us being the world police. We still fought wars before it was created. And it's true that the Chinese are lending the US government some absurd amount of money, but the Fed has nothing to do with that either."

 

this is not meant in the total literal sense. of course they have money, from taxes and borrowing. but the FED is the last enabler to inflate the money supply, which in turn gives the political class money.

seriously, i know the fed is complicated... but congress issues a bond and the FED buys it by putting 0's on a computer screen.

 

no, your math is wrong. the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power(more accurately close to 96% of its purchasing power, according to the bureau of labor statitstics itself.

every year, the government prints money, and makes accumulated capital disappear. it penalizes savers.

i find it odd that a econ major does not understand this.

 

but i think we are missing the main reason to abolish the fed. to end the business cycle. the bust is due. long over due. the fed is trying to prolong the mess it has created. the chickens will come home to roost. we may see a depression again. we may see a time when only the optimists invest in cold, when others are diversifying into canned goods. im not sure, but its not a question of 'if' its a question of 'when.'

[Avesism]

"So the Fed is not responsible for the the welfare state and us being the world police. We still fought wars before it was created. And it's true that the Chinese are lending the US government some absurd amount of money, but the Fed has nothing to do with that either."

 

this is not meant in the total literal sense. of course they have money, from taxes and borrowing. but the FED is the last enabler to inflate the money supply, which in turn gives the political class money.

seriously, i know the fed is complicated... but congress issues a bond and the FED buys it by putting 0's on a computer screen.

 

no, your math is wrong. the dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power(more accurately close to 96% of its purchasing power, according to the bureau of labor statitstics itself.

every year, the government prints money, and makes accumulated capital disappear. it penalizes savers.

i find it odd that a econ major does not understand this.

 

but i think we are missing the main reason to abolish the fed. to end the business cycle. the bust is due. long over due. the fed is trying to prolong the mess it has created. the chickens will come home to roost. we may see a depression again. we may see a time when only the optimists invest in cold, when others are diversifying into canned goods. im not sure, but its not a question of 'if' its a question of 'when.'

 

 

 

 

When Congress issues a bond, the Fed does not buy it. They only buy bonds in the secondary market. This may seem like semantics or some stupid technicality but it's not. The Fed does not print money and hand it to Congress. Your basic argument seems to be that the US government does a lot of terrible things, and the Fed's money allows them to do it, but this is false. The Fed DOES NOT FUND the US government.

 

As for the math, if prices have roughly doubled, then money has lost half its value. Right? Send me the link to the BLS site.

 

The political class existed before the Fed was created. We foughts wars before the Fed was created. The business cycle existed before the Fed. The 1800's weren't some Utopia without conflict or classes or recessions. Eliminating the Fed won't change any of this.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

Of course not. Nobody is saying that without the FED that the United States would be an economic utopia.

 

What we are saying is, the people of this country would be a lot better off, without the FED, and after all that is what it's all about.

[iloveboxcars]

i think theme from the bottom's brother is talking in circles for a reason.

[10sicz.chick]

i think theme from the bottom's brother is talking in circles for a reason.

 

and i still haven't gotten a response or my question answered :(

[Avesism]

If on average, our national debt has been increasing by 1.5 billion dollars a day, then where in the hell is the money coming from to fund our invasion and occupation of Iraq?

 

We spend IOU's and borrowed money....money from china for example. Our IOU's are the money we print out of thin air....that has no value because it isn't backed by anything but a promise. It cost most money to get a dollar into circulation than the monetary value it yields. Money production is debt production. The Fed is really good at rolling over debt. They charge up one credit card and then get another to pay off the first...meanwhile they are racking up balances on credit cards.

 

 

 

The money comes from whoever buys bonds from the US government. The Chinese government buys a whole shitload of them, as do investors and banks and whoever else.

 

It's not true that it costs more money to put a dollar into circulation than the monetary value it yields. Why would this be the case? How much does the actual ink and and paper cost?

 

You're correct that our money isn't backed by anything, but this doesn't matter. As long as everyone agrees to accept it as legal tender, it doesn't need to be backed by anything. Mont countries don't back up their money with anything. This may sound bad, but it's not. When was the last time someone refused your money because it wasn't backed by gold?

 

The Fed isn't good at rolling over debt, because they're not the ones who issue debt - they don't issue US government bonds.

[thecoldmidwest]

The money comes from whoever buys bonds from the US government. You're correct that our money isn't backed by anything, but this doesn't matter. As long as everyone agrees to accept it as legal tender, it doesn't need to be backed by anything.

If money is not backed with anything, what's stopping those who run the fed from printing as much as they want? Nothing, and that's what their doing. And what's the result? A shit load of inflation. And how does inflation affect the common man? Well, a weeks groceries ten years ago cost $90, now it's $200. Did wages go up enough to make up for it? Unfortunately, no.

 

Something has to change, and soon.

[Avesism]

If money is not backed with anything, what's stopping those who run the fed from printing as much as they want? Nothing, and that's what their doing. And what's the result? A shit load of inflation. And how does inflation affect the common man? Well, a weeks groceries ten years ago cost $90, now it's $200. Did wages go up enough to make up for it? Unfortunately, no.

 

Something has to change, and soon.

 

 

 

OK, no one seems to be getting the point that the Fed doesn't just print money and hand it out. If it did do this, that would be a good reason to abolish it. But it doesn't. Sometimes the Fed even takes money out of circulation. This is how it raises interest rates. This is what it did in the 80s to stop the inflation that was getting out of control.

 

So you're telling me that food prices have increased 122% since 1997? I remember 1997, so I don't really believe this. And angelofdeath is telling me that prices have increased 96% since 1913. Can we start listing sources for our numbers?

 

Inflation isn't due exclusively to the money supply. The price of food and oil has increased a lot lately, and this is because of things the Fed can't control. The price of food has increased all over the world largely because of increased demand for food, especially from China.

 

I don't know how I ended up being the defender of the establishment here. I have some pretty radical political views myself. But if you guys really want to change the system, you should at least understand how it works. And it's clear that you don't.

[the.crooked]

I think it is funny, because we are speaking of gold the exact way Theme is trying to get y'all to speak about non backed money.

 

 

He is absolutely right though, money is purely just an arbitrary exchange of agreed value. Backing isn't anything more than adding another layer of arbitrary value.

 

 

Have any of you ever read "Fetishism of Commodities" by Marx?

 

 

 

Cus ya should. It sorta provides a good way of understanding how a seemingly well placed monetary system always can be reduced to arbitrary value. Cus he starts from there and builds it up.

[Qawee]

Uh oh

if you start quoting marx in here you might be hung.

you know what thread we are in don't you?

[MayorMeanBeans]

most union/office jobs have automatic pay increases of 3% precisely to counteract the effect of inflation. the 70s and 80s were hard times, but 1992 forwards inflation has not become a political issue so much as an economic one (it becomes political when prices grow twice as fast as wages).

 

 

[10sicz.chick]

You're correct that our money isn't backed by anything, but this doesn't matter. As long as everyone agrees to accept it as legal tender, it doesn't need to be backed by anything. Mont countries don't back up their money with anything. This may sound bad, but it's not. When was the last time someone refused your money because it wasn't backed by gold?

 

Isn't China on a silver backed monetary system? Doesn't China own the US's ass?

 

I wasn't there when the US went off the gold standard....but I imagine that citizens were not giving a choice....it seems it was forced upon them. Were you when it happened? Was was the attitude of the country when it was adopted.

[Avesism]

Isn't China on a silver backed monetary system? Doesn't China own the US's ass?

 

I wasn't there when the US went off the gold standard....but I imagine that citizens were not giving a choice....it seems it was forced upon them. Were you when it happened? Was was the attitude of the country when it was adopted.

 

 

China is not on a silver backed system, but it is true that they own a huge amount of US assets.

 

There have been periods when the "citizens" have supported going off the gold standard. Inflation causes money to be worth less; if you owe a lot of money, you owe less after inflation. So inflation can sometimes hurt creditors (the poor) and help debtors (the rich).

 

A case in point is the Populist Party in the late 1800's, which represented a lot of farmers. Inflation would raise the price of crops, which helped farmers, and also decrease the value of their debt, which also helped them. So the populists wanted the government to print money to buy crops, increasing the money supply and causing inflation.

 

I'm not trying to act like inflation is some sort of democratic people power revolution device. And very high inflation is very bad, like Germany in the 1930's. But low inflation is not necessarily bad.

[Avesism]

China is not on a silver backed system, but it is true that they own a huge amount of US assets.

 

There have been periods when the "citizens" have supported going off the gold standard. Inflation causes money to be worth less; if you owe a lot of money, you owe less after inflation. So inflation can sometimes hurt creditors (the poor) and help debtors (the rich).

 

A case in point is the Populist Party in the late 1800's, which represented a lot of farmers. Inflation would raise the price of crops, which helped farmers, and also decrease the value of their debt, which also helped them. So the populists wanted the government to print money to buy crops, increasing the money supply and causing inflation.

 

I'm not trying to act like inflation is some sort of democratic people power revolution device. And very high inflation is very bad, like Germany in the 1930's. But low inflation is not necessarily bad.

 

 

 

 

Just realized I wrote that backwards. It should say "So inflation can sometimes hurt creditors (the rich) and help debtors (the poor)."

 

A little counterintuitive, isn't it?

[thecoldmidwest]

OK, no one seems to be getting the point that the Fed doesn't just print money and hand it out. If it did do this, that would be a good reason to abolish it. But it doesn't. Sometimes the Fed even takes money out of circulation. This is how it raises interest rates. This is what it did in the 80s to stop the inflation that was getting out of control.

from 2004:

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/benson073004.html

Dec 07:

http://www.urbandigs.com/2007/12/making_money_out_of_thin_air.html

 

So you're telling me that food prices have increased 122% since 1997? I remember 1997, so I don't really believe this.

It costs this much more even though we've (my family) switched over to store brand foods/drinks.

 

I don't know, maybe we buy more now then back then. But not 122% more.

[angelofdeath]

"The business cycle existed before the Fed."

 

the fed is the sole cause of the boom and the bust.

 

"one seems to be getting the point that the Fed doesn't just print money and hand it out. If it did do this, that would be a good reason to abolish it. But it doesn't. "

 

simply put, it does. the fed is run on a socialist model. a group of bureaucrats sit around and try to centrally plan monetary matters from the top down, with conditions changing constantly in the market affecting the lives of millions of people. has the fed seen a situation where they didnt want more money? when the fed artificially lowers the interest rates, they are printing more money.

 

why do you think coins are made of cheap alloys instead of silver or gold? to see the lack of purchasing power of the dollar all you have to do is look at the gold price. last year the average price of gold was about 750$ an ounce. in 1913, gold was 20 dollars an ounce. that ounce of gold bought a nice suit or a nice handgun. today, that same ounce of gold buys a nice handgun today(a 1911 is about 750 bucks now and it was about 20 back in the day) but instead of 20$ you need 750$ dollars to buy the same gun.

 

i really dont get why you dont understand that inflation is a way that moscow on the potomac pays for the welfare warfare state. without it, they would have to tax americans at extremely high rates and there would of been a tax revolt on a never before seen scale probably back when the new deal or the great society was enacted.

 

do you really mean to tell me that you do not know that the value of the dollar has plummeted since the 1930's?

 

if you look at history, when massive spending took place. during lincolns war of northern aggression, he suspended the gold standard and issued paper money to PAY for his war. FDR confiscated gold from citizens in 1933. have you ever heard the term...'not worth a continental?' that is when the continental congress issued paper money, and soon after the war it was worthless. it is exactly then in 1933, when the first cut was made between the dollar and gold and at this very point is when the dollar started to fall. until the 70's it was illegal for citizens to own gold. why was that? it is because gold prices have always been a gauge of the wrongs that governments are doing to our money.

 

i highly recommend you get a brief overview of this topic and ditch the defense of socialism and the fed and read murray rothbards "what has government done to our money."

 

i sincerely believe that abolition of the fed would be to america's benefit. it would end inflation, the business cycle, it would encourage savings and discourage debt, it would severely check the government and not allow it to grow in massive proportions the way it does now WHEN THE FED PRINTS MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR. when the fed loans money they money does not come out of its vaults, it just adds 0's to the account of who is borrowing it. if russia can be de communized, then surely we can ditch our central bank and give free americans back money that they control and that the government can use to exploit us, and rob us.

[angelofdeath]

"Backing isn't anything more than adding another layer of arbitrary value."

 

i disagree. gold, throughout history has been chosen as the top money and perhaps the most precious thing in the world. granted if the market chose beans for money, i would be a bean standard advocate, but it is safe to say after thousands of years that gold is the commodity of choice.

[lord_casek]

i hope you guys got out and voted in your state today (provided it is a super tuesday state).