Dow plummets

[Acantha]

No that is a real question. If there is a valid argument that the Fed intensifies the swings, then someone surely has the data to back it. Where is it? If anything, the lack of a true central bank in Europe is showing how dangerous a situation can get, even though the trouble didn't even originate there.

 

The real strawman argument is the unearthing of centuries' old fearmongering that a central bank is going to take over people's lives. The Revolution is little more than rehashing of dispelled myths.

There is a real arugument for it, and data to show how things progressed pre-central bank, how the Fed came into existence, and what central banking in general does to an economy over time.

 

These aren't dispelled myths, they are truths swept under the carpet by banks (such as JP Morgan who lead the charge for the FED) and Wall Street so that they could coutnerfeit their way to prosperity. Creating the Fed has allowed one entity, not controlled by anyone, to have free reign on inflation. It doens't matter what kind of economics you believe in, the simple idea of that is insane.

 

If you want the arguemnts, here: The Case Against the Fed

 

But please don't act like I'm here preaching voodoo and mysticim because the economics I study isn't in line with what the banks are trying to tell everyone.

[Acantha]

You do realize that the problem we're facing was created outside the traditional "banking" universe, right? Having a gold standard would have done squat to prevent the housing run up. But keep preaching that gold revolution.

Bull. The fed pushed the housing run by keeping interest rates artificially low. There's no reason to do that except to push fractional reserve banking to the limits. The more they could lend, the more they made.

 

When you create a central bank, there is going to be booms and busts. But the Fed doesn't allow busts. It pushes through them, creating even bigger meltdowns.

[Alaska Darin]

Because it's the only comp that you can do.

So you decide to use a comparison that's completely without merit based on virtually every conceivable factor? Nice copout.

You can also compare it to developed nations without a central bank - ie most of Europe right now and see how devastating it can be.

Most of Europe is panicking because they made the gigantic mistake of attempting to trying to have their cake and eat it too. I remember having this conversation with Olivier when he was pushing for the EU and Euro.

Didn't say it can't happen - it's the one downside of capitalism. The point is that it's only happened only twice over last 100 years, vs every 15-20 years in the preceding 100 yrs. Surely that has to mean something.

Yeah, it means that virtually everything else has evolved - mostly the technology that led to significant infrastructure improvements that made it easier to get food, goods, and services to markets more efficiently. Go ahead and give more than a bee's dick of credit to the central bank for that.

 

You want to see a real recession? Turn off the power around the globe for a week.

[GG]

So you decide to use a comparison that's completely without merit based on virtually every conceivable factor? Nice copout.

 

Fine, you find the comp. You're the one advocating the dissolution of the Fed. Make a cogent argument.

 

Most of Europe is panicking because they made the gigantic mistake of attempting to trying to have their cake and eat it too. I remember having this conversation with Olivier when he was pushing for the EU and Euro.

 

So what? What does that have to do with their banks failing?

 

Yeah, it means that virtually everything else has evolved - mostly the technology that led to significant infrastructure improvements that made it easier to get food, goods, and services to markets more efficiently. Go ahead and give more than a bee's dick of credit to the central bank for that.

 

You want to see a real recession? Turn off the power around the globe for a week.

 

The Fed just greases the capitalist wheel. Don't make it out to be something it isn't.

 

Please come up with an argument that's rooted in data that demonstrates that the Fed is as evil as you make it.

[Acantha]

Fine, you find the comp. You're the one advocating the dissolution of the Fed. Make a cogent argument.

 

 

 

So what? What does that have to do with their banks failing?

 

 

 

The Fed just greases the capitalist wheel. Don't make it out to be something it isn't.

 

Please come up with an argument that's rooted in data that demonstrates that the Fed is as evil as you make it.

But you haven't given an argument rooted in data that it's not.

 

And if you want it, read the link I provided. Will take more than a few minutes, but the info is there.

[Alaska Darin]

But you haven't given an argument rooted in data that it's not.

 

And if you want it, read the link I provided. Will take more than a few minutes, but the info is there.

Sure he has. A buncha farmers had worse recessions when there was no infrastructure to speak of.

 

He wins.

[Alaska Darin]

Fine, you find the comp. You're the one advocating the dissolution of the Fed. Make a cogent argument.

Your "argument" reminds me of the 'tards saying Lee Evans shouldn't get paid because he doesn't put up Larry Fitzgerald's stats in a situation that clearly isn't equal.

 

I don't have to make a "cogent" argument. While I'm not a fan of absolutes, I also believe absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Fed has that power and is quite corrupt. Points to you though for going to the 30000 foot view and ignoring the fundamentals.

So what? What does that have to do with their banks failing?

Quite a lot. But I'd say that's to be expected when you're generally socialists looking for security that truly can't be provided.

The Fed just greases the capitalist wheel. Don't make it out to be something it isn't.

You mean because people generally won't use goods and services without someone controlling the money flow? Very rich.

Please come up with an argument that's rooted in data that demonstrates that the Fed is as evil as you make it.

Ah, the ever bankrupt "educational system" argument. Sorry, not playing that game. I guess that fits with the too simplistic "the economy hasn't sucked as much over the past 100 years as it did the previous 100" that you're hanging your hat on.

[GG]

There is a real arugument for it, and data to show how things progressed pre-central bank, how the Fed came into existence, and what central banking in general does to an economy over time.

 

These aren't dispelled myths, they are truths swept under the carpet by banks (such as JP Morgan who lead the charge for the FED) and Wall Street so that they could coutnerfeit their way to prosperity. Creating the Fed has allowed one entity, not controlled by anyone, to have free reign on inflation. It doens't matter what kind of economics you believe in, the simple idea of that is insane.

 

If you want the arguemnts, here: The Case Against the Fed

 

But please don't act like I'm here preaching voodoo and mysticim because the economics I study isn't in line with what the banks are trying to tell everyone.

 

Gee, I wonder if there are any arguments against the Fed that DON'T originate with Ron Paul? Or are you an expert parroting the stock emails that have been flowing around that neatly explain everything as borne out of interest rates, without any regard to how capital is formed, how it moves and how it's deployed. Hayek & Mises are silent on the role of the enterprise, but it's wrapped up neatly by Paul in a grand conspiracy.

 

Never mind that the dot com bubble and the housing mess were exacerbated by a Milton Freedman student and a follower of the grand Austrian School.

 

Since you bring up inflation, which inflation are you talking about and for what period?

[GG]

Sure he has. A buncha farmers had worse recessions when there was no infrastructure to speak of.

 

He wins.

 

I'm sorry that the invention of the steam engine and the criss crossing of the country by railroads in the 19th century don't qualify as revolutionary industrial advancements for you. If you actually studied the financial collapses, you would see more similarities than opposite. But hey, lemmings always do what they're told.

[GG]

Your "argument" reminds me of the 'tards saying Lee Evans shouldn't get paid because he doesn't put up Larry Fitzgerald's stats in a situation that clearly isn't equal.

 

No, the argument is if you were to go after a free agent, would you go after Larry or Lee?

 

I don't have to make a "cogent" argument. While I'm not a fan of absolutes, I also believe absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Fed has that power and is quite corrupt. Points to you though for going to the 30000 foot view and ignoring the fundamentals.

 

You've advocated the dissolution of the Fed. It's not unreasonable to ask for a supporting argument, other than "because." If "power corrupts" is your answer, the market is the ultimate governor of Fed's actions. Fed has a narrow window to conduct market policy. If it tries to set rates that are way beyond what the market will bear, the Treasuries and the dollar will feel the pain. The Fed chairman is supported by twelve regional governors, and decisions are made in a committee.

 

If you look at the last serious crisis before the Fed was created, one man - JP Morgan - singlehandedly rescued the financial system. May seem pristine for the nostalgia buffs, but to me that's much more frightening. Would you feel the same if the fate of the entire US economy depended on George Soros? Not inconceivable in this scenario, because private capital is sitting on the sidelines. Without the Fed, you can bet that there would be a bigger battle among the major hedge funds to control the remains of the banking system (once it was totally decimated). Who wins in that case? Certainly not the regular guy, who you're trying to champion.

 

Quite a lot. But I'd say that's to be expected when you're generally socialists looking for security that truly can't be provided.

 

It's not security, because it will be plainly painful for everyone for a while. The bail outs are simply a shortcutting of the bankruptcy system. All bank equity and many employees are getting wiped out anyway, so what's the point of prolonging the turnaround?

 

You mean because people generally won't use goods and services without someone controlling the money flow? Very rich.

 

The Fed controls the flow to the financial sector. It has very little impact on what the financials do with it.

 

Ah, the ever bankrupt "educational system" argument. Sorry, not playing that game. I guess that fits with the too simplistic "the economy hasn't sucked as much over the past 100 years as it did the previous 100" that you're hanging your hat on.

 

No, the argument is, again - Please point to any source, other than Ron Paul, who is advocating the dissolution of the Fed.

[Acantha]

Gee, I wonder if there are any arguments against the Fed that DON'T originate with Ron Paul? Or are you an expert parroting the stock emails that have been flowing around that neatly explain everything as borne out of interest rates, without any regard to how capital is formed, how it moves and how it's deployed. Hayek & Mises are silent on the role of the enterprise, but it's wrapped up neatly by Paul in a grand conspiracy.

 

Never mind that the dot com bubble and the housing mess were exacerbated by a Milton Freedman student and a follower of the grand Austrian School.

 

Since you bring up inflation, which inflation are you talking about and for what period?

Where did I EVER mention Ron Paul??? Go ahead, keep putting words in my mouth. And you apparently know very little on Mises, so please don't act as though you have a full understanding of his work.

 

I'm talking about the inflation since the moment we went off the gold standard. That period.

[Acantha]

You've advocated the dissolution of the Fed. It's not unreasonable to ask for a supporting argument, other than "because." If "power corrupts" is your answer, the market is the ultimate governor of Fed's actions. Fed has a narrow window to conduct market policy. If it tries to set rates that are way beyond what the market will bear, the Treasuries and the dollar will feel the pain. The Fed chairman is supported by twelve regional governors, and decisions are made in a committee.

 

If you look at the last serious crisis before the Fed was created, one man - JP Morgan - singlehandedly rescued the financial system. May seem pristine for the nostalgia buffs, but to me that's much more frightening. Would you feel the same if the fate of the entire US economy depended on George Soros? Not inconceivable in this scenario, because private capital is sitting on the sidelines. Without the Fed, you can bet that there would be a bigger battle among the major hedge funds to control the remains of the banking system (once it was totally decimated). Who wins in that case? Certainly not the regular guy, who you're trying to champion.

 

It's not security, because it will be plainly painful for everyone for a while. The bail outs are simply a shortcutting of the bankruptcy system. All bank equity and many employees are getting wiped out anyway, so what's the point of prolonging the turnaround?

 

The Fed controls the flow to the financial sector. It has very little impact on what the financials do with it.

 

No, the argument is, again - Please point to any source, other than Ron Paul, who is advocating the dissolution of the Fed.

This whole post shows such little understanding of how the financial system world and human nature work. It really sums up where you are on this. And again, saying Ron Paul over and over again doens't win you an argument. You've gone off the deep end now, so there's really no point in this anymore.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Faustus

[/dev/null]

Dow broke 9000

[stuckincincy]

Dow broke 9000

 

But..Americans love gambling casinos! More casinos! Casinos will employ! Casinos will pay taxes! Casinos take credit cards!

[Stl Bills]

Dow broke 9000

[Tux of Borg]

Dow broke 9000

 

OPEC is having an emergency meeting because of falling oil prices. They are expected to cut oil production to help stop the fall.

[/dev/null]

 

Down 675 on the day, close to breaking 8500

 

[HopsGuy]

OPEC is having an emergency meeting because of falling oil prices. They are expected to cut oil production to help stop the fall.

 

It's those damn speculators driving the price down. What is the CFTC going to do about this?

[Chef Jim]

Ok guys I'm goin' in. Cover me...........

[meazza]

Ok guys I'm goin' in. Cover me...........

 

I think the big bad fed is coming to get you.