Does anyone think we need the Fed?

[The Rabbi]

I think Rabbi's starting to realize the inexorable truth. He's tired of being a tool. He realizes that the FRS and fiat money is indefensible, he just doesn't want to back down because he came out so strong in favor of it.

Please show any of my posts where came out in favor of fiat money.

 

[Polk]

Yeah, but you're avoiding the question. How can the federal government force the states to act against the constitution? Is that in there somewhere? Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution.

How is the federal government forcing states to act against the Constitution?

If they are forced to use fiat paper money or even commodity paper money (instead of gold and silver coins), they are acting against the constitution.

That's not true. The only thing prohibited is the state's issuing their own currency.

Also, getting back to the original point, central banking is hardly "necessary" and I would say even im"proper" to coining money. The arguments that were made in McCulloch v. Maryland rested on the judgment that central banking was both necessary and proper. If you look at what we have now it is not only unnecessary but it is extremely improper. So how is it also constitutional?

You claiming that it's improper and unnecessary doesn't make it so, any more than I can call down rain from the skies.

 

[Polk]

I believe the McCulloch v. Maryland decision was later reversed and then re-reversed. It was actually a very controversial decision. Yet, you act like this extremely difficult judicial decision was as easy as pie. How long have you been a judge? Constitutional lawyer maybe? It's definitely not as cut-and-dry as you're trying to make it out to be.

McCulloch v. Maryland was never reversed and wasn't even remotely controversial (the ruling was unanimous).

 

[Polk]

I think everybody here is getting a little heated more than we need to...

Congress is allowed to coin money but they are also however not given the power to emit bills of credit. (paper money)

That's not true. Only states are prohibited from issuing paper money.

 

[Polk]

I'd just like to submit for the record that no one has actually made the case for fiat currency and central banking here yet.

The ability to adjust the money supply to respond to economic shocks is a huge one.

 

[Paulie]

As opposed to the information you posted that didn't even apply to what I was talking about?

I talk about the correlation between interest rates and personal investment, and you throw out CapEx and GDP like it's got SHIT to do with what's being discussed.

Have you read ANYTHING on Keynes yet, rhodes? You've already proven you don't know jack fucking shit about him. Maybe it's time to hit the books?

Please show the post where you mentioned "personal investment."
I asked where Keynes wrote he supported lower interest rates during a recession. I am still waiting.
"Don't know jack shit"? Maybe what psychologists call "projection", eh?

You've GOT to be fucking kidding me. Go back and fucking read the post again.

I distinctly mention lower interest rates creating more investment demand. I then follow it with a mention of how well the markets have done since the March bottom.

What's sad is that even with that, which should have been clear enough for you, you STILL hit me with business expenditures and GDP like it had ANYTHING to do with what I was talking about.

Keynes states that when rate cuts don't stimulate private sector spending, then fiscal stimulus is necessary. The man recognizes the need for a central bank that establishes the price of money. That he goes beyond that kind of policy to advocate public spending, does not mean he does not favor rate cuts. Why are you not understanding this?

The original premise of me even getting involved in this so-called discussion with you was to point out the illogical position of abandoning Keynesianism, while advocating a centrally controlled monetary policy.

Which brings me back to a question I already asked you. Why do you believe the free market is capable of handling all fiscal matters, but somehow NOT capable of handling monetary matters?

Do you think the free market is PRETTY smart, but not REALLY smart? I don't get this position. You are simply not a free market advocate if you think the free market should be intervened in by the government to control monetary issues via a central bank. That's the absolute antithesis of free market.

 

[rubberhead]

I think Rabbi's starting to realize the inexorable truth. He's tired of being a tool. He realizes that the FRS and fiat money is indefensible, he just doesn't want to back down because he came out so strong in favor of it.

Please show any of my posts where came out in favor of fiat money.

So you're not in favor of the FRS as it exists today? You know that fiat money is the norm nowadays right?

 

[rubberhead]

I'd just like to submit for the record that no one has actually made the case for fiat currency and central banking here yet.

The ability to adjust the money supply to respond to economic shocks is a huge one.

OK, then I answer:

What about the danger, nay certainty, of abuse? I know we've already had this discussion, but you haven't really addressed it except to say basically "I trust the board of governors." That's not good enough for me. I don't trust them.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think Rabbi's starting to realize the inexorable truth. He's tired of being a tool. He realizes that the FRS and fiat money is indefensible, he just doesn't want to back down because he came out so strong in favor of it.

Please show any of my posts where came out in favor of fiat money.

So you're not in favor of the FRS as it exists today? You know that fiat money is the norm nowadays right?

Please show any posts where I came out in favor of fiat money.

 

[The Rabbi]

As opposed to the information you posted that didn't even apply to what I was talking about?

I talk about the correlation between interest rates and personal investment, and you throw out CapEx and GDP like it's got SHIT to do with what's being discussed.

Have you read ANYTHING on Keynes yet, rhodes? You've already proven you don't know jack fucking shit about him. Maybe it's time to hit the books?

Please show the post where you mentioned "personal investment."
I asked where Keynes wrote he supported lower interest rates during a recession. I am still waiting.
"Don't know jack shit"? Maybe what psychologists call "projection", eh?

You've GOT to be fucking kidding me. Go back and fucking read the post again.

I distinctly mention lower interest rates creating more investment demand. I then follow it with a mention of how well the markets have done since the March bottom.

What's sad is that even with that, which should have been clear enough for you, you STILL hit me with business expenditures and GDP like it had ANYTHING to do with what I was talking about.

Keynes states that when rate cuts don't stimulate private sector spending, then fiscal stimulus is necessary. The man recognizes the need for a central bank that establishes the price of money. That he goes beyond that kind of policy to advocate public spending, does not mean he does not favor rate cuts. Why are you not understanding this?

The original premise of me even getting involved in this so-called discussion with you was to point out the illogical position of abandoning Keynesianism, while advocating a centrally controlled monetary policy.

Which brings me back to a question I already asked you. Why do you believe the free market is capable of handling all fiscal matters, but somehow NOT capable of handling monetary matters?

Do you think the free market is PRETTY smart, but not REALLY smart? I don't get this position. You are simply not a free market advocate if you think the free market should be intervened in by the government to control monetary issues via a central bank. That's the absolute antithesis of free market.

Please show me where you mentioned "personal investment." I'm still waiting.
Please show me where Keynes says any of that.
The free market is great. But that doesn't mean there isn't a role for government. Like enforcing contracts. Having a stable money supply is part of that.

 

[rubberhead]

I believe the McCulloch v. Maryland decision was later reversed and then re-reversed. It was actually a very controversial decision. Yet, you act like this extremely difficult judicial decision was as easy as pie. How long have you been a judge? Constitutional lawyer maybe? It's definitely not as cut-and-dry as you're trying to make it out to be.

McCulloch v. Maryland was never reversed and wasn't even remotely controversial (the ruling was unanimous).

I guess I was wrong on the reversal thing. But President Jackson did later kill the BUS before the charter could be renewed, so it's constitutionality became irrelevant.

Maybe it wasn't controversial for the justices, but there was definitely plenty of opposition to the loose interpretation of the "necessary and proper" clause that was being adopted and the slippery slope that has led to outright abuse in the 20th century. Hamilton himself warned of such abuses. It remains a controversial decision today. Remember, the Supreme Court has upheld some pretty screwy decisions and although they are the last word on justice Constitutionally, they are not incorruptible or perfect by any stretch.

 

[rubberhead]

Please show the post where you mentioned "personal investment."
I asked where Keynes wrote he supported lower interest rates during a recession. I am still waiting.
"Don't know jack shit"? Maybe what psychologists call "projection", eh?

You've GOT to be fucking kidding me. Go back and fucking read the post again.

I distinctly mention lower interest rates creating more investment demand. I then follow it with a mention of how well the markets have done since the March bottom.

What's sad is that even with that, which should have been clear enough for you, you STILL hit me with business expenditures and GDP like it had ANYTHING to do with what I was talking about.

Keynes states that when rate cuts don't stimulate private sector spending, then fiscal stimulus is necessary. The man recognizes the need for a central bank that establishes the price of money. That he goes beyond that kind of policy to advocate public spending, does not mean he does not favor rate cuts. Why are you not understanding this?

The original premise of me even getting involved in this so-called discussion with you was to point out the illogical position of abandoning Keynesianism, while advocating a centrally controlled monetary policy.

Which brings me back to a question I already asked you. Why do you believe the free market is capable of handling all fiscal matters, but somehow NOT capable of handling monetary matters?

Do you think the free market is PRETTY smart, but not REALLY smart? I don't get this position. You are simply not a free market advocate if you think the free market should be intervened in by the government to control monetary issues via a central bank. That's the absolute antithesis of free market.

Please show me where you mentioned "personal investment." I'm still waiting.
Please show me where Keynes says any of that.
The free market is great. But that doesn't mean there isn't a role for government. Like enforcing contracts. Having a stable money supply is part of that.

Enforcing contracts? What about upholding contracts? Is our money supply stable? What money is more stability than commodity money?

 

[Paulie]

Please show the post where you mentioned "personal investment."
I asked where Keynes wrote he supported lower interest rates during a recession. I am still waiting.
"Don't know jack shit"? Maybe what psychologists call "projection", eh?

You've GOT to be fucking kidding me. Go back and fucking read the post again.

I distinctly mention lower interest rates creating more investment demand. I then follow it with a mention of how well the markets have done since the March bottom.

What's sad is that even with that, which should have been clear enough for you, you STILL hit me with business expenditures and GDP like it had ANYTHING to do with what I was talking about.

Keynes states that when rate cuts don't stimulate private sector spending, then fiscal stimulus is necessary. The man recognizes the need for a central bank that establishes the price of money. That he goes beyond that kind of policy to advocate public spending, does not mean he does not favor rate cuts. Why are you not understanding this?

The original premise of me even getting involved in this so-called discussion with you was to point out the illogical position of abandoning Keynesianism, while advocating a centrally controlled monetary policy.

Which brings me back to a question I already asked you. Why do you believe the free market is capable of handling all fiscal matters, but somehow NOT capable of handling monetary matters?

Do you think the free market is PRETTY smart, but not REALLY smart? I don't get this position. You are simply not a free market advocate if you think the free market should be intervened in by the government to control monetary issues via a central bank. That's the absolute antithesis of free market.

Please show me where you mentioned "personal investment." I'm still waiting.
Please show me where Keynes says any of that.
The free market is great. But that doesn't mean there isn't a role for government. Like enforcing contracts. Having a stable money supply is part of that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1590125-post82.html

Keynes advocated lower rates to stimulate investment. Since the federal funds rate has been lowered to its current range, investment has jumped off tremendously. In fact, investment ALWAYS jumps off after any rate cut.

In fairness to the discussion, I realize I didn't specifically say 'personal'. But I would think someone who claims to be intelligent would have picked up on the context and not knee-jerkingly jump right out with 'business investment'.

As I further clarified it throughout the thread when I added equities to the discussion, you still didn't grasp the inferrence. This is not my problem, it is yours.

Keynes states that lower interest rates create more investment demand. This has nothing to do with CapEx and GDP. It is referring to asset investment, be it equities, commodities, treasuries. Had you been more knowledgable about the man, you would already know this.

Like I said, I'm done with this discussion. Let me know when you've read up some more, and maybe we'll continue this.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gee, so its my fault that when you use a word like "investment" I take it to mean, well, investment? You could have said "stock market" and that would have made some sense. Even so, the bond market is an investment and you see not much happened with that.
And actually I would bet that investments by individuals are way down as most people have lost income so arent investing as much.
So much for anything you've written.
And I am still waiting to see where Keynes says these things, as opposed to your saying he says them.

 

[rubberhead]

We're talking about the Fed. This is not a discussion of Keynes. Remember the other thread where Rabbi Keynes-Hitler pretends he's not a Keynesian? That's where we can talk about Keynes. Or you can talk about Keynes here, but it's just annoying, that's all.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

I think everybody here is getting a little heated more than we need to...

Congress is allowed to coin money but they are also however not given the power to emit bills of credit. (paper money)

That's not true. Only states are prohibited from issuing paper money.

Show me in Article I, Section 8, where the congress is authorized to emit bills of credit..

Its not there. They only have power to "coin money".. They were not given the power to make paper money for a reason.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

I'd just like to submit for the record that no one has actually made the case for fiat currency and central banking here yet.

The ability to adjust the money supply to respond to economic shocks is a huge one.

So the market cant do this?? We need to have a centrally planned economy like the Soviet Union?

 

[rubberhead]

I'd just like to submit for the record that no one has actually made the case for fiat currency and central banking here yet.

The ability to adjust the money supply to respond to economic shocks is a huge one.

So the market cant do this?? We need to have a centrally planned economy like the Soviet Union?

Daddy government knows better than the market. Didn'cha know?

 

[The Rabbi]

I'd just like to submit for the record that no one has actually made the case for fiat currency and central banking here yet.

The ability to adjust the money supply to respond to economic shocks is a huge one.

So the market cant do this?? We need to have a centrally planned economy like the Soviet Union?

No, the market cannot do this. The results of trying are fugly. And you have presented a false dichotomy.

 

[rubberhead]

The ability to adjust the money supply to respond to economic shocks is a huge one.

So the market cant do this?? We need to have a centrally planned economy like the Soviet Union?

No, the market cannot do this. The results of trying are fugly. And you have presented a false dichotomy.

Nah, you're presenting a false multichotomy. Oh, and you through in some fearmongering. Good job. You should be working for the Fed board.

Government regulation, especially when it comes to money, leads only to more government regulation until freedom is a dried out husk of a memory.