Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They will just conduct more currency/trade wars to offset the difference. One of the reasons why Brazil is pissy with us is because we constantly push their currency higher by debasing our own. This causes them a trade deficit and makes their international goods on exchange in less demand.
Brazil is not the only one who gets caught in this game with currencies.
Imagine that. A nation looking out for it's own interests. It's a blow against the free markets!
They will just conduct more currency/trade wars to offset the difference. One of the reasons why Brazil is pissy with us is because we constantly push their currency higher by debasing our own. This causes them a trade deficit and makes their international goods on exchange in less demand.
Brazil is not the only one who gets caught in this game with currencies.
Imagine that. A nation looking out for it's own interests. It's a blow against the free markets!
Could you possibly be any more stupid?
it's called economic warfare and it does not creates a climate for peaceful exchange in the world. Furthermore, why would you even bring a free market up at all. This entire thread is completely adn utterly antithetical to a free market. Absolutely nothing about the world markets, more precisely the American corporatist system, is free market. Nothing.
It's a blow against the free markets!
Dante never said what you imagine he did.
I believe that every branch of government should "audit" the other two branches.Who has the constitutional authority to issue currency? The federal government, right? Who do they answer to? The people, right? Who represents the people in our government? Congress right? So who should monitor our currency and the policies surrounding it?
If Congress creates an entity to monitor something...?
What is it that puzzles you?
Ah, "then crime of 73". This one is easy. The German empire stopped minting silver thalers, which created a price suppression on silver, and the mining industries, in the western nations. including the US. Which led to the coinage act of 1873. Which essentially moved us off silver and to an exclusive gold standard. It was the direct results of government interventions that caused this to happen. Both foreign and domestic.
I'll do the other two when i have more time. Marked for later....
I'm really trying to make sure I understand this: Moving us from a bimetallic standard to the international / worldwide gold standard (an orderly process coordinated between nations to foster trade) caused a financial panic? I'm not sure a reduction in the money supply fits the model as a cause of a depression - Under the classical model, this would simply be deflationary. It's difficult to explain how a crisis in Germany led to banks failing in the US if said banks were based on hard money.
Because the mining industry, and market participants who were unable to secure silver as a mode of exchange. It was the german empires discontinued minting of thalers, because Otto Von got a huge sum of gold from France and felt it no longer needed, led to the coinage act of 1873. That act, demonetized silver. Forcing participants into gold only. It seems fairly obvious that this would cause economic calamity.
And in 1893, the free silver campaign began. because silver was the exchange tool of the lesser fortunate class. Where goods and services were not able to procure a gold amount as a price point. There was silver. Then govt. decided silver shouldn't be a unit of exchange as legal tender. Government, not a free market place, created this depression. 1893 saw silver come back in a round about way.
Who has the constitutional authority to issue currency? The federal government, right? Who do they answer to? The people, right? Who represents the people in our government? Congress right? So who should monitor our currency and the policies surrounding it?
If Congress creates an entity to monitor something...?
What is it that puzzles you?
Congress in thier role as representatives of the people. It's very simple. This idea that congress is a separate entity from us is what causes a lot of the issues we have today.
Classic. Ron Paul followers, Tea Party Imbeciles, and others have been denigrating Washington (the Government) as a separate entity hostile to the people.
You reap what you sow.
now stfu
I'm really trying to make sure I understand this: Moving us from a bimetallic standard to the international / worldwide gold standard (an orderly process coordinated between nations to foster trade) caused a financial panic? I'm not sure a reduction in the money supply fits the model as a cause of a depression - Under the classical model, this would simply be deflationary. It's difficult to explain how a crisis in Germany led to banks failing in the US if said banks were based on hard money.
Because the mining industry, and market participants who were unable to secure silver as a mode of exchange. It was the german empires discontinued minting of thalers, because Otto Von got a huge sum of gold from France and felt it no longer needed, led to the coinage act of 1873. That act, demonetized silver. Forcing participants into gold only. It seems fairly obvious that this would cause economic calamity.
And in 1893, the free silver campaign began. because silver was the exchange tool of the lesser fortunate class. Where goods and services were not able to procure a gold amount as a price point. There was silver. Then govt. decided silver shouldn't be a unit of exchange as legal tender. Government, not a free market place, created this depression. 1893 saw silver come back in a round about way.
So from this reading of the economic history, the 1873 US crisis was the result of an international (and exogenous) demand shock, correct?
Who has the constitutional authority to issue currency? The federal government, right? Who do they answer to? The people, right? Who represents the people in our government? Congress right? So who should monitor our currency and the policies surrounding it?
If Congress creates an entity to monitor something...?
What is it that puzzles you?
Congress in thier role as representatives of the people. It's very simple. This idea that congress is a separate entity from us is what causes a lot of the issues we have today.
Classic. Ron Paul followers, Tea Party Imbeciles, and others have been denigrating Washington (the Government) as a separate entity hostile to the people.
You reap what you sow.
now stfu
Actually your whole post puzzles me. I wasn't puzzled about anything those were rhetorical questions and I answered them. Congress created the fed and granted it power that should be reserved soley to itself. If it is going to do that then it should maintain ultimate authority so that the power is only invested and not given. Instead they effectively gave it away and made an autonomous entity with no checks to balance it out. This needs to be corrected and the audit may not need to be public knowledge but there needs to be oversight.
The Fed is already audited.
What those who want to "audit the Fed" really want is to audit the decisions of the FOMC. This is a terrible idea because it will increase political interference in monetary policy. Why in God's name do we want Congress meddling in the Fed's affairs?
There is already oversight of the Fed.
Congress should NOT be conducting monetary policy.
I believe that every branch of government should "audit" the other two branches.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
The Fed is already audited.
What those who want to "audit the Fed" really want is to audit the decisions of the FOMC. This is a terrible idea because it will increase political interference in monetary policy. Why in God's name do we want Congress meddling in the Fed's affairs?
Because they're printing up money and giving it out as welfare to foreign nations, not to mention picking winners and losers in the banking system and beyond.
Perhaps if the People had more oversight of their actions, they wouldn't have been able to inflate such a vast bubble in housing.
Imagine... the bullshit...There is already oversight of the Fed.
Congress should NOT be conducting monetary policy.
I believe that every branch of government should "audit" the other two branches.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
No. Imagine the bullshit that would occur.
The Fed is already audited.
What those who want to "audit the Fed" really want is to audit the decisions of the FOMC. This is a terrible idea because it will increase political interference in monetary policy. Why in God's name do we want Congress meddling in the Fed's affairs?
Because they're printing up money and giving it out as welfare to foreign nations, not to mention picking winners and losers in the banking system and beyond.
Perhaps if the People had more oversight of their actions, they wouldn't have been able to inflate such a vast bubble in housing.
Paulie, my man, don't take this the wrong, but are you fucking kidding me? The Fed has screwed up bad, no doubt, but I'd still rather have them than a bunch of venal ignoramuses whose primary goal is to get re-elected 730 days later. Unless you can with a straight face tell me that Nancy Pelosi should be running the Fed, you can't say Congress should be meddling in monetary policy. And if you can, I'd have to question your sanity!
Because they're printing up money and giving it out as welfare to foreign nations, not to mention picking winners and losers in the banking system and beyond.
Perhaps if the People had more oversight of their actions, they wouldn't have been able to inflate such a vast bubble in housing.
Paulie, my man, don't take this the wrong, but are you fucking kidding me? The Fed has screwed up bad, no doubt, but I'd still rather have them than a bunch of venal ignoramuses whose primary goal is to get re-elected 730 days later. Unless you can with a straight face tell me that Nancy Pelosi should be running the Fed, you can't say Congress should be meddling in monetary policy. And if you can, I'd have to question your sanity!
Well here's how I see it...I defer to the constitution first, and that clearly says Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value. There's not a single thing anywhere in the document that can even remotely be construed as authorizing something like the Fed.
Now that being said, no, I don't support Congress controlling that. But basically that's only because they've come to be known as less than trustworthy and competent, to say the least. It's a conundrum, because I don't like either avenue. I do support a free market that can use whatever it would like to trade with, and if that happens to be a competing currency, so be it. It doesn't have to be legal tender for public debt, I don't care about that. Just legal for private transactions.
Constitutionally, I have to err on the side of the enumerated power that gives congress that authority, and along with that, support market based alternatives to go with it. Eventually the people will realize when the government is screwing up and they'll adjust to account for it.
Paulie, my man, don't take this the wrong, but are you fucking kidding me? The Fed has screwed up bad, no doubt, but I'd still rather have them than a bunch of venal ignoramuses whose primary goal is to get re-elected 730 days later. Unless you can with a straight face tell me that Nancy Pelosi should be running the Fed, you can't say Congress should be meddling in monetary policy. And if you can, I'd have to question your sanity!
Well here's how I see it...I defer to the constitution first, and that clearly says Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value. There's not a single thing anywhere in the document that can even remotely be construed as authorizing something like the Fed.
Now that being said, no, I don't support Congress controlling that. But basically that's only because they've come to be known as less than trustworthy and competent, to say the least. It's a conundrum, because I don't like either avenue. I do support a free market that can use whatever it would like to trade with, and if that happens to be a competing currency, so be it. It doesn't have to be legal tender for public debt, I don't care about that. Just legal for private transactions.
Constitutionally, I have to err on the side of the enumerated power that gives congress that authority, and along with that, support market based alternatives to go with it. Eventually the people will realize when the government is screwing up and they'll adjust to account for it.
And only silver and gold are money. Dont forget that part. It is a game changer when the currency is anchored. Most finance and market gamblers hate this idea. It takes the elasticity we've all come to expect to be there away and this, well. This sucks! But it sucks the absolute worst for government.
As far as Nancy Pelosi...if she would have directly had anything to do with the money supply and the value of the dollar up to this point, I would think she'd have been voted out a long time ago.
Paulie, my man, don't take this the wrong, but are you fucking kidding me? The Fed has screwed up bad, no doubt, but I'd still rather have them than a bunch of venal ignoramuses whose primary goal is to get re-elected 730 days later. Unless you can with a straight face tell me that Nancy Pelosi should be running the Fed, you can't say Congress should be meddling in monetary policy. And if you can, I'd have to question your sanity!
Well here's how I see it...I defer to the constitution first, and that clearly says Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value. There's not a single thing anywhere in the document that can even remotely be construed as authorizing something like the Fed.
Now that being said, no, I don't support Congress controlling that. But basically that's only because they've come to be known as less than trustworthy and competent, to say the least. It's a conundrum, because I don't like either avenue. I do support a free market that can use whatever it would like to trade with, and if that happens to be a competing currency, so be it. It doesn't have to be legal tender for public debt, I don't care about that. Just legal for private transactions.
Constitutionally, I have to err on the side of the enumerated power that gives congress that authority, and along with that, support market based alternatives to go with it. Eventually the people will realize when the government is screwing up and they'll adjust to account for it.
And only silver and gold are money. Dont forget that part. It is a game changer when the currency is anchored. Most finance and market gamblers hate this idea. It takes the elasticity we've all come to expect to be there away and this, well. This sucks! But it sucks the absolute worst for government.
