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.
How would you assess the accuracy of this analogy?if you did that banks would have to charge you a fixed fee to cover their costs;
Totally asinine. You've made it painfully clear that your knowledge of economics is limited to Newsmax talking points (and you usually misunderstand even those).
Banks are perfectly capable of not only covering their costs, but making very healthy profits on the mortgages and other loans they make.
"The situation is akin to that of medieval Europe in the wake of the Nordic invasions.
"The supra-national force of Rome in feudal times is now situated in Washington, with Christianity replaced by the Washington Consensus wielded via the IMF, World Bank, WTO and its satellite institutions such as the European Central Bank, backed by the moral and ideological role academic economists rather than the Church.
"And on the new financial battlefield, Wall Street underwriters have used the crisis as an opportunity to press for privatization..."
"The class war is back in business, with financial tactics playing a leading role barely anticipated a century ago."
The Ideological Crisis Underlying Today
The Ideological Crisis Underlying Today[/url]
No, my question was not related to you response to Eb.How would you assess the accuracy of this analogy?Totally asinine. You've made it painfully clear that your knowledge of economics is limited to Newsmax talking points (and you usually misunderstand even those).
Banks are perfectly capable of not only covering their costs, but making very healthy profits on the mortgages and other loans they make.
"The situation is akin to that of medieval Europe in the wake of the Nordic invasions.
"The supra-national force of Rome in feudal times is now situated in Washington, with Christianity replaced by the Washington Consensus wielded via the IMF, World Bank, WTO and its satellite institutions such as the European Central Bank, backed by the moral and ideological role academic economists rather than the Church.
"And on the new financial battlefield, Wall Street underwriters have used the crisis as an opportunity to press for privatization..."
"The class war is back in business, with financial tactics playing a leading role barely anticipated a century ago."
The Ideological Crisis Underlying Today
Before I address this analogy, I would like to know just one minor detail. Was it your intention to apply it to my argument about the banks? If so, would you be good enough to explain how you're getting from point A to point B? Not trying to be confrontational; I just want to make sure my answer fits within this context.
Ok, cool. Yeah, I understand the parallel, and it makes sense up to a point, although I would say that the author is pressing the analogy too far.No, my question was not related to you response to Eb.How would you assess the accuracy of this analogy?
"The situation is akin to that of medieval Europe in the wake of the Nordic invasions.
"The supra-national force of Rome in feudal times is now situated in Washington, with Christianity replaced by the Washington Consensus wielded via the IMF, World Bank, WTO and its satellite institutions such as the European Central Bank, backed by the moral and ideological role academic economists rather than the Church.
"And on the new financial battlefield, Wall Street underwriters have used the crisis as an opportunity to press for privatization..."
"The class war is back in business, with financial tactics playing a leading role barely anticipated a century ago."
The Ideological Crisis Underlying Today
Before I address this analogy, I would like to know just one minor detail. Was it your intention to apply it to my argument about the banks? If so, would you be good enough to explain how you're getting from point A to point B? Not trying to be confrontational; I just want to make sure my answer fits within this context.
My training in formal economics is limited (to say the least) and I just wondered if the analogy i related made sense to you.
Listening to eflat, one would wonder why all countries do not use the gold standard. the US left the gold standard during the great depression, based largely on the belief that the gold standard was part of the reason that the economy could not be kept under control.Do you know who owns the gold in the New York Fed's vault?
I suspect much of it is owned by banks. Probably a lot of foreign central banks. So what?
The stability caused by the gold standard is also the biggest drawback in having one. Exchange rates are not allowed to respond to changing circumstances in countries. A gold standard severely limits the stabilization policies the Federal Reserve can use. Because of these factors, countries with gold standards tend to have severe economic shocks. Economist Michael D. Bordo explains:
"Because economies under the gold standard were so vulnerable to real and monetary shocks, prices were highly unstable in the short run. A measure of short-term price instability is the coefficient of variation, which is the ratio of the standard deviation of annual percentage changes in the price level to the average annual percentage change. The higher the coefficient of variation, the greater the short-term instability. For the United States between 1879 and 1913, the coefficient was 17.0, which is quite high. Between 1946 and 1990 it was only 0.8.
Moreover, because the gold standard gives government very little discretion to use monetary policy, economies on the gold standard are less able to avoid or offset either monetary or real shocks. Real output, therefore, is more variable under the gold standard. The coefficient of variation for real output was 3.5 between 1879 and 1913, and only 1.5 between 1946 and 1990. Not coincidentally, since the government could not have discretion over monetary policy, unemployment was higher during the gold standard. It averaged 6.8 percent in the United States between 1879 and 1913 versus 5.6 percent between 1946 and 1990."
What Was The Gold Standard?
I can't imagine a more stable economy that one that is based on these three rules:
1. Currency is a number, a dollar, whatever. It is not backed by gold or silver or anything tangible.
2. The number of dollars let's say, only changes with increases or decreases in population. For example the federal reserve could become a branch of the treasury that maintains the security, quality and quantity of paper money in circulation.
3. Banks are required to hold 100% of their on demand accounts. You could still have savings in the form of cds or bonds but checking accounts would have to be held in the reserves.
I don't think most people agree or even have thought about it. I think that it's the biggest mistake we can make to ignore the flaws of our current system. I think it is the root of most of our problems economically today. The ability for government to create money has historically turned out badly. I think that people have to talk about this more.
Who controls the gold...Rockefeller or Rothschild?Unless I'm missing something, that is a massive contradiction. If you understand that our never ending printing press is bad, which it is, then the answer is money backed by something real. Gold will do fine.
The price of gold is determined by the market. Simple. It's not about the amount of gold any one guy owns, it's about the price on the open market. What we have now is a centrally planned price control on the price of money (the interest rate). Price controls never work in the long run.
I can't imagine a more stable economy that one that is based on these three rules:
1. Currency is a number, a dollar, whatever. It is not backed by gold or silver or anything tangible.
2. The number of dollars let's say, only changes with increases or decreases in population. For example the federal reserve could become a branch of the treasury that maintains the security, quality and quantity of paper money in circulation.
3. Banks are required to hold 100% of their on demand accounts. You could still have savings in the form of cds or bonds but checking accounts would have to be held in the reserves.
I don't think most people agree or even have thought about it. I think that it's the biggest mistake we can make to ignore the flaws of our current system. I think it is the root of most of our problems economically today. The ability for government to create money has historically turned out badly. I think that people have to talk about this more.
2. The number of dollars let's say, only changes with increases or decreases in population.
a little Econ 101 for you: with economic progress comes more GDP or more goods and services. Without a rising money supply you would have deflation and depression. These are bad things, but you have to have taken Econ 101 to know that.
Why am I not surprised you would be a gold standard kind of guy. Economic stability of the gold era, he says. Right up to the great depression. Nice.2. The number of dollars let's say, only changes with increases or decreases in population.
a little Econ 101 for you: with economic progress comes more GDP or more goods and services. Without a rising money supply you would have deflation and depression. These are bad things, but you have to have taken Econ 101 to know that.
AHHH! Not the deflation boogeyman every keynesian has been rolling out since the early part of the 1900s.
Deflation doesn't necessarily mean depression. The amount of currency in rotation handles a modest rise, based on production, better than any other system. Which, as it turns out, is simply a few people printing up more. Which is disastrous.
Just look at the rate of inflation through the classic gold era if you want to see monetary stability.
That would be your opinion, dipshit. And you know how much I value your opinion.And this race to the bottom will end in epoc disaster. Me poor, fucking retarded and short sighted spork.
"The financial plan is for the government is to supply nearly free credit to the banks, so that they can to lend debtors enough at the widest interest-rate markups in recent memory (what banks charge borrowers and credit-card users over their less-than-1% borrowing costs) to pay down the debts that were run up before 2008.The Ideological Crisis Underlying Today[/url]
"It remains the task of a new economics to revive the classical distinction between....... capitalism and feudalism."
Actually today there is no requirement to be a vassel in order to survive. Capitalism and feudalism are opposites. Only a liberal could be so stupid as to assume there is no distinction.
"The financial plan is for the government is to supply nearly free credit to the banks, so that they can to lend debtors enough at the widest interest-rate markups in recent memory (what banks charge borrowers and credit-card users over their less-than-1% borrowing costs) to pay down the debts that were run up before 2008.The Ideological Crisis Underlying Today[/url]
"It remains the task of a new economics to revive the classical distinction between....... capitalism and feudalism."
Actually today there is no requirement to be a vassel in order to survive. Capitalism and feudalism are opposites. Only a liberal could be so stupid as to assume there is no distinction.
"This is not a program to increase market demand for the products of labor.
"It is not the kind of circular flow that economists have described as the essence of industrial capitalism. It is a financial rake-off of a magnitude such as has not existed since medieval European times, and the last stifling days of the oligarchic Roman Empire two thousand years ago."
The Ideological Crisis Underlying Today
That would be your opinion, dipshit. And you know how much I value your opinion.And this race to the bottom will end in epoc disaster. Me poor, fucking retarded and short sighted spork.
I thought you would at least go out to some bat shit crazy con tool web site for some support. You know, hell, CATO loves it. Or, if you spend a day, maybe you can finc an impartial source that would support it. Not many, however. Mostly just con tools. And libertarians.
And the gold standard is not coming back, me poor ignorant tool.
Actually, today's cons take pains to conceal how a neo-rentier economy requires the 99% (labor and consumers) to owe the 1% (bondholders, stockholders and property owners) in the same way feudal serfs owed their lords and ladies."The financial plan is for the government is to supply nearly free credit to the banks, so that they can to lend debtors enough at the widest interest-rate markups in recent memory (what banks charge borrowers and credit-card users over their less-than-1% borrowing costs) to pay down the debts that were run up before 2008."It remains the task of a new economics to revive the classical distinction between....... capitalism and feudalism."
Actually today there is no requirement to be a vassel in order to survive. Capitalism and feudalism are opposites. Only a liberal could be so stupid as to assume there is no distinction.
"This is not a program to increase market demand for the products of labor.
"It is not the kind of circular flow that economists have described as the essence of industrial capitalism. It is a financial rake-off of a magnitude such as has not existed since medieval European times, and the last stifling days of the oligarchic Roman Empire two thousand years ago."
The Ideological Crisis Underlying Today
The goof liberal tries to change the subject when he loses a debate:
Actually today there is no requirement to be a vassel in order to survive. Capitalism and feudalism are opposites. Only a liberal could be so stupid as to assume there is no distinction
What is it about private fortunes that make conservatives bow low and obey?
Were you debating with yourself again, ed. Poor ed. Delusional. Thinks he is debating, and winning. With himself, obviously. As everyone else is to polite to debate with a mentally ill person."The financial plan is for the government is to supply nearly free credit to the banks, so that they can to lend debtors enough at the widest interest-rate markups in recent memory (what banks charge borrowers and credit-card users over their less-than-1% borrowing costs) to pay down the debts that were run up before 2008."It remains the task of a new economics to revive the classical distinction between....... capitalism and feudalism."
Actually today there is no requirement to be a vassel in order to survive. Capitalism and feudalism are opposites. Only a liberal could be so stupid as to assume there is no distinction.
"This is not a program to increase market demand for the products of labor.
"It is not the kind of circular flow that economists have described as the essence of industrial capitalism. It is a financial rake-off of a magnitude such as has not existed since medieval European times, and the last stifling days of the oligarchic Roman Empire two thousand years ago."
The Ideological Crisis Underlying Today
The goof liberal tries to change the subject when he loses a debate:
Actually today there is no requirement to be a vassel in order to survive. Capitalism and feudalism are opposites. Only a liberal could be so stupid as to assume there is no distinction
