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.
Is it simplistic to suggest that if productivity has increased by 70% and the richest among us have seen their assets increase in value by 550% since the late 70s, that wage labor should also have seen at least a double digit increase in their slice of the pie?"Why would the Fed ever want to make the economy grow more slowly or have fewer jobs? The answer is that the Fed worries that if too many people have jobs, or if it is too easy for workers to find jobs, there will be upward pressure on wages.
"More rapid wage growth can get translated into more rapidly rising prices — in other words, inflation. So the Fed often decides to raise interest rates to slow the economy and keep people out of work in order to keep inflation from increasing and eventually getting out of control.
"Most people probably do not realize that the Federal Reserve Board, an agency of the government, intervenes in the economy to prevent it from creating too many jobs.
"But there is even more to the story. When the Fed hits the brakes to slow job growth, it is not doctors, lawyers, and CEOs who end up without jobs.
"The people who lose are those in the middle and the bottom — sales clerks, factory workers, custodians, and dishwashers. These are the workers who don’t get hired or get laid off when the economy slows or goes into a recession.
The Conservative Nanny State
This isn't correct. The Fed isn't concerned with rapidly rising wages. They are concerned with rapidly rising wages in the absence of productivity growth, particularly when profit margins are low. The Fed wants wages to rise when productivity is growing.
GP was partially correct.
Your post simply makes his POV even MORE correct.
You guys (and I) seem to be in AGREEMENT.
Just ask Larry:Yes, the Fed has played a role in rising asset prices, but not in mediocre wage growth. This has occurred through much of the world, not just here. That's an outcome, not a biased policy of the Fed to help the rich by screwing everyone else. The Fed has no target or policy or preference for one class of people over another.
Are you sure the Fed is not biased towards the rich?
I mean the Fed is controlled by the rich. They live, associate & work with the rich. If anyone ever lived entirely in a disconnected affluent bubble it would be the Fed & their associates. Do you think they would operate in a way that would take away from themselves & give to the lower classes?
Just having advanced knowledge of the Feds moves can make nearly anyone very wealthy.
Just ask Larry:Yes, the Fed has played a role in rising asset prices, but not in mediocre wage growth. This has occurred through much of the world, not just here. That's an outcome, not a biased policy of the Fed to help the rich by screwing everyone else. The Fed has no target or policy or preference for one class of people over another.
Are you sure the Fed is not biased towards the rich?
I mean the Fed is controlled by the rich. They live, associate & work with the rich. If anyone ever lived entirely in a disconnected affluent bubble it would be the Fed & their associates. Do you think they would operate in a way that would take away from themselves & give to the lower classes?
Just having advanced knowledge of the Feds moves can make nearly anyone very wealthy.
"On August 19,(2010) just nine days after the U.S. central bank surprised financial markets by deciding to buy more bonds to support a flagging economy, former Fed governor Larry Meyer sent a note to clients of his consulting firm with a breakdown of the policy-setting meeting.
"The minutes from that same gathering of the powerful Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, are made available to the public -- but only after a three-week lag. So Meyer's clients were provided with a glimpse into what the Fed was thinking well ahead of other investors."
It would take a very trusting soul to believe the richest citizens of the US aren't always foremost in the thoughts of the US central bankers.
Special Report: The Ties That Bind at the Federal Reserve | Common Dreams
Yet the gap between the rich and the rest of Americans has widened on Bernanke's watch.Just ask Larry:Are you sure the Fed is not biased towards the rich?
I mean the Fed is controlled by the rich. They live, associate & work with the rich. If anyone ever lived entirely in a disconnected affluent bubble it would be the Fed & their associates. Do you think they would operate in a way that would take away from themselves & give to the lower classes?
Just having advanced knowledge of the Feds moves can make nearly anyone very wealthy.
"On August 19,(2010) just nine days after the U.S. central bank surprised financial markets by deciding to buy more bonds to support a flagging economy, former Fed governor Larry Meyer sent a note to clients of his consulting firm with a breakdown of the policy-setting meeting.
"The minutes from that same gathering of the powerful Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, are made available to the public -- but only after a three-week lag. So Meyer's clients were provided with a glimpse into what the Fed was thinking well ahead of other investors."
It would take a very trusting soul to believe the richest citizens of the US aren't always foremost in the thoughts of the US central bankers.
Special Report: The Ties That Bind at the Federal Reserve | Common Dreams
You are saying that the Fed operates to keep the rich wealthy at the expense of the poor. That is absolutely false. Bernanke has gone on record saying that widening dispersions in income are a bad thing.
High enployment is certainly better for employers than low unemployment.
You guys are aware, aren't you, of the THEORY that there is a "Natural RATE of unemployment" that is thought (by the FED) to be the ideal unemployment rate.
Its 5%.
They believe that unemployment below that number causes inflation, and that unemployment above that number casues DEflation.
Much of their policy on setting rates is based on that theory.
If the right believes a legitimate role of government involves protecting liberty, that requires ensuring Wall Street doesn't loot your pension plan or any other part of your standard of living.
When you say there's no evidence conservatives use government to redistribute income upwards, explain why a Mexican MD or lawyer who migrated illegally into Arizona would not be allowed to ply their profession while a Mexican laborer most likely would?
You forgot to mention Capitalism.High enployment is certainly better for employers than low unemployment.
You guys are aware, aren't you, of the THEORY that there is a "Natural RATE of unemployment" that is thought (by the FED) to be the ideal unemployment rate.
Its 5%.
They believe that unemployment below that number causes inflation, and that unemployment above that number casues DEflation.
Much of their policy on setting rates is based on that theory.
No ed. It has nothing to do with a worry about inflation. It has to do with the fact that in a nation of a couple hundred million strong labor force it is nearly impossible for unemployment to be less than that.
You forgot to mention Capitalism.High enployment is certainly better for employers than low unemployment.
You guys are aware, aren't you, of the THEORY that there is a "Natural RATE of unemployment" that is thought (by the FED) to be the ideal unemployment rate.
Its 5%.
They believe that unemployment below that number causes inflation, and that unemployment above that number casues DEflation.
Much of their policy on setting rates is based on that theory.
No ed. It has nothing to do with a worry about inflation. It has to do with the fact that in a nation of a couple hundred million strong labor force it is nearly impossible for unemployment to be less than that.
A nation of a couple hundred million workers toiling in an economic system that prioritizes profit above all else will require "acceptable" levels of unemployment.
The Are Alternatives.
Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes, the Fed has played a role in rising asset prices, but not in mediocre wage growth. This has occurred through much of the world, not just here. That's an outcome, not a biased policy of the Fed to help the rich by screwing everyone else. The Fed has no target or policy or preference for one class of people over another.
Are you sure the Fed is not biased towards the rich?
I mean the Fed is controlled by the rich. They live, associate & work with the rich. If anyone ever lived entirely in a disconnected affluent bubble it would be the Fed & their associates. Do you think they would operate in a way that would take away from themselves & give to the lower classes?
Just having advanced knowledge of the Feds moves can make nearly anyone very wealthy.
Yet the gap between the rich and the rest of Americans has widened on Bernanke's watch.
In the immediate aftermath of the Fed's $80 billion investment in AIG, 250 members of congress called for an independent audit of the Fed's accounts.
"Fed chair Ben Bernanke responded with the usual aloofness. An audit, he insisted, would amount to 'a takeover of monetary policy by the Congress.'
"He did not appear to recognize how arrogant that sounded. Congress created the Fed, but it must not look too deeply into the Fed's private business. The mystique intimidates many politicians.
"The Fed's power depends crucially upon the people not knowing exactly what it does."
Dismantling the Temple | The Nation
Try to decide if the rich want immigration laws to be enforced.
Maybe that will help you answer the question of why unskilled labor is allowed to migrate into this country and find work while doctors and lawyers are not.
If you think Wall Street isn't about looting other people's pension funds, explain the recent $13 trillion bail out.
Government could have responded by prosecuting the parasites responsible for the crimes instead of appointing them to Cabinet level positions, and you would have to be way beyond stupid to think it would have mattered in the slightest if John McCain had moved into the White House in 2009.
The rich have ruled this world for thousands of years.
They still do.
Which side are you on?
You forgot to mention Capitalism.High enployment is certainly better for employers than low unemployment.
You guys are aware, aren't you, of the THEORY that there is a "Natural RATE of unemployment" that is thought (by the FED) to be the ideal unemployment rate.
Its 5%.
They believe that unemployment below that number causes inflation, and that unemployment above that number casues DEflation.
Much of their policy on setting rates is based on that theory.
No ed. It has nothing to do with a worry about inflation. It has to do with the fact that in a nation of a couple hundred million strong labor force it is nearly impossible for unemployment to be less than that.
A nation of a couple hundred million workers toiling in an economic system that prioritizes profit above all else will require "acceptable" levels of unemployment.
The Are Alternatives.
Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does the present labor of the world create all of our wealth?You forgot to mention Capitalism.No ed. It has nothing to do with a worry about inflation. It has to do with the fact that in a nation of a couple hundred million strong labor force it is nearly impossible for unemployment to be less than that.
A nation of a couple hundred million workers toiling in an economic system that prioritizes profit above all else will require "acceptable" levels of unemployment.
The Are Alternatives.
Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social Credit was tried in Alberta. It didn't work.
Possibly one reason inequality of income has been widening for the past 40 years is the selective dissemination of information Fed officials routinely pass on to big investors.Yet the gap between the rich and the rest of Americans has widened on Bernanke's watch.
In the immediate aftermath of the Fed's $80 billion investment in AIG, 250 members of congress called for an independent audit of the Fed's accounts.
"Fed chair Ben Bernanke responded with the usual aloofness. An audit, he insisted, would amount to 'a takeover of monetary policy by the Congress.'
"He did not appear to recognize how arrogant that sounded. Congress created the Fed, but it must not look too deeply into the Fed's private business. The mystique intimidates many politicians.
"The Fed's power depends crucially upon the people not knowing exactly what it does."
Dismantling the Temple | The Nation
Inequality has been widening for the past 40 years.
An audit is a bad idea. Giving Congress more power over monetary policy would be a terrible idea. Giving people with little understanding of economics who are highly motivated to get themselves re-elected is an extremely bad way to structure monetary policy. There is a direct correlation between central bank independence and long-term economic performance. I have no problem with the Fed being audited for its lending decisions, but giving politicians control over monetary policy is like playing Russian Roulette with five loaded chambers.
What is your perception of the rich?Try to decide if the rich want immigration laws to be enforced.
Maybe that will help you answer the question of why unskilled labor is allowed to migrate into this country and find work while doctors and lawyers are not.
Maybe some don't. Both sides have their respective reasons for not wanting to crack down on illegal immigration. The left doesn't want to risk the votes. Both reasons are equally cowardly and self serving.
If you think Wall Street isn't about looting other people's pension funds, explain the recent $13 trillion bail out.
Government could have responded by prosecuting the parasites responsible for the crimes instead of appointing them to Cabinet level positions, and you would have to be way beyond stupid to think it would have mattered in the slightest if John McCain had moved into the White House in 2009.
What does bailing out wall street have to do with your opinion that people on wall street took people's pensions. Fuck if I know. Ask your boy Obama.
The rich have ruled this world for thousands of years.
They still do.
Which side are you on?
I really can't answer that. Our perception of who comprises the rich is different. And unfortunately for you the facts support that my perception of the rich is the accurate one. They aren't greed mongers trying to rule or keep people down and the poor aren't completely non responsible for the position their in. The rich aren't trying to rule anyone. I'm on the side of freedom, period. Freedom to succeed which goes hand in hand with the freedom to fail.
Should our president exempt the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes for the next two years?"The Rich Love High Unemployment"
Yeah, they just love it when no customers are coming in their doors because they have no cash to spend. And they just love it because they don't trust the objectives of our president's private sector policies, so now they can't expand their businesses and employ more ppl. Stagnation. Yeah, the rich love that.
