What should fed policy on inflation (in general) be?

[OohPooPahDoo]

We need not have a central bank at all.

And have what instead?



That's actually exactly what they do.



That's actually not true. The price of goods was quite volatile at some times.
Consumer Price Index (Estimate) 1800-2008 | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

1802 -14%
1813 +13%
1815 -13%
1823 -10%
1862 +11%
1863 +23%
1864 +27%



That's not true either. There was deflation in 1921, 1922, 1927, 1928, and there was no inflation in 1924, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1938, 1939, 1949, 1955, and 2009.
Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2011, Annual and Monthly Tables - US Inflation Calculator
get your facts straight.

What cost a few hundred dollars in 1913 now costs thousands. That's YOUR money the Fed as stolen. Personally, I'm pissed about that.

I wasn't around in 1913. I doubt you were either. I don't think you know how money works.

The country, and others, have existed just fine with NO central bank. No substitute is necessary.

Yeah, but what would supply the money in its place? Decentralized nationally chartered banking? Free banking?

You are dead wrong about how politicians raise money. Sure they sell T bills (debt) and levy taxes but when they need money they can't get through either of those means, their buddies at the Fed create it out of thin air for them. This devalues the dollar and causes even more inflation.

They do not. Any money they spend not from revenues has to be raised through debt issue. The Fed buys some of it but they hold barely more than 10% of outstanding U.S. Treasuries.

Prices are SUPPOSED to be volatile. That's what happens when supply and demand determine prices. That's my point and that's a good thing.

Your point was actually:

For the first 100 or so years of our country, the average price of goods was pretty much unchanged - some inflated, some deflated, all according to supply and demand.

which is kinda the opposite of what you just said.

That fact remains that what cost $100 in early 1800s cost about the same by the end of the century.

Actually:

What cost $100 in 1800 would cost $48.94 in 1900.

The Inflation Calculator
So, wrong again.

That is certainly NOT the case for the 20th century. Of course there were years of little to no inflation but overall, the Fed caused huge amounts of inflation that a free market certainly would not have. Again, what cost $100 in 1913 sure as HELL doesn't cost about that today. That is the Fed's fault.

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind next time I go to spend money that I saved in 1913! I can tell you're the practical sort.

You clearly do not know how money works pal. If you really want to make the case for a centrally planned price of money, why not milk? How about toilet paper? Hell, let's have the government set the price of everything. Why not?

I'm waiting to hear where the money comes from after we abolish the fed.

 

[eflatminor]

And have what instead?



That's actually exactly what they do.



That's actually not true. The price of goods was quite volatile at some times.
Consumer Price Index (Estimate) 1800-2008 | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

1802 -14%
1813 +13%
1815 -13%
1823 -10%
1862 +11%
1863 +23%
1864 +27%



That's not true either. There was deflation in 1921, 1922, 1927, 1928, and there was no inflation in 1924, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1938, 1939, 1949, 1955, and 2009.
Historical Inflation Rates: 1914-2011, Annual and Monthly Tables - US Inflation Calculator
get your facts straight.


I wasn't around in 1913. I doubt you were either. I don't think you know how money works.

The country, and others, have existed just fine with NO central bank. No substitute is necessary.

Yeah, but what would supply the money in its place? Decentralized nationally chartered banking? Free banking?



They do not. Any money they spend not from revenues has to be raised through debt issue. The Fed buys some of it but they hold barely more than 10% of outstanding U.S. Treasuries.

Your point was actually:
which is kinda the opposite of what you just said.

Actually:
The Inflation Calculator
So, wrong again.

That is certainly NOT the case for the 20th century. Of course there were years of little to no inflation but overall, the Fed caused huge amounts of inflation that a free market certainly would not have. Again, what cost $100 in 1913 sure as HELL doesn't cost about that today. That is the Fed's fault.

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind next time I go to spend money that I saved in 1913! I can tell you're the practical sort.

You clearly do not know how money works pal. If you really want to make the case for a centrally planned price of money, why not milk? How about toilet paper? Hell, let's have the government set the price of everything. Why not?

I'm waiting to hear where the money comes from after we abolish the fed.

You're making my point for me! Seriously! I've already stated that Congress has the power to print money. If that was the Feds only job, nobody would care. That said, any authorized printer can print the money at direction of Congress. It should be backed by something real, but that's another topic. Let's stick with Fed caused inflation.

You miss the point about Fed created debt. Politicians found in the Fed a way to fund their wars and entitlements by simply printing money. That's fare less onerous than actually raising funds in an open market or enacting new taxes. FAR less. Perhaps Mises said it best: "one can say without exaggeration that inflation is an indispensable means of militarism. Without it, the repercussions of war on welfare become obvious much more quickly and penetratingly; war weariness would set in much earlier".

Thanks for making my point about the Fed's forced inflation. Depending on the dates you choose, the price of goods in the 19th century may have actually dropped, as you pointed out. Pick different dates or a different set of goods and the prices would have risen. That's the point - the market produces DRAMATICALLY different inflation/deflation results than the Fed which is sure to cause inflation and lots of it.

Tell you what, why don't you take the time to read a bit on the subject. Read Mises, read Paul's End the Fed, check out Hayek. Education yourself on this issues around the Fed and then come back and try to defend it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The country, and others, have existed just fine with NO central bank. No substitute is necessary.

Yeah, but what would supply the money in its place? Decentralized nationally chartered banking? Free banking?



They do not. Any money they spend not from revenues has to be raised through debt issue. The Fed buys some of it but they hold barely more than 10% of outstanding U.S. Treasuries.

Your point was actually:
which is kinda the opposite of what you just said.

Actually:
The Inflation Calculator
So, wrong again.

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind next time I go to spend money that I saved in 1913! I can tell you're the practical sort.

You clearly do not know how money works pal. If you really want to make the case for a centrally planned price of money, why not milk? How about toilet paper? Hell, let's have the government set the price of everything. Why not?

I'm waiting to hear where the money comes from after we abolish the fed.

You're making my point for me! Seriously! I've already stated that Congress has the power to print money. If that was the Feds only job, nobody would care. That said, any authorized printer can print the money at direction of Congress. It should be backed by something real, but that's another topic. Let's stick with Fed caused inflation.

So you want the Congress to just outsource the job of printing money to folks - and then whoever prints it I guess gets to spend it on whatever they want? You're not being very specific here. Backed by what exactly? How do you intend to obtain the assets for its backing?

You miss the point about Fed created debt. Politicians found in the Fed a way to fund their wars and entitlements by simply printing money. That's fare less onerous than actually raising funds in an open market or enacting new taxes. FAR less. Perhaps Mises said it best: "one can say without exaggeration that inflation is an indispensable means of militarism. Without it, the repercussions of war on welfare become obvious much more quickly and penetratingly; war weariness would set in much earlier".

I didn't miss any point, your entire premise is wrong. The treasury can only raise money past revenues by issuing debt.

Thanks for making my point about the Fed's forced inflation. Depending on the dates you choose, the price of goods in the 19th century may have actually dropped, as you pointed out. Pick different dates or a different set of goods and the prices would have risen. That's the point - the market produces DRAMATICALLY different inflation/deflation results than the Fed which is sure to cause inflation and lots of it.

DEFLATION IS BAD FOR THE ECONOMY MORON. It causes businesses, farms, and mortgages to FAIL. The HOUSING CRISIS WAS CAUSED BY DEFLATING HOME PRICES - do you not keep up at all?

Tell you what, why don't you take the time to read a bit on the subject. Read Mises, read Paul's End the Fed, check out Hayek. Education yourself on this issues around the Fed and then come back and try to defend it.

Ron Paul is a moron who doesn't even understand how the Federal Reserve operates - and neither do you. You can't even tell me what system of money we'd have in its place you're so ignorant.

 

[eflatminor]

Yeah, but what would supply the money in its place? Decentralized nationally chartered banking? Free banking?



They do not. Any money they spend not from revenues has to be raised through debt issue. The Fed buys some of it but they hold barely more than 10% of outstanding U.S. Treasuries.

Your point was actually:
which is kinda the opposite of what you just said.

Actually:
The Inflation Calculator
So, wrong again.

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind next time I go to spend money that I saved in 1913! I can tell you're the practical sort.



I'm waiting to hear where the money comes from after we abolish the fed.

You're making my point for me! Seriously! I've already stated that Congress has the power to print money. If that was the Feds only job, nobody would care. That said, any authorized printer can print the money at direction of Congress. It should be backed by something real, but that's another topic. Let's stick with Fed caused inflation.

So you want the Congress to just outsource the job of printing money to folks - and then whoever prints it I guess gets to spend it on whatever they want? You're not being very specific here. Backed by what exactly? How do you intend to obtain the assets for its backing?



I didn't miss any point, your entire premise is wrong. The treasury can only raise money past revenues by issuing debt.

Thanks for making my point about the Fed's forced inflation. Depending on the dates you choose, the price of goods in the 19th century may have actually dropped, as you pointed out. Pick different dates or a different set of goods and the prices would have risen. That's the point - the market produces DRAMATICALLY different inflation/deflation results than the Fed which is sure to cause inflation and lots of it.

DEFLATION IS BAD FOR THE ECONOMY MORON. It causes businesses, farms, and mortgages to FAIL. The HOUSING CRISIS WAS CAUSED BY DEFLATING HOME PRICES - do you not keep up at all?

Tell you what, why don't you take the time to read a bit on the subject. Read Mises, read Paul's End the Fed, check out Hayek. Education yourself on this issues around the Fed and then come back and try to defend it.

Ron Paul is a moron who doesn't even understand how the Federal Reserve operates - and neither do you. You can't even tell me what system of money we'd have in its place you're so ignorant.

Keep your head stuck in the sand. Or, you can read from those that know a lot more about this than you. I'm betting you choose to remain ignorant. Bliss and all...

Moron...indeed!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You're making my point for me! Seriously! I've already stated that Congress has the power to print money. If that was the Feds only job, nobody would care. That said, any authorized printer can print the money at direction of Congress. It should be backed by something real, but that's another topic. Let's stick with Fed caused inflation.

So you want the Congress to just outsource the job of printing money to folks - and then whoever prints it I guess gets to spend it on whatever they want? You're not being very specific here. Backed by what exactly? How do you intend to obtain the assets for its backing?



I didn't miss any point, your entire premise is wrong. The treasury can only raise money past revenues by issuing debt.



DEFLATION IS BAD FOR THE ECONOMY MORON. It causes businesses, farms, and mortgages to FAIL. The HOUSING CRISIS WAS CAUSED BY DEFLATING HOME PRICES - do you not keep up at all?

Tell you what, why don't you take the time to read a bit on the subject. Read Mises, read Paul's End the Fed, check out Hayek. Education yourself on this issues around the Fed and then come back and try to defend it.

Ron Paul is a moron who doesn't even understand how the Federal Reserve operates - and neither do you. You can't even tell me what system of money we'd have in its place you're so ignorant.

Keep your head stuck in the sand. Or, you can read from those that know a lot more about this than you. I'm betting you choose to remain ignorant. Bliss and all...

Moron...indeed!

You have yet to inform me of anything. For instance, what system of money would replace the central bank? People would still need money in your utopia, I take it?

I guess your argument really just comes down to "go read a book that supports my argument!!!!" - not that compelling.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why do 2 poll responders want businesses and homeowners to be crippled by deflation?

 

[saveliberty]

Read up on hyperinflation.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They should print a gazillion more $$.. that seems to be doing the trick just fine.

 

[eflatminor]

...what system of money would replace the central bank?

The gold standard.

 

[Avatar4321]

This question, of course, assumes that the Fed should exist to begin with. I don't think that argument has been made well yet.

But assuming the Fed should exist, the policy on inflation should be as minimal as possible. They should not be allowed to steal our hard earned wealth by making our money worthless.