What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A Subsidiary of US Defense etc Should Take Over +51% of the Federal Reserve System

konkon

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
7
Points
16
It makes perfect sense to me to have a subsidiary of all defense agencies, that are ultimately responsible for protecting the United States, to backstop and be the definitive underwriter of US debt and the issuer of more.

At the end of the day, US debt is one of the best businesses to be in if it is in the hands of those that will move the economy forward with it. The Federal Reserve System IS the most highly lucrative and leveraged system that can benefit any organization's future (especially the ones that control it [key point!]), and the future of the United States as a whole (another key point and the most important one).

If you want to compare the existing (largely failed) Federal Reserve System to the one being suggested, don't bother throwing into the mix conflicting and confusing existing Federal Reserve practices and spin, that are probably at the heart of many of the problems the US faces.

I don't have a problem with Bernanke himself or with any board members/directors etc (not yet, anyway). The Federal Reserve System is inherently dubious and it's not owned and operated by those that know how to best protect US interests. I don't think we have seen the worst yet; not talking about the current economic crisis. I'm thinking decades ahead and what could go wrong.

Under the current Federal Reserve System, where is all the debt going to? Who are the real (perhaps foreign) owners of US (perpetual) debt? What's done is done, and let's not waste more time worrying about something they don't want to disclose (why don't they want to disclose such secretive information again?!). Here's just one thing that should happen:

Congress should allow for a (piece by piece, if need be) controlling 51% stake of the Federal Reserve System to be sold to a subsidiary (for technical, legal, conflict of interest etc reasons) of (all) participating United States defense agencies; criticize them all you like but pound for pound, you're not going to find more responsible/protective etc organizations.

Yes, the most expensive purchase in history, but with a small percentage down-payment and for this newly formed organization to pay down only interest over time. The (current) Fed and the overseeing commercial banks can do the potential new owners a favor with low long term yields too, thanks to Operation Twist! And the participating banks will have all the necessary business too to help them along; no need to worry about being too big to fail (again!) because those commercial banks aren't going out of business!

Or if Congress down the track feels that it is in the best interests of the United States, it could by-pass the accounting technicalities and force the current owners to sell 51% of the Federal Reserve System to a subsidiary of US defense agencies. I'd go for this option. An Act of Congress...

The printing and supply of money should be in the control of those whose interest in the longevity of the US is without equal, and for this organization to use the power of leverage to further strengthen and enhance the sovereignty of the US, in the best ways it sees fit. Leverage and power at this level (the highest in the world, by far) should not be exclusively in the hands of obscure foreign and domestic interests. The long term consequences of obscure 'foreign' interests in the Federal Reserve System, hasn't been realized. What are the chances that such dynamics are going to further weaken the US?

Or the US could just let the current Federal Reserve System, and its perhaps foreign interests, buy-up and control more US debt, while the most sacred of all guarantors - the US's defense agencies - have to wait in line for financial support!

A subsidiary of US defense agencies with a controlling stake in the Federal Reserve System could put the highest level of leverage to much better use for itself, the people/governments it represents and the United States in general, moving forward.
 
Last edited:

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
165,103
Reaction score
25,672
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
Congress has control of the military budget, it in the Constitution.
 
OP
konkon

konkon

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
7
Points
16
Congress has control of the military budget, it in the Constitution.

And this process is linear; it gets passed from one to the other. Fair enough.

Under the new system, the US military, CIA, NSA etc etc & government agencies like Congress, would benefit because the subsidiary to defense (that controls the supply of money) would have, to some extent, the financial flexibility the US needs to further enhance future initiatives of all kinds. And this would mean jobs, jobs, jobs for the public too.

The world wide renewed interest to reinvest in and with the United States would be high and would spur the US domestic economy too, especially knowing the US defense agencies are now behind any long-term US investments, as a responsible underwriter.

The US would be able to reinvigorate itself, like it has done previously, but I think to a much higher and long-lasting degree.

You want to get back into the game with China? This is one way to do it. Don't forget, Russia is thinking of bringing back Putin again! The old KGB guard just won't go away.
 
OP
konkon

konkon

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
7
Points
16
Yep Lets become a military dictatorship.

But it wouldn't be a dictatorship at all. The US military wouldn't want one either! They all need a reinvigorated middle America to spur the economy holistically. The 'free markets' would still operate but the supply of money and the responsibilities associated with it would be under the control of such organizations that have genuinely backed the United States (in its various forms) from day one. Not talking about banks here!

It's about finding a better system than the current obscured one with the Federal Reserve System.
 
OP
konkon

konkon

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
7
Points
16
Well, we've had some time to see that the (privately owned and run) Federal Reserve System has helped price-out the masses around the world, and burden them with more debt/credit to balance paying for various bills, with existing revenue (wherever it can be found). It did so with the two QEs; notice how the USD has rallied since it ceased the second QE and didn't announce another QE? Basic really. Also notice how commodities have fallen in price, which should over time help people pay for bills without the need for more credit; it will make commodities cheaper and help remove, middle-man, speculators out of the equation for now.

If you think that the Fed's practices haven't really made a difference, think of it in this way; the basic elements and the compounds made from them (that are all round us) won't be as expensive as before (with some exceptions like gold in a non US, foreign currency), at this rate. We need some more time to assess the outcomes. There are of course other factors that still make things expensive to some degree; too much debt to pay-down still, for example, which affects cash-flow and purchasing power. This is still a bi-product of flawed Federal Reserve practices and those very powerful institutions that sponsor and benefit form such practices.

Unfortunately for the masses around the world, and in the US, the Federal Reserve System (which is privately run and owned and not part of the Federal Government in the US!) is an incredibly powerful, influential system and it can still do as it pleases, without congressional oversight (even though the meeting between the two offer a good show!). I'd be watching the Fed Reserve's every move and question it in the future. At least, our western systems still allow us to do this. Thank God!

P.S. the Fed Res really has very little opposition and this is the scariest thing going forward. There is very little anyone can do about their actions. Not just talking about citizens here! US courts and all government officials cannot oppose the Federal Reserve's actions. There may come a point where we are totally at the mercy of the privately owned and run Fed Res System. And this could cost us dearly!!
 
OP
konkon

konkon

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
7
Points
16
I'd like to see how hyperinflation is going to be avoided around the world; which is initially a slowish (perhaps hard to gauge) process that operates at different speeds. It seems as though the Federal Reserve is continually helping us get there. This will not effect all countries though. But I'd like to know how it will be avoided.

The Fed's announcement to (hopefully) hold interests rates very low up until 2014 has spurred-on the sets of speculators who want to park money in commodities. This is an obvious pricing-out effect for the masses around the world and including the USA. But the USD will (I think) firm up again, as this is not a formal QE3 or formal equivalent. The Fed, I think, is desperate to reintroduce another round of quantitative easing. There is growing opposition to this and there should be; it will make everyday things more expensive in the United States, as a falling USD and higher commodity prices (much higher in $US) would have a double-whammy effect on those in the USA. So a QE is the last thing the USA needs! It really is time to reorganize the Federal Reserve!!

The demand for many raw materials is not there, as suggested in the Baltic Dry Index (BDI), which is at 784; its historical average is around the 3,000+ mark. Copper, for example, use to be around $4000 a tonne prior to the GFC. The BDI was around the +4,000 mark back then. A different measurement, but the ratio would have been around 1:1, with fluctuations of even 1:2. The ratio relationship was quite low.

BUT copper being at around $8,400 a tonne today and the BDI being at under 1,000 (784). the ratio is approaching 1:11. Yes, that's one to eleven! That should be 11:1. But you get the point.

I keep hearing that the newer ships being used are bigger and there are more. But surely not five to ten times bigger/more! Speculation in the commodity markets is rife and with the Fed's easy printing stance, money just has to find a home; especially with record low deposit yields that put off investors. So the Fed, whether it's intentional or not, is sponsoring the increase of commodity prices world-wide at a time when debts are high and revenue is low for the middle classes.

Beware of so-called demand destruction though, as there really isn't such a need for many commodities. Demand destruction as a function has partly collapsed though, I think. 'Cheap' money has to find a home, and commodities are included. But I wouldn't look the other way for too long! Money can, and has, come out of commodities just as easily and will continue to do so. I'm expecting more volatility in these markets.

There are several varying definitions of hyperinflation. Wikipedia Hyperinflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has it as "hyperinflation is inflation that is very high or out of control". and "inflation is an increase in the Money Supply without a corresponding increase in real output causing an increase in general price levels".

And again: "This loss in value is usually exacerbated by an increase in the velocity of money (how fast it is spent) as people rush to exchange (or spend) it for almost anything else. In extreme cases this can cause a complete loss of confidence in the money, similar to a bank run".

Having said this, I still don't think the USD will be a hyperinflation play. The risk is to other currencies around the world. Many other views from other people will differ. But I still see the USD as oxygen to us all, that is supportive of (world-wide) asset classes, financial models, instruments etc, and keeping the whole 'thing' in place (for now, perhaps).

It seems like modern-day world domination, without links to a gold standard (which eventually has to break-off or collapse), is over a long period of time a self-destructive mechanism. The fact that Nixon got off the gold standard meant that the USA needed to print more USDs to pay for present and future budgets (back then). It was also necessary to increase the volumes of money so as to be in a position to inflate markets, that you control, and price-out the (non capitalists) communist Russians; one of Reagan's legacies. Also perhaps brilliantly orchestrated by Nixon. Even with all the criticisms, he would have had visions.

The purists in the economic world that think that a system of money supply, backed by 'expert' opinions, so-called evidence, theories etc, have probably underestimated that the financial and monetary systems (and the opposing schools of thought that reinforce them) don't have to work! I think we're seeing this play-out. But it's best to keep this system in the controlling hands of those that really do give a #$% about the future of the United States and all of its people.

The gold standard was destined to be removed to pay for debt obligations and to increase the supply of money. But it was also destined to be removed for the ability to promote and reinforce oneself as the the strongest nation on earth; I don't have a problem with this as I'm glad its the USA. Just look at the alternatives! But a gold (or any other fixed) standard was destined to fail or collapse.

Having said all this, I still think it's a great idea to get rid of those controlling the Federal Reserve System and put in those that really do care about the United States of America and all of its citizens. Just yesterday, professional US forces risked their lives and freed hostages from a foreign country; one of the hostages was not a US citizen too! Amazing. Now obviously the special forces guys are better suited to their professional military roles and objectives. But that's not to say that those with similar national objectives and patriotic obligations, that have expertise in economics/banking/finance, shouldn't run the Federal Reserve System. Key advice on these matters can be outsourced too. Get rid of all those shadowy (and to some extent, foreign) Federal Reserve representatives and allow US defense or a legally separate entity to it, to control and run the Fed, with obvious strict guidelines, rules, oversight etc. The communist Chinese have their own military controlling different aspects of their economy. China Construction Bank, for example, which is the second biggest bank in the world (the first being a Chinese bank too), is run by communist military personnel; as is their whole economy! It really is time to wake-up!

And Happy Australia Day to us all over here in Australia and around the world.
 

DSGE

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
30
Points
71
The Federal Reserve isn't leveraged. It doesn't have to borrow because it can create base money. Don't know what you're talking about there...

You talked about deciding the allocation of debt or something earlier. The Fed sets the Fed Funds rate by buying Treasury bills from banks.

They're not privately owned and run. Banks in the Federal Reserve system are forced to buy equity in the Fed so that the Fed has a buffer to insulate against losses on its balance sheet. Strangely the banks get to elect presidents of the regional reserve banks, and at any one time 5 regional presidents serve on the FOMC on a rotating basis. That's something that could definitely be done away with, other central banks don't do that. But the Board of Governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. They directly control the discount rate and reserve requirements and form a voting majority on the FOMC (7 BoG vs 5 Regional Presidents). So people appointed by the president make monetary decisions. Not private owners.

The reason the Fed is independent and not part of the Treasury or DoD (god knows why you picked defence rather than the treasury?) is precisely because we want decisions to be made in the long run best interests of the people. When governments have discretion over the money supply they tend to pursue short run objectives (getting reelected) which result in extremely high inflation.

There will be no hyperinflation. The massive increase in the monetary base has not been inflationary because of a fall in velocity (which you mentioned). The Fed have long ago released a plan for shrinking the size of their balance sheet. When velocity picks up, they're going to remove money they injected. Just today they announced they're following a 2% inflation target of the medium term. There won't be any hyperinflation.

Do you think any of these criticisms apply to our own RBA?

Happy Australia Day!
 
OP
konkon

konkon

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
7
Points
16
Yes, I know, the Federal Reserve is a privately run and owned entity and this is part of the problem.

"So people appointed by the president make monetary decisions. Not private owners." And this is supposed to make us all feel good? Fair and balanced, I guess?!

How can there be no higher inflation (which may lead to hyperinflation later on) around the world. More and more dollars or the currency in one's own nation (not all of course) are needed to buy goods and services over a shorter length of time.

The 'real' rate of inflation (all things considered, and not just the configured and skewered data provided) is much higher than stated around the world.

The Federal Reserve doesn't have the best interests of the people in mind. As for the Treasury? The same set of clowns appointed to influence and lead many (not all!) positions in the Federal Reserve System have come from similar banking backgrounds as those appointed to head the Treasury. I wouldn't go around trusting many in either institutions.

Having the capacity to control, even print from nothing, the money supply to the United States can be a catalyst to a bigger, brighter and more prosperous future. This responsibility should be in the hands of more responsible entities, yes, like defense. Many current technical aspects to the way the Federal Reserve functions can and should change too, to accommodate the necessary changes too. So the fact that the Fed does this or that might not matter all that much. Some of it does matter, of course, but some of it won't matter.
 

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
It makes perfect sense to me to have a subsidiary of all defense agencies, that are ultimately responsible for protecting the United States, to backstop and be the definitive underwriter of US debt and the issuer of more.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
 

DSGE

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
30
Points
71
Yes, I know, the Federal Reserve is a privately run and owned entity and this is part of the problem.

Except it's not.

"So people appointed by the president make monetary decisions. Not private owners." And this is supposed to make us all feel good? Fair and balanced, I guess?!

That's exactly what would happen anyway if it were a subsidiary of DoD. You realise that the Joint Chiefs and the SecDef are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate? The military is run by people appointed by the President. So is the Fed. How do you think it'll be made better by making it part of DoD?

How can there be no higher inflation (which may lead to hyperinflation later on) around the world. More and more dollars or the currency in one's own nation (not all of course) are needed to buy goods and services over a shorter length of time.

What are you talking about? I'm saying QE hasn't resulted in any inflation because velocity fell and it's a temporary injection of money. Ie, it will be taken out if inflation begins to consistently rise above target.

The 'real' rate of inflation (all things considered, and not just the configured and skewered data provided) is much higher than stated around the world.

Okay so is everybody misreporting NGDP too? I would have thought they'd want to overstate that since people who don't understand the nominal-real distinction would think the economy is doing well...

The Federal Reserve doesn't have the best interests of the people in mind. As for the Treasury? The same set of clowns appointed to influence and lead many (not all!) positions in the Federal Reserve System have come from similar banking backgrounds as those appointed to head the Treasury. I wouldn't go around trusting many in either institutions.

So don't give them discretion. Put binding rules in the Federal Reserve Act. In our Reserve Bank Act we have a mandate that the RBA keep CPI inflation between 2 and 3% on average over the medium term. Just today the Fed said they've decided to do exactly the same thing except with a 2% PCE target.

Having the capacity to control, even print from nothing, the money supply to the United States can be a catalyst to a bigger, brighter and more prosperous future. This responsibility should be in the hands of more responsible entities, yes, like defense. Many current technical aspects to the way the Federal Reserve functions can and should change too, to accommodate the necessary changes too. So the fact that the Fed does this or that might not matter all that much. Some of it does matter, of course, but some of it won't matter.

How do you think Defence is in any way responsible? How do you think they're in any way qualified to handle economic policy. The Fed has kept inflation low and stable over the past 20 years. This is NGDP (which is what monetary policy affects, MV = PY) in logged terms over the past 20 years:

fredgraph.png


Nominal spending has been growing at a relatively constant rate except for when the Fed let it fall dramatically in the GFC. If anything they've been too conservative.

I'm using NGDP because, as before, that's directly what monetary policy and only impacted by monetary policy. CPI inflation and whatnot also shows price rises resulting from supply shocks, which we don't want to react to because they're efficient. We only want to know about monetary looseness, hence NGDP.

The Fed had been doing a damn good job til recently.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,662
Points
48
Location
Maine
It makes perfect sense to me to have a subsidiary of all defense agencies, that are ultimately responsible for protecting the United States, to backstop and be the definitive underwriter of US debt and the issuer of more.

At the end of the day, US debt is one of the best businesses to be in if it is in the hands of those that will move the economy forward with it. The Federal Reserve System IS the most highly lucrative and leveraged system that can benefit any organization's future (especially the ones that control it [key point!]), and the future of the United States as a whole (another key point and the most important one).

If you want to compare the existing (largely failed) Federal Reserve System to the one being suggested, don't bother throwing into the mix conflicting and confusing existing Federal Reserve practices and spin, that are probably at the heart of many of the problems the US faces.

I don't have a problem with Bernanke himself or with any board members/directors etc (not yet, anyway). The Federal Reserve System is inherently dubious and it's not owned and operated by those that know how to best protect US interests. I don't think we have seen the worst yet; not talking about the current economic crisis. I'm thinking decades ahead and what could go wrong.

Under the current Federal Reserve System, where is all the debt going to? Who are the real (perhaps foreign) owners of US (perpetual) debt? What's done is done, and let's not waste more time worrying about something they don't want to disclose (why don't they want to disclose such secretive information again?!). Here's just one thing that should happen:

Congress should allow for a (piece by piece, if need be) controlling 51% stake of the Federal Reserve System to be sold to a subsidiary (for technical, legal, conflict of interest etc reasons) of (all) participating United States defense agencies; criticize them all you like but pound for pound, you're not going to find more responsible/protective etc organizations.

Yes, the most expensive purchase in history, but with a small percentage down-payment and for this newly formed organization to pay down only interest over time. The (current) Fed and the overseeing commercial banks can do the potential new owners a favor with low long term yields too, thanks to Operation Twist! And the participating banks will have all the necessary business too to help them along; no need to worry about being too big to fail (again!) because those commercial banks aren't going out of business!

Or if Congress down the track feels that it is in the best interests of the United States, it could by-pass the accounting technicalities and force the current owners to sell 51% of the Federal Reserve System to a subsidiary of US defense agencies. I'd go for this option. An Act of Congress...

The printing and supply of money should be in the control of those whose interest in the longevity of the US is without equal, and for this organization to use the power of leverage to further strengthen and enhance the sovereignty of the US, in the best ways it sees fit. Leverage and power at this level (the highest in the world, by far) should not be exclusively in the hands of obscure foreign and domestic interests. The long term consequences of obscure 'foreign' interests in the Federal Reserve System, hasn't been realized. What are the chances that such dynamics are going to further weaken the US?

Or the US could just let the current Federal Reserve System, and its perhaps foreign interests, buy-up and control more US debt, while the most sacred of all guarantors - the US's defense agencies - have to wait in line for financial support!

A subsidiary of US defense agencies with a controlling stake in the Federal Reserve System could put the highest level of leverage to much better use for itself, the people/governments it represents and the United States in general, moving forward.

Wow! How perceptive

What you loosely described is very much like the system that HITLER used to solve Germany's economic depression, too.

Worked for him, didn't it?

Sadly, the fool thought that he could conquor Europe.

Had he not tried to do that he might still be in office as the dictator of Germany.
 
OP
konkon

konkon

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
7
Points
16
Wow! How perceptive

What you loosely described is very much like the system that HITLER used to solve Germany's economic depression, too.

Worked for him, didn't it?

Sadly, the fool thought that he could conquor Europe.

Had he not tried to do that he might still be in office as the dictator of Germany.

I don't know how you arrived at your conclusion. Very strange. The model you're referring to and the one I was discussing are completely different.
 
OP
konkon

konkon

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
7
Points
16
The military is run by people appointed by the President. So is the Fed. How do you think it'll be made better by making it part of DoD?

Because US defense's care factor of the United States of America and all of its people is far greater (an understatement!) than those that control, run, belong to, are employed by etc etc the current and largely past Federal Reserve System. The Fed Reserve system doesn't have the same sets of mandates to protect the United States and its people and systems (at all costs) like all defense organizations in the US.

What are you talking about? I'm saying QE hasn't resulted in any inflation because velocity fell and it's a temporary injection of money. Ie, it will be taken out if inflation begins to consistently rise above target.

Ask your average person in the United States and around the world why they are paying more for day to day items, goods and services, soft/hard commodities (indirectly even) and this will quash the construed data that economist etc like to parade. As was suggested previously and in other posts by me, this (even anecdotal piece of evidence) is far more conclusive than skewed economic interpretations, no matter how valuable they might be to economists.

When the Fed implemented the rounds of QE, the price of commodities in $US and in other foreign currencies went up with the QEs. These prices didn't exist in some vacuum; the price of everyday items, utilities etc went up and sometimes with a higher margin (with 'middle-man' or equivalent expenses, taxes etc factored in). The case in the US, for US citizens, was dramatic; the round of QEs weakened the $US, but the price of commodities in $USs went up! Doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out that this has a 'pricing-out' effect on US (and even world-wide) consumers, especially when wages either remained the same or dropped. Let's not forget the tens of millions around the world that have lost their jobs too in the last few years or during the rounds of the QEs.

So people's net exposure or positions is far worse than what various Fed etc data is suggesting; hence the construed data and results to suit certain (presupposed) outcomes.

Okay so is everybody misreporting NGDP too? I would have thought they'd want to overstate that since people who don't understand the nominal-real distinction would think the economy is doing well...

You're clearly missing the bigger picture.

So don't give them discretion. Put binding rules in the Federal Reserve Act. In our Reserve Bank Act we have a mandate that the RBA keep CPI inflation between 2 and 3% on average over the medium term. Just today the Fed said they've decided to do exactly the same thing except with a 2% PCE target.

Incorrect macro, world-wide (including the US) interpretations and more to the point, skewed data that would necessitate a (presupposed) outcome or conclusion, can be made to look like a reflection of what's going on. Anybody can do this and several organizations thrive and survive on this false representation of what's going on, in this case, around the world economically or specifically in the USA.

If you think that the cost of living hasn't gone up drastically around the world and including the USA over the past decade and more, then you're probably living in a different world to mine. The construed definitions of 'inflation' and the data that tries to 'prove' that there isn't any, is no comfort to those that have to pay a lot more (than 2% per year!) for all day to day expenses. This includes all those struggling to make ends meet, around the world.

Wage increases or the lack of them just can't keep up with many of the payments, repayments etc! People's individual circumstances change, for the better or worse, and this cannot be factored into the conclusions you or even the Fed can make. There are more dynamics that can't and aren't factored in, to formulate the type of conclusions the Fed, for example, makes, no matter how sophisticated the methodology behind obtaining that data is.

How do you think Defence is in any way responsible? How do you think they're in any way qualified to handle economic policy.

Why do economists, for example (don't know if you're one or not), think that Economics or the study of this discipline, is one of the most challenging fields? Sure, defense can source from the top universities, just like the other agencies do. But at least they'll be able to pick who they think are the right representatives to head and team-up with the newer 'Fed Reserve' entity.

The Fed had been doing a damn good job til recently.

The Fed has done an appalling job in the last decade.
 

DSGE

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
30
Points
71
So it seems like your entire argument is that data, even independent data not collected by the government, is doctored for some reason. You seem to think anecdotal evidence is somehow superior. That's extremely ridiculous. Given that you claim any data presented which is contrary to your bias is doctored, your position is unfalsifiable. I'm not going to continue a conversation with somebody who doesn't understand the basic structure of logical argument.
 
OP
konkon

konkon

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
145
Reaction score
7
Points
16
So it seems like your entire argument is that data, even independent data not collected by the government, is doctored for some reason. You seem to think anecdotal evidence is somehow superior. That's extremely ridiculous. Given that you claim any data presented which is contrary to your bias is doctored, your position is unfalsifiable. I'm not going to continue a conversation with somebody who doesn't understand the basic structure of logical argument.

No, anecdotal evidence on its own is not superior. You didn't understand my claims.

It's not a case of government or private data just being doctored to some extent. The point I was making is data and even the interpretation of it can be skewered to reach intended outcomes. The methodology behind the data itself can lean towards bias outcomes. Thought I was pretty clear about that and the distinction between all of the above needs to be made.

Without looking it up, let me know what you think is a basic structure of a logical argument, and while you're at it, can you make the distinction between logic and rhetoric?

For the record, you can make a technically valid argument and it doesn't have to make much sense (logic 1.01). I'm talking on a technical level. I think you're probably thinking of soundness, in which all true premises must yield a true conclusion; validity would also be preserved too. But soundness on complex issues is harder to achieve in the real world.

I'm always looking out for sound arguments and counter arguments that may be considered sound (by its true technical definition).

Yes we all have biases. Of course.

Let's just see how this all plays-out.
 

DSGE

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2011
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
30
Points
71
So it seems like your entire argument is that data, even independent data not collected by the government, is doctored for some reason. You seem to think anecdotal evidence is somehow superior. That's extremely ridiculous. Given that you claim any data presented which is contrary to your bias is doctored, your position is unfalsifiable. I'm not going to continue a conversation with somebody who doesn't understand the basic structure of logical argument.

No, anecdotal evidence on its own is not superior. You didn't understand my claims.

It's not a case of government or private data just being doctored to some extent. The point I was making is data and even the interpretation of it can be skewered to reach intended outcomes. The methodology behind the data itself can lean towards bias outcomes. Thought I was pretty clear about that and the distinction between all of the above needs to be made.

No you didn't make yourself clear.

"The point I was making is data and even the interpretation of it can be skewered to reach intended outcomes."

I'm assuming that since you started a thread on the Federal Reserve you have enough education in economics to be able to justify interpretation of the data and correctly identify bullshit.

"The methodology behind the data itself can lean towards bias outcomes."

What does that mean?

Yes we all have biases. Of course.

Not really. Even so, I don't reject data simply because it doesn't confirm my bias.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top