Central Banking is Socialism

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Central economic planning by a central bank is about as far from free-market capitalism as one can get.

No!! Socialism is as far from capitalism as you can get. Central Socialist economic planning determines what gets made, where, what quality, by whom, price, color, quantity, etc etc.

For 3rd time, tell is exactly what you prefer for monetary policy. Are you afraid to tell us?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you know why the market is failing?.

How can it be failing if more people live at a higher standard of living than at any other time in human history????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What we're seeing is a clear indicator that the Fed has lost the ability to control the cost of money.

And if they could control it rates would be higher and that would make us all richer??? How????

 

[Natural Citizen]

For 3rd time, tell is exactly what you prefer for monetary policy. Are you afraid to tell us?

I'm a proponent of free-markets and sound money. Pretty much everyone on this board knows that as much as I pop off about it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That it lasted fifty years before finally destroying the dollar is surprising, but we're witnessing the end of it.
.

If destroyed will you give me yours given that destroyed things are usually worthless???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your beloved central economic planners can't keep distorting reality. The market itself will be the ultimate decider. Not the Fed. And not the government.

Are you saying that there were no distortions before the Fed?? Or, that you have a new way altogether that will avoid distortions?? Don't forget that Milton Friedman supported the Fed and there was no greater market champion in human history!! His theory was that any system needs management; thus the question is, are the managers inclined toward capitalism or socialist. Ours are more inclined toward capitalism but often forced off course by socialist liberals in other parts of the government. If the Fed was strictly capitalist it would simply be replaced by the liberals. Your argument should be against libsocialism not the Fed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm a proponent of free-markets and sound money. Pretty much everyone on this board knows that as much as I pop off about it.

does that mean a gold standard of some kind??? What Kind?? Does that mean no interventions in Great Depression, 9/11, Great Recession, Corona Recession???

 

[Natural Citizen]

If destroyed will you give me yours given that destroyed things are usually worthless???

Heh heh. No. I don't even know you. And, really, you're starting to get annoying.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Are you saying that there were no distortions before the Fed?? Or, that you have a new way altogether that will avoid distortions?? Don't forget that Milton Friedman supported the Fed and there was no greater market champion in human history!! His theory was that any system needs management; thus the question is, are the managers inclined toward capitalism or socialist. Ours are more inclined toward capitalism but often forced off course by socialist liberals in other parts of the government. If the Fed was strictly capitalist it would simply be replaced by the liberals. Your argument should be against libsocialism not the Fed.

I'm a Mises guy. I'm not really all that interested in Friedman. But you're free to to be. Knock yourself out.

To your question, before the Fed the income tax was 0%.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm a proponent of free-markets and sound money. Pretty much everyone on this board knows that as much as I pop off about it.

does that mean a gold standard of some kind??? What Kind??

I covered that question in my 'here's how it works' post.

 

[Natural Citizen]

And if they could control it rates would be higher and that would make us all richer??? How????

They can't.

Free-markets and sound money are the pathway to peace and prosperity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you saying that there were no distortions before the Fed?? Or, that you have a new way altogether that will avoid distortions?? Don't forget that Milton Friedman supported the Fed and there was no greater market champion in human history!! His theory was that any system needs management; thus the question is, are the managers inclined toward capitalism or socialist. Ours are more inclined toward capitalism but often forced off course by socialist liberals in other parts of the government. If the Fed was strictly capitalist it would simply be replaced by the liberals. Your argument should be against libsocialism not the Fed.

I'm a Mises guy. I'm not really all that interested in Friedman. But you;re free to to be. Knock yourself out.

To your question, before the Fed the income tax was 0%.

The Fed turns a profit, why do they need an income tax?

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Fed turns a profit, why do they need an income tax?

As was said, several times over by now, the IRS steals and turns over the fruits of our labor to the Treasury so that the Treasury can pay the principal plus interest on that bond that the Federal Reserve bought from a bank with a check which was drawn on an account that had nothing in it.

Without the income tax, the whole charade is impossible. It's no irony that we got the 16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve and its collection wing, the IRS, all in the same year.

We need to repeal the whole 1913 year. lol.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Fed turns a profit, why do they need an income tax?

As was said, several times over by now, the IRS steals and turns over the fruits of our labor to the Treasury so that the Treasury can pay the principal plus interest on that bond that the Federal Reserve bought from a bank with a check which was drawn on an account that had nothing in it.

Without the income tax, the whole charade is impossible. It's no irony that we got the 16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve and its collection wing, the IRS, all in the same year.

We need to repeal the whole 1913 year. lol.

As was said, several times over by now, the IRS steals and turns over the fruits of our labor to the Treasury so that the Treasury can pay the principal plus interest on that bond that the Federal Reserve bought

Ok, so the Treasury pays $60 billion in interest, for example, to the Fed and the Fed turns around and pays the Treasury $40 billion in net profits. Why do you feel that couldn't be done without the IRS?

Without the income tax, the whole charade is impossible.

Prove it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ok, so the Treasury pays $60 billion in interest, for example, to the Fed and the Fed turns around and pays the Treasury $40 billion in net profits. Why do you feel that couldn't be done without the IRS?

No, the Banks show up and compete to buy our national debt. They turn around and sell it to the Fed. The Fed buys the debt with hot checks. Then the IRS comes in and steals the fruits of our labor to pay the principal plus interest on those Treasury bonds.

Moral of the story is end the Fed. It's committing fraud. The IRS is an accessory to it.

To repeat, again stealing a quote from the Boston Federal Reserve's ''Putting it Simply", they say that ''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.” The Federal Reserve then hands those checks to the banks and at this point ''currency'' springs into existence. The banks then take that ''currency'' and buy more bonds at the next Treasury auction. You see?

We need to end the fraud itself. We need to get back to free-markets.

Why do you hate free-markets, Toddster?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok, so the Treasury pays $60 billion in interest, for example, to the Fed and the Fed turns around and pays the Treasury $40 billion in net profits. Why do you feel that couldn't be done without the IRS?

No, the Banks show up and compete to buy our national debt. They turn around and sell it to the Fed. The Fed buys the debt with hot checks. Then the IRS comes in and steals the fruits of ou labor to pay the principal plus interest on those Treasury bonds.

Moral of the story is end the Fed. It's comitting fraud.

the Banks show up and compete to buy our national debt. They turn around and sell it to the Fed.

If the Fed costs the Treasury a net $20 billion, from my example, why does that matter when the government is spending over $4 trillion a year?

Why is the $20 billion net worse than the $60 billion net the Treasury would have paid the banks if they had
held the bonds instead?

Then the IRS comes in and steals the fruits of ou labor to pay the principal plus interest on those Treasury bonds. ​

The IRS does that to service all the bonds, not just the $2.5 trillion held by the Fed.
Why is that $2.5 trillion worse in any way than the $17.5 trillion held by the public?

Be as specific as you can.​

 

[Natural Citizen]

If the Fed costs the Treasury a net $20 billion, from my example, why does that matter when the government is spending over $4 trillion a year?

Why is the $20 billion net worse than the $60 billion net the Treasury would have paid the banks if they had
held the bonds instead?

The IRS does that to service all the bonds, not just the $2.5 trillion held by the Fed.
Why is that $2.5 trillion worse in any way than the $17.5 trillion held by the public?

Be as specific as you can.​

To repeat: It's theft. The system funnels wealth from the working population to the government and the banking sector. It is the cause of all of the artificial booms and busts of modern economies and it causes great disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, middle class, and seniors. The working class. We're debt slaves. Whenever a government issues a bond, it is a promise to make us pay tax in the future.

Now, Toddster. I answered a lot of Edwards silly gnat-like questions before I put him on my ignore list. I donlt think he was really interested in functional debate at all. So. Answer my question, please. While I've always answered your questions, you've never answered mine. And I've only asked one question of you.

Why do you hate free-markets?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the Fed costs the Treasury a net $20 billion, from my example, why does that matter when the government is spending over $4 trillion a year?

Why is the $20 billion net worse than the $60 billion net the Treasury would have paid the banks if they had
held the bonds instead?

The IRS does that to service all the bonds, not just the $2.5 trillion held by the Fed.
Why is that $2.5 trillion worse in any way than the $17.5 trillion held by the public?

Be as specific as you can.​

To repeat: It's theft. The system funnels wealth from the working population to the government and the banking sector. It is the cause of all of the artificial booms and busts of modern economies and it causes great disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, middle class, and seniors. The working class. We're debt slaves. Whenever a government issues a bond, it is a promise to make us pay tax in the future.

Now, Toddster. I answered a lot of Edwards silly gnat-like questions before I put him on my ignore list. I donlt think he was really interested in functional debate at all. So. Answer my question, please. While I've always answered your questions, you've never answered mine. And I've only asked one question of you.

Why do you hate free-markets?

To repeat: It's theft.

To repeat, it reduces the net interest cost of Treasury borrowing. It actually saves money.

It is the cause of all of the artificial booms and busts of modern economies

What causes "natural" booms and busts?

Whenever a government issues a bond, it is a promise to make us pay tax in the future.

Yup, the government spends way, way, way too much money. Nothing to do with the Fed.

So. Answer my question, please.

As soon as you admit that the reduced interest cost, thanks to the Fed, means
the IRS needs to steal less of our labor. Please.

 

[Natural Citizen]

To repeat, it reduces the net interest cost of Treasury borrowing. It actually saves money.


What causes "natural" booms and busts?

As soon as you admit that the reduced interest cost, thanks to the Fed, means
the IRS needs to steal less of our labor. Please.

Toddster, until you learn what money is you're not really ready to discuss cost.

Your entire set of terms of controversy are dependent upon a misunderstanding of what money is.

Until you learn what money is there's just no intellectual value in debating anything relevant to cost with you. I'm sorry, there just isn't.

You need to demonstrate that you have some rudimentary grasp on what a store of value means. Which, btw, is not a receipt for a claim check on an IOU bond like you seem to think. That's not money. Thats not a store of value. Huh uh.

 

[sparky]

To repeat, again stealing a quote from the Boston Federal Reserve's ''Putting it Simply", they say that ''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.”

~S~