Thread: The federal Reserve is the key.

Ron Paul's son is running for Senator.

Rand Paul.......

Federal Reserve | Rand Paul 2010 U.S. Senator for Kentucky

When the Fed lowers interest rates by creating more money, not only does it devalue the money you currently have in your pocket, but it also leads to the boom-bust cycle. The Fed misleads investors into embarking on projects that make no long-term sense. Our current housing bubble was a direct result of the Fed’s decision to keep interest rates artificially lower than the market could sustain. The Fed basically spiked the punch and is now acting surprised that the party got out of hand.

While this explanation for the booms and busts is popular among economists, including Nobel-prize winner F.A. Hayek, few in the mainstream media are willing to question the Fed.

CALL ME CRAZY, but I like the guy. He is a chip off the old block.

Originally Posted by Retro Fit

The press release said there were 20.4 jobs created under Clinton. But 95% of those new jobs were private sector, not government sector.. So, it wasn't because of anything Clinton did, it was done through the private sector.

You expect the government to create enough jobs so that everyone is employed? Absurd. Who will pay their salaries? Would the jobs last?

How many times do I have to type an answer to this question? I already told you. Ignorance is not bliss. Good luck to you Daniel.

It was due to fiscal policy that allowed for direct competition between the public and private sectors. In any event, how can you claim that public policy under that administration was not responsible for the results of low unemployment and massive surpluses? The republicans and their doctrine have not been able to duplicate that level of prosperity with twelve consecutive years in the White House. How was it that a democrat was able to do it in under eight years?

Sufficient socialism to comply with theory of supply and demand could enable full employment of resources in the market for labor and could achieve zero percent official unemployment in that market. Unemployment compensation at-will could simulate zero percent unemployment and also achieve zero percent official poverty when due to a simple lack of income.

How is your contention that inflation is a meaningful metric, if wages consistently outperform inflation? In my opinion, inflation is mostly academic if wages are outperforming inflation since it would be analogous to commodity money increasing in value due to its intrinsic worth and not merely the function of money.

How many times do I have to type an answer to this question? I already told you. Ignorance is not bliss.

If you had a valid point, you would have followed the moral and ethic of many people who have a valid point and simply restated your valid point in a more concise and easy to understand manner. But, that takes a valid point.

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Ron Paul's son is running for Senator.

Rand Paul.......

Federal Reserve | Rand Paul 2010 U.S. Senator for Kentucky

When the Fed lowers interest rates by creating more money, not only does it devalue the money you currently have in your pocket, but it also leads to the boom-bust cycle. The Fed misleads investors into embarking on projects that make no long-term sense. Our current housing bubble was a direct result of the Fed’s decision to keep interest rates artificially lower than the market could sustain. The Fed basically spiked the punch and is now acting surprised that the party got out of hand.

While this explanation for the booms and busts is popular among economists, including Nobel-prize winner F.A. Hayek, few in the mainstream media are willing to question the Fed.

CALL ME CRAZY, but I like the guy. He is a chip off the old block.

I think our fellow citizens in Kentucky should request and require that the drug and terror wars be ended before any cuts in social spending or organs of the executive branch that actually generate revenue that defrays public sector costs.

How is your contention that inflation is a meaningful metric, if wages consistently outperform inflation? In my opinion, inflation is mostly academic if wages are outperforming inflation since it would be analogous to commodity money increasing in value due to its intrinsic worth and not merely the function of money.

When the government raises minimum wage, employers are required by law to raise the wages of any minimum wage earners staffed with them. Employers and companies have to make cuts elsewhere in order to make up the difference. Someone somewhere is going to experience loss because of the artificially manipulated min wage law.

There is something innately wrong with a worker earning a dollar that must be continually invested in lucrative endeavors just to keep up with its dropping value. There's something very wrong with a system that thinks of people who save money as "hoarders". Our system punishes people who save and that is not right. The federal reserve systems monetary policy is based on an exploitable legal tender by decree platform that is flawed by design. The history of fiat money is one of failure and massive loses in the lower and middle class's. Inflation is a hidden tax, robbing every single worker of hundreds of thousands of dollars throughout their working lifetime. If inflation was truly under control, gold wouldn't be over $40.00 USD an ounce. The fed has destabilized our economy, exactly the opposite of what they were supposed to do. In the real world, companies that go bankrupt because of poor business practices, are allowed to fail. They are allowed to fail because they should fail. Without the luxury of being able to make money from nothing, they have no alternative but to fail. In the government sector, companies, agencies and bureaus that fail because of poor business judgment and/or mismanagement, are propped up and given taxpayer money. Why must we supplement known failed business models? How is this even possible? Because of fiat money. Easy come, easy go.

I think our fellow citizens in Kentucky should request and require that the drug and terror wars be ended before any cuts in social spending or organs of the executive branch that actually generate revenue that defrays public sector costs.

You've got to hit them where it hurts, their funding. That is the foundation that must be removed before their structure will fall. The fed is the logical first blow in the war to end the drug war. The fed is key.

If you had a valid point, you would have followed the moral and ethic of many people who have a valid point and simply restated your valid point in a more concise and easy to understand manner.

Why don't you follow your own advise. You repeat the same sentences that you cut and pasted from a White house press secretary speech from Jan. 2000 over and over again. And whats worse is its political doublespeak to begin with.

Originally Posted by Retro Fit

When the government raises minimum wage, employers are required by law to raise the wages of any minimum wage earners staffed with them. Employers and companies have to make cuts elsewhere in order to make up the difference. Someone somewhere is going to experience loss because of the artificially manipulated min wage law.

That is why a truer form of minimum wage would simply pay people to not provide labor input to the economy.

It can be considered a provision of the general welfare because it can solve official poverty as well.

Originally Posted by Retro Fit

You've got to hit them where it hurts, their funding. That is the foundation that must be removed before their structure will fall. The fed is the logical first blow in the war to end the drug war. The fed is key.

I thought it was about voting out politicians that are not fiscally responsible?

The Fed generates income for the populace of the United States, the drug and terror wars do not.

Originally Posted by Retro Fit

Why don't you follow your own advise. You repeat the same sentences that you cut and pasted from a White house press secretary speech from Jan. 2000 over and over again. And whats worse is its political doublespeak to begin with.

Can you cite any references that deny or disparage that part of our historical record?

That is why a truer form of minimum wage would simply pay people to not provide labor input to the economy.

It can be considered a provision of the general welfare because it can solve official poverty as well.

Your monetary plan is not sustainable. Who is going to pay?

I thought it was about voting out politicians that are not fiscally responsible?

The Fed generates income for the populace of the United States, the drug and terror wars do not.

The politicians are owned by the Bankers. The bankers are not there to help us, they are there to help themselves. They take from us, and they generate income for themselves.

How did you reach your conclusion that achieving full employment of resources in the market for labor is unsustainable?

That cost should be offset by participating market participants for market based metrics purposes. Any shortfalls could be defrayed by public sector means of production (i.e. Hoover Dam), and by eliminating truer forms of waste of money (i.e. the drug and terror wars) by those of the opposing viewpoint subscribing to less responsible fiscal policy.

The politicians are owned by the Bankers. The bankers are not there to help us, they are there to help themselves. They take from us, and they generate income for themselves.

Now you know why we have a mostly autonomous Fed administering monetary policy instead of letting Congress administer both fiscal and monetary policy.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

That is why a truer form of minimum wage would simply pay people to not provide labor input to the economy.

It can be considered a provision of the general welfare because it can solve official poverty as well.

What is the difference between poverty and official poverty?

Poverty in the general sense includes externalities which may not be market recognizable in money based markets.

Official poverty can viewed as a metric of a form of social justice of that standard, which is weighed and measured via statism through command economics.