The Creation of the Federal Reserve System

Sure they could, because they can set lower interest rates than the Fed.

Sure it could and has. Simply sell assets and raise rates.

 

Uh, no we don't. All we have to do is show that what you rely upon is force, violence, and cartelization of an industry that benefits bankers and the plutocracy and that sucks wealth from the middle class.

It's like arguing that if one wants the US to stop occupying a foreign nation, one would have to "mathematically" prove that those people would be better off without US boots on their necks.

Can you prove that? Perhaps with a mathematical proof? Yours is the typical circular argument of the government apologist.

The movement is rising fast. If it weren't, you wouldn't be spending so much time telling us how unimportant we are, as if that's some valid argument, and beating your chest about your economic scientist credentials in a pathetic appeal to your own authority.

 

Can I open up shop as a competitor to the government? Can I start making arrests and carpet bombing my neighbor's house?

Well this one's obvious.

 

But you can see how a bank would quickly run into financial trouble doing that.

Assets that we could only afford in the first place through the inflation of our currency.

 

Sure. Declare yourself a candidate for office.

Can you not open up shop as a competitor to a bank?

No. Why should we let you do that?

That is a political cartel.

Business cartel:

A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/cartel#ixzz1YQVVVMKu

 

How many different types of banks do you know? Can you name a bank that will take your money, and store it for a small fee?

There aren't any. They aren't allowed to exist.

 

This is nothing but your subjective opinion. It has no factual backing to it what so ever. Nice try, but I don't listen to con men!!

The Fed has plenty of functions. Ask me about any specific action I will tell you mathematically why they did it.

It's not really moving fast. People have hated the Fed for the past century. It's nothing knew... there has been plenty of uneducated people all throughout American history.

 

Why? It happens all the time.

What relevance is that to what the Fed does?

 

That is not a competing government. That was analogous to saying that if I wanted to compete with Standard Oil I should go work for them.

I cannot open up shop as a competitor to the Fed.

Why should you let the government?

Actually, you already implicitly agree with me doing that. I would just need to acquire a title, in order to have social acceptability.

 

All banks will store you money for you. And even pay you interest for the privilge as oppose to charging you, unless you want to put it in a lock box.

 

If I borrow money from the Fed and then loan it out a a lower interest rate than they loaned it to me it will be mathematically impossible for me to pay them back.

 

Sure it's a competing Govt. Republicans offer a competing government to Democrats and vice versa.

OK

For reasons I stated.

No, you can call yourself grand pooba and Ii wouldn't agree you have authority to do that.

 

Then don't use money borrowed from the Fed.

 

Which is EXACTLY what I'm not allowed to do!

 

Hahaha. Shillriemon. Where have you been? You're slippin'. They're going to replace you you if you don't get back on the ball.

 

You're not a bank.

 

They offer competing management of the government.

Which are?

Who does?

I <3 Gilbert & Sullivan.

 

Even if I WAS a bank I wouldn't be allowed to do it.

 

Semantics.

Jeez, dude. Are you just playing games?

Post #43
There are big problems with using gold as money. That is why virtually no one does it. You cannot contract or expand the supply of gold based upon economic needs. Gold is subject to wild value fluctuations, and usually at the worst times. Why would anyone our money supply to be subject to the whim of investors and speculators, gold producers, and foreign governments?

Who does what?

 

You have to be a federally chartered bank or a state member banks. Then you could.

 

Because the difference between competing management for Standard Oil and a commercial competitor as a producer of oil are just sematic, right?

I fail to see how this explains why the government should carpet bomb people.

Bestows the title.

 

No, but the government isn't business. Comptetion in government is for control of the government by political parties.

I fail to see why the government should carpet bomb people too.

Lost me. You can carpet bomb people if someone bestows a title on you? Could be try to be a little less coy in your communications?

 

I fail to see how that changes the reality that it has no competition.

You'd probably be less angry with me if I did it while possessing the title of "General".

 

Oh well.

Depends on the circumstances.

 

Expanding the money supply, by definition, is monetary inflation. Besides, if they create money to do it, it will cause prices to rise if it is done at a faster rate than goods and services are being produced.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/172839-fed-caused-great-depression.html

Being successful doesn't make us spoiled. We earned it thanks to the free market and liberty. Crediting the Fed with our success is a faulty assumption; the Fed does not produce labor or capital, it simply creates money, controls interest rates and bails out its cronies. Our success is due to the fact that we have the highest amount of respect for liberty and the free market out of anywhere in the world. Had that thought not occured to you? Why should we feel guilty? If other places of the world embrace the free market and respect for liberty, they will see their standard of living improve as ours has.

Why not? There's no evidence which disproves my claims.

Why is it up to the Fed/government to decide that people should be punished by saving and rewarded by investing? How is that moral? Where in the Constitution is it authorized?

I assume you mean 2-3% or more per year. So you're saying that the government needs to continuously borrow and create money so that it can spend money to keep GDP high. What good is that if it gets us in a hopelessly endless mound of debt and the resulting price inflation kills the purchasing power of the dollar? That collectivist mentality hasn't worked becuase the economy is still garbage.

You can't destroy the purchasing power of the dollar while running everybody into debt, and claim it's being done for the greater good of the greater number. Hypocrisy and government logic at its finest.

What has caused them to have less money than they feel like they need?

Answer the question, strawman.

I know. I was responding to your assertion that the quantity of money has nothing to do with prices, which is completely wrong. Now that you took the time to disprove your original statement, we can get back to my original question.
How are we going to continue price inflation "for thousands of years" without destroying the currency?

So you admit that you were wrong when you said:

?