• econ4every1's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:53 PM
    Of course, but the government does have a sizeable position.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-20-2018, 07:51 AM
    Sorry, took me a while to get back to this post... Oh boy, yeah I see where you're going with this. The problem with this is that the Fed can manipulate the money available to make the purchases you speak of by manipulating the level of reserves which in turn are used to purchase Treasuries. Since reserves have a cost, that's factored into the purchase when buying treasuries. Basically, primary dealers are using bank reserves to swap dollars for treasuries. Really just a swap from "checking" to "savings" (functionally that's what it really is). Thus, it's my contention that the Fed manipulates the rate by increasing or decreasing the availability of reserves (pre-2008) and today it manipulates the rate by paying interest directly on reserves which ultimately effects treasury yields. So it's my contention that the Fed manipulates the market whose purchases set the rate.....Agreed?
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-20-2018, 07:39 AM
    Here, let me expand a bit on this. Do you believe that China could decide to stop purchasing US debt (as is speculated on by those that speculate on the weakness of fiat). If so, do you know what the consequences would be for the US and China? Understanding why the Chinese government holds US dollars in the first place and how they acquired them will help you understand the relationship between the US and China with respect to purchasing US treasuries and why it's extremely unlikely to happen as long as China is a Net exporter and the US is a net importer. Respectfully,
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 10:41 PM
    You like asking questions but bail when asked to answer them. So the US "borrows" US Dollars from the government of China, and you're not just a little bit curious where they get them? Fine, move on, but I will keep reminding you of how you feined boredom to keep to keep from having to come to the realization that you aren't quite as smart as you think. No problem. Move on.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 03:22 PM
    The belief that if investor class had more money they would invest it back into their businesses and things that encouraged productivity. Good for everyone, right? No so much. The reality is that the investor class used that money to grow their wealth in unproductive finance, speculation and rent schemes. Companies cut spending on plant and equipment and training and focused more on stock buybacks as a way to maintain share earnings. Combine the increasing wealth into the hands of the few with the power of computing and utilization of social sciences in marketing, advertising and now data mining, the wealthy are getting wealthier but are delivering less in terms of real productivity. The class of people with exorbitant wealth has increased, while the wealth at the bottom has decreased. This leads to more idle money spent representing the very wealthy and their interests.
    8 replies | 208 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-19-2018, 10:31 AM
    First, stop with this nonsense. I went to school in the 1980's and 90's and studied technical drawing and design. What on earth does that have to do with my question? Now I should probably rephrase that some because in the history of our trade deficit with China, $3.2 trillion only represents what the government of China has saved, not the sum total of all sales between the US consumers and the Chinese government since China began carrying a large account of US dollars. The point is that most of the dollars that transact between the US and China, most of those dollars are paid to Chinese firms, not directly to the Chinese government. Granted, some of those firms are partially owned by the government, but the majority are privately held. Yes, their system is more restrictive and a bit more convoluted, but for the point, I'm going to show you it makes no difference.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-18-2018, 04:24 PM
    You spend your life paying taxes, not repaying the entirety of debt. The biggest lie ever believe by the American people. The debt has to be repaid. It's always about "the children".
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-18-2018, 02:31 PM
    Oh, and here I thought u were being serious.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-18-2018, 09:14 AM
    I was trying to find this last night when I wrote my reply.... Notice that when the government runs a net surplus (1997-2007) the private sector's asset balance declines. So how did the Australian private sector continue to grow despite the private sector balance decreasing?
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-18-2018, 08:46 AM
    devil21 Ok, you got me I'm stumped...Please enlighten me.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-18-2018, 08:09 AM
    I didn't miss your point I simply didn't understand what you are asking. Thank you for clarifying the question. Can't say I remembered all of this off the top of my head...So, this is what I've come up with after a little reading. When it's anticipating a new federal bond issue, the central bank in coordination with the US Treasury first conducts an informal survey about current market conditions and the type of issue investors might prefer. These informal discussions are held with investment dealers, banks and other market participants who have experience with bond issues of the size and type being considered. Before the details of the new bond issue are decided, several important questions have to be answered. Most importantly, the federal government must determine the precise purpose of the issue. It can be to "pay for" (offset) military spending, to refund prior securities or to sell new Treasuries at a more favorable interest rate. There must be a legal precedent that outlines the conditions under which the bond issue can be undertaken. Such a legal precedent relates to the issue's purpose. For example, when its purpose is to fund a capital project, there must be legal precedents to determine that the issuance serves national taxpayers and the greater good of federal constituents. In the case of the refund of a prior debt issue, the question is whether or not the debt is refundable under federal tax rules.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-18-2018, 07:50 AM
    Sorry, I thought that was obvious, the US government. And no, I'm asking if the government can spend new money before it issues new Treasuries.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-18-2018, 07:36 AM
    You make a good point with respect to the uptick rule. I've been reading a little more on the topic and it seems there is quite a bit of sentiment that agrees with your position. Thank you for sharing your position on this. I conceded that you are probably correct. I also agree with your original assessment (as I've stated in other posts) that leverage and unstable assets prices firmly undermined Sterns and Lehman's positions and were largely responsible for their failures. Respectfully, E4E1
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 10:29 PM
    . Glass-Steagall was not technically repealed in 1999, but it was effectively neutered. Legislation was passed that year that allowed bank holding companies to engage in previously forbidden commercial activities, such as insurance and investment banking. The change in the law opened the floodgates for giant mergers, such as the $33 billion deal between J.P. Morgan and Chase Manhattan in September of 2000. During the darkest days of the financial crisis, Bank of America acquired two troubled financial companies — Countrywide Financial Services and Merrill Lynch, deals that wouldn't have been possible before 1999. The "repeal" allowed banks to become much larger than they were prior concentrating risk into fewer "too big to fail" institutions
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 08:03 PM
    Sooooo.... 5 out of the 6 depressions in US history were in the gold era. There has been one depression in the last 105 years and one "great recession". You know what all of the depressions had in common?
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 01:53 PM
    Was I wrong? Please explain how. Splitting hairs? No, I just gave an accurate explanation of how the system works. Can you answer the question..... "Can the government spend US dollars without selling a Treasury first?"
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 01:49 PM
    Which flies in the face of way companies operate today. No idea why you think that would change because legal tender laws are removed. Companies can already do things for employees like better benefits, yet the trend has been decreasing benefits over time. I don't get "fleeced" due to devaluation because I don't save my money in dollars.
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 01:18 PM
    That is correct. I cast doubt on anyone that believes that any question that surrounds Treasury operation as "simple". You mean, if I answer in the way you believe things work.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 11:07 AM
    ^This At the end of the day, business will have to pay their taxes in a currency the government creates. This creates more demand for FRN's than gold and it creates a market for exchange from gold to FRN's.
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 11:03 AM
    That's just it. If an employer has a choice to pay for both, WHY would they pay me in something that appreciates in value? I think that's a ridiculous assumption. If I owned a business I would save my appreciating commodities and spend my FRN's. This idea that gold will just push out FRN's is wishful thinking. Sure there will be a segment of people that will deal on commodity money, but they will be small. Any use of commodity money will come at a premium. In other words, would you take a home loan you could pay at 0% in FRN's or pay in gold at 5%? Do you think that a job that paid $50k in FRN's would pay the equivalent in gold or silver? No, it would pay less as the future value of the commodity would increase.
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 10:56 AM
    I don't think I know enough about what the legislation is trying to accomplish to give a reasoned answer to the question. My instinct is to say yes, I would oppose it, but inevitably I'll be told all of the things that are accomplished via this proposal and how dumb I am for rejecting something so obvious, which I am, as of yet, unaware of. As such, I'd like to withhold my answer until I feel I have a better understanding of what a policy like this would accomplish and if they would be worth the inevitable tradeoffs. Could I trouble you for examples? I would counter by saying there is also a lot of conjecture in that paragraph. However, since money systems are social systems, I'd need to understand more about what kinds of social goals, if any, you think are worthwhile and how money might play a role in achieving those goals (again, if at all).
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-17-2018, 06:32 AM
    I think they would treat gold and FRN's as they do now, so yes.
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-16-2018, 05:46 PM
    Yes, I did, but I wanted to be sure I was reading it correctly. Did you see my objections above?
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-16-2018, 04:09 PM
    My response was a question it was not an answer, it was an attempt to clarify the question before I answer it. I concede you and others here are a lot more familiar with this issue than I am in that you've debated the topic and I have not, so it's a little unfair to ask me if I support it or not without knowing exploring the implications. That's what forums, like these, are generally good for. Having said that, I'd answer (without a yes or no) by pointing out that I just can't see how, if the FRN was still a currency, that anything would change. Well, except the fact that not charging taxes on investment grade metals would create a tax loophole for the wealthy.
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-16-2018, 02:58 PM
    You mean like in this sense? via Imgflip Meme Generator
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-16-2018, 02:54 PM
    Question, would Fed notes be one of the competing currencies?
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-16-2018, 01:22 PM
    NorthCarolinaLiberty I can't make Devil21 debate me, but I will address his insinuation for your sake (as you said you were interested and I suspect you might want an answer to this point of debate) in the context of the conversation you started by asking me questions. The Rothschilds may at one time had the kinds of influence on the banking system as is alleged by most Fed haters. I won't confirm or deny that as I wouldn't have claimed to have spent a lot of time trying to find evidence that confirms or disputes that claim. However, given the fact that banks did lend money to governments (unlike today) it would not surprise me to learn that at least some of what is insinuated is true. What I do know is that the insinuation of the Rothschilds connection to the banks is that they have control over our government because they lend money to it.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-16-2018, 12:14 PM
    Toche my friend.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-16-2018, 12:04 PM
    Frankly, my impression of you thus far has simply been a nay-sayer interested only in sewing doubt so I admit I read right past your post and intended to keep doing so in the future as I didn't see your contributions as productive. I've read your post in full and see you've made a bit of effort, so I will do the same.... Yes, I understand that's how I come across. I do my best to let others know I mean no disrespect, but I don't sugar coat things and if the snowflakes get all butt-hurt because they don't like what I have to say, I encourage them to leave their negative rep and get it over with so I can spend time discussing with people that are interested in two way conversation.
    46 replies | 1234 view(s)
  • econ4every1's Avatar
    04-16-2018, 10:31 AM
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445736-BANKERS-TELL-IT-LIKE-IT-IS&p=6617638&viewfull=1#post6617638
    73 replies | 1265 view(s)
More Activity
About econ4every1

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
134
Posts Per Day
6.77
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 04:53 PM
Join Date
04-02-2018
Referrals
0

04-19-2018


04-17-2018


04-13-2018

  • 02:17 PM - Hidden

04-11-2018


04-10-2018


No results to display...
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

04-19-2018


04-18-2018


04-17-2018


04-16-2018



Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast