View Poll Results: Has Zippy read The Creature From Jekyll Island?

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hell no, he hasn't read it.

    8 16.67%
  • Zippy is a FED Troll

    17 35.42%
  • Zippy wrote the Federal Reserve Act

    7 14.58%
  • Zippy is undefined

    16 33.33%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 71

Thread: Has Zippy read the Creature From Jekyll Island?

  1. #1

    Has Zippy read the Creature From Jekyll Island?

    Has Zippy read the Creature From Jekyll Island?
    Member of Ron Paul Forums Double Flat Tariff Only Society - Working towards eliminating all the foreign producer/outsource subsidizing internal federal taxes in favor of an across the board flat tariff applied equally to every country and every product.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    If people who've read the book can't convince him, it probably wouldn't do any good for him to read a book with a bias he disagrees with.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge View Post
    If people who've read the book can't convince him, it probably wouldn't do any good for him to read a book with a bias he disagrees with.
    sometimes those who read something can never explain shiz as good as the book does. Its like making a movie based on a book. There is no such movie in the world that I can think off better than the book itself
    Thanks liberty Eagle
    I am a mid-west farmer, I make a livin' off the land,
    I ride a John Deere tractor, I'm a liberated man.
    But the rain it hasn't fallen, since the middle of July,
    And if it don't come soon my crops will die.
    The bank man says he likes me, but there's nothin' he can do
    He tells me that he's comin' but the clouds are comin' too.
    He ain't my friend:
    And I'll ride again

    Veteran of the Bloody battle of NPR
    Valor
    http://screenshots.filesnetwork.com/...rs/badge16.jpg

  5. #4

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by sratiug View Post
    Has Zippy read the Creature From Jekyll Island?
    Have you asked him if he's read it?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by wgadget View Post
    Who's Zippy?
    Exactly.
    Member of Ron Paul Forums Double Flat Tariff Only Society - Working towards eliminating all the foreign producer/outsource subsidizing internal federal taxes in favor of an across the board flat tariff applied equally to every country and every product.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by KCIndy View Post
    Have you asked him if he's read it?
    Where is the fun in that?
    Member of Ron Paul Forums Double Flat Tariff Only Society - Working towards eliminating all the foreign producer/outsource subsidizing internal federal taxes in favor of an across the board flat tariff applied equally to every country and every product.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by wgadget View Post
    Who's Zippy?
    Zippy is undefined.
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV View Post
    You're not making the claim that there's no objective best diet, are you?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Who's on first?
    I am more and more convinced that man is a dangerous creature and that power, whether vested in many or a few, is ever grasping, and like the grave, cries, 'Give, give.'

    Abigail Adams

  12. #10
    I think it would be far more important for him to read "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray Rothbard; it's far more informative and puts forth things in a more logical manner, as well.

    That said, I doubt he'll read it; I've urged him, off and on, to do so for well over a year, and given some of the points in his arguments he still makes, I seriously doubt he's read even a paragraph of the book.

  13. #11
    Bump for more votes. If the voting doesn't pick up soon, I will be forced to ask the FED to print more votes so this thread doesn't collapse and destroy democracy.
    Member of Ron Paul Forums Double Flat Tariff Only Society - Working towards eliminating all the foreign producer/outsource subsidizing internal federal taxes in favor of an across the board flat tariff applied equally to every country and every product.

  14. #12
    Anyone here ever read an intro to macro book?

  15. #13
    zippyjuan is a great member and often a grounding one.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan View Post
    Anyone here ever read an intro to macro book?
    A majority of intro to macro books are filled with complete garbage. It is good do know the enemy, but I won't dock anyone for not reading propaganda material. I can't stand traditional macro books. There is only so much phillups curve, output gap, government multiplier, federal reserve market manipulation, and deficits are good that a person can take.

    As long as you know micro you will be fine. Learning central banking shenanigans will not help.

  17. #15
    How is learning how the system operates not helpful? Wouldn't it be prudent for an economist to understand the thinking of the FED?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by jclay2 View Post
    I can't stand traditional macro books. There is only so much phillups curve, output gap, government multiplier, federal reserve market manipulation, and deficits are good that a person can take.
    None of the things you listed are even what most would consider to be the "worst" of Keynesian macroeconomics. For the most part, they're pieces of Keynesian modelling, and not actually "do this, not that" indicators.

    Austrians are too quick to let morons like Krugman get in the way of the actual study. For the lack of a better analogy, it's like judging Ron Paul based on the actions of one supporter.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by forsmant View Post
    How is learning how the system operates not helpful? Wouldn't it be prudent for an economist to understand the thinking of the FED?
    Agreed. It might be prudent to understand Keynesian thinking as well.

    Keynes didn't say deficits forever, spend, spend, spend. People pretending to follow his ideas did. Might be useful to remind people of that just like it might be useful for Keynesians to remind Austrians that Hayek said

    "Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism. But the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created, does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function."
    Hayek supported direct regulation of deforestation, some farming, as well as smoke and noise pollution. So why is it that some of those who claim to follow his thinking say the opposite? Are they representative of Hayek? Can we say that Hayek believed what his modern supporters do?

  21. #18
    I read through Mish's Money, Banking and Financial Markets. It was extremely informative and I'd recommend it to everyone here as something to get your feet wet in actually understanding economics. It also happens to be available in Dubious Places.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan View Post
    Agreed. It might be prudent to understand Keynesian thinking as well.

    Keynes didn't say deficits forever, spend, spend, spend. People pretending to follow his ideas did. Might be useful to remind people of that just like it might be useful for Keynesians to remind Austrians that Hayek said



    Hayek supported direct regulation of deforestation, some farming, as well as smoke and noise pollution. So why is it that some of those who claim to follow his thinking say the opposite? Are they representative of Hayek? Can we say that Hayek believed what his modern supporters do?
    Jordon: Are you a Keynesian (as in 1936 definition)? To me, the most fundamental problem with Keynes is the notion that a small group of individuals can maximize economic utility for the masses by command and control. The idea that a bunch of central bankers & politicians know the best course of actions for the millions in the economy just irks me to death.

    "We know where interest rates should be and we will force them to that level".
    "People are saving to much, we must find a way to MAKE businesses invest more".

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by forsmant View Post
    zippyjuan is a great member and often a grounding one.
    But has he read the Creature?
    Member of Ron Paul Forums Double Flat Tariff Only Society - Working towards eliminating all the foreign producer/outsource subsidizing internal federal taxes in favor of an across the board flat tariff applied equally to every country and every product.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by forsmant View Post
    zippyjuan is a great member and often a grounding one.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by jclay2 View Post
    Jordon: Are you a Keynesian (as in 1936 definition)? To me, the most fundamental problem with Keynes is the notion that a small group of individuals can maximize economic utility for the masses by command and control. The idea that a bunch of central bankers & politicians know the best course of actions for the millions in the economy just irks me to death.

    "We know where interest rates should be and we will force them to that level".
    "People are saving to much, we must find a way to MAKE businesses invest more".
    No, I'm not.

    I just wanted to note that the models are a great way to increase your understanding of economics and the markets. Besides a lot of the lower level stuff can be demonstrated to be true. Inflation, for example, would increase employment in both the short and long run because of the minimum wage. Devalue the dollar by half, the new legal minimum wage is the equivalent to $3.625 of yesterday's cash.

    Recently, Malkusm was speaking to his graduate level "Keynesian" level studies and how they were working in class on a mathematical model that, as part of one of the variables, indicates the government expects to eventually pay off the national debt. If you were to listen to Austrians exclusively here or elsewhere, you wouldn't ever even think that to be true.

    I think it would be best to consume all possible information prior to choosing where you stand. Even if you come out an even stronger Austrian, I'm sure there will be quite a few things to learn from Keynesian study.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan View Post
    Agreed. It might be prudent to understand Keynesian thinking as well.

    Keynes didn't say deficits forever, spend, spend, spend. People pretending to follow his ideas did.
    Keynes was a intelligent man and nobody with a minimum intelligence will accept that premise. Keynes opened the door for government spending, under the pretense that politicians would do (what Keynes said) "the right thing". Nobody, nor even Keynes, believed politicians would do the right thing. Its obvious that Keynes was opening the door and was fully aware of what would happen.

    Might be useful to remind people of that just like it might be useful for Keynesians to remind Austrians that Hayek said

    Hayek supported direct regulation of deforestation, some farming, as well as smoke and noise pollution. So why is it that some of those who claim to follow his thinking say the opposite? Are they representative of Hayek? Can we say that Hayek believed what his modern supporters do?
    First, Hayek, is not the bible, he can get some things wrong. Second, Hayek is contradictory in his writtings. Using Hayek writings you can justify one thing and the contrary at the same time. Hayek was a curious mind and in a lot of his writings he is exploring new ideas, that he later on contradicts in other writings. Being curious is a good thing, but it makes your legacy less consistent. Other authors, like for example Mises is far more consistent (although Mises is not the bible neither, nobody is).

    I personally like Hayek a lot in respect of capital structure, a concept I personally think you like to ignore, for example here:

    I just wanted to note that the models are a great way to increase your understanding of economics and the markets. Besides a lot of the lower level stuff can be demonstrated to be true. Inflation, for example, would increase employment in both the short and long run because of the minimum wage. Devalue the dollar by half, the new legal minimum wage is the equivalent to $3.625 of yesterday's cash.
    You are ignoring the distortion in the capital structure that inflation would create, triggering the boom/bust cycle and the unemployment and malinvestment it would create.
    Last edited by hugolp; 12-02-2010 at 11:36 AM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by hugolp View Post
    I personally like Hayek a lot in respect of capital structure, a concept I personally think you like to ignore, for example here:

    You are ignoring the distortion in the capital structure that inflation would create, triggering the boom/bust cycle and the unemployment and malinvestment it would create.

    And Keynes might say that you ignore the value of an expansion of the production possibilities curve, or the amount of goods and services that can be reasonably produced within the context the current economic capacity by lowering the effective minimum wage.

    I think it is interesting that you mention the concept of capital structure as it relates to inflation. Basically, capital structure = The price system says that investments and opportunities with the highest yield are the most demanded/necessary in the market. To lower the cost of borrowing would affect the capital structure, since previously unprofitable market needs could now be afforded, maybe if only temporary, and would become more attractive.

    With the concept of capital structure, it seems to me that with positive expectations people would invest first in high yield returns. Borrow low, lend high. Take a cut. Then the money would trickle into low returns. That is the idea behind capital structure, after all.

    But wait, wouldn't deflation be even worse? I mean, if the value of currency is increasing, the amount of risk capital available to the market would decline, since the risk/reward of holding onto capital would be greater than that of any other investment. Holding onto cash: 0 risk/ positive reward vs. risk / positive reward.

    See the Sharpe Ratio. Even if the potential risk of full loss is 10% and potential profit is 20%, the risk to reward ratio is better for savings (2% annual return divided by 0 risk) than it is for investment (20% return divided by 10% risk of loss). Adjusting against risk-free returns, holding onto your cash provides an infinite reward to risk ratio, better than the investment opportunity (which would, by the way, fill a market need and increase the standard of living.)

    In a deflationary scenario, investments would be made at only the most extreme level of return, those needs only SOOOOOO desperately needed, since a positive return can be obtained by merely holding cash. Why accept risk when positive returns can be achieved by accepting ZERO risk? All reward, no risk? Wouldn't deflation encourage savings but provide disincentive for consumption as well as investment?

    In what would you invest if no one is willing to consume, and what would you consume if no one is willing to invest? You would have to reallllllly want to invest in something or reallllllly want to consume it to do so in a deflationary environment.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan View Post
    In a deflationary scenario, investments would be made at only the most extreme level of return, those needs only SOOOOOO desperately needed, since a positive return can be obtained by merely holding cash. Why accept risk when positive returns can be achieved by accepting ZERO risk? All reward, no risk? Wouldn't deflation encourage savings but provide disincentive for consumption as well as investment?

    In what would you invest if no one is willing to consume, and what would you consume if no one is willing to invest? You would have to reallllllly want to invest in something or reallllllly want to consume it to do so in a deflationary environment.
    Whats the solution then, create a monopoly over money where the biggest psychopaths in the society are in charge of its value?

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan View Post
    And Keynes might say that you ignore the value of an expansion of the production possibilities curve, or the amount of goods and services that can be reasonably produced within the context the current economic capacity by lowering the effective minimum wage.

    I think it is interesting that you mention the concept of capital structure as it relates to inflation. Basically, capital structure = The price system says that investments and opportunities with the highest yield are the most demanded/necessary in the market. To lower the cost of borrowing would affect the capital structure, since previously unprofitable market needs could now be afforded, maybe if only temporary, and would become more attractive.

    With the concept of capital structure, it seems to me that with positive expectations people would invest first in high yield returns. Borrow low, lend high. Take a cut. Then the money would trickle into low returns. That is the idea behind capital structure, after all.

    But wait, wouldn't deflation be even worse? I mean, if the value of currency is increasing, the amount of risk capital available to the market would decline, since the risk/reward of holding onto capital would be greater than that of any other investment. Holding onto cash: 0 risk/ positive reward vs. risk / positive reward.

    See the Sharpe Ratio. Even if the potential risk of full loss is 10% and potential profit is 20%, the risk to reward ratio is better for savings (2% annual return divided by 0 risk) than it is for investment (20% return divided by 10% risk of loss). Adjusting against risk-free returns, holding onto your cash provides an infinite reward to risk ratio, better than the investment opportunity (which would, by the way, fill a market need and increase the standard of living.)

    In a deflationary scenario, investments would be made at only the most extreme level of return, those needs only SOOOOOO desperately needed, since a positive return can be obtained by merely holding cash. Why accept risk when positive returns can be achieved by accepting ZERO risk? All reward, no risk? Wouldn't deflation encourage savings but provide disincentive for consumption as well as investment?

    In what would you invest if no one is willing to consume, and what would you consume if no one is willing to invest? You would have to reallllllly want to invest in something or reallllllly want to consume it to do so in a deflationary environment.
    Not necessarily. In a deflationary environment, there is more certainty in investment. (that is, future-oriented investors tend to be more inclined to invest) Conversely, in an inflationary environment, there is great uncertainty in currency value, prices, etc. High uncertainty=high risk with no guarantee of break-even returns, much less profit. Except for very brave and savvy investors, it is not likely that inflation is better than deflation.

    You're right that inflationary periods encourage a lot of investment, but this is not necessarily the same as good investment. Along with all the investment in inflationary booms comes tremendous waste which could have been put to better use.

    JMHO.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  31. #27
    Inflation and deflation both have the same uncertainties about the future. If the rates of either are consistant, then the uncertainty is low. If they are changing, then the uncertainty of the future is higher. That is why the Fed has in the past attempted to target a stable rate of inflation. Can you differentiate between what is "good" investment and what is "bad" investment? You have both all the time. A good investment is one that pays off. This can occur in good or bad economic times.

    During the last recession, (2001) US car makers cut back. Korean car makers in this country (think Kia) invested more. After the recession eased, Kia was in a position to improve their sales and market share. Both thought they were making good decisions based on the information they had at the time and both faced the same rates of inflation and interest rates.

    What "better use" would you say a company should make during an inflationary period? If prices are rising (and they are making more off their products) should they cut back on investment in future higher production?
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Inflation and deflation both have the same uncertainties about the future. If the rates of either are consistant, then the uncertainty is low. If they are changing, then the uncertainty of the future is higher. That is why the Fed has in the past attempted to target a stable rate of inflation. Can you differentiate between what is "good" investment and what is "bad" investment? You have both all the time. A good investment is one that pays off. This can occur in good or bad economic times.

    During the last recession, (2001) US car makers cut back. Korean car makers in this country (think Kia) invested more. After the recession eased, Kia was in a position to improve their sales and market share. Both thought they were making good decisions based on the information they had at the time and both faced the same rates of inflation and interest rates.

    What "better use" would you say a company should make during an inflationary period? If prices are rising (and they are making more off their products) should they cut back on investment in future higher production?
    You're assuming that making more dollars=more profit. In inflationary periods, dollars are worth less, so your reasoning doesn't generally work out. Frank Shostak has a piece out today that explains this in more detail than I have time to today. (pay special to the section called "why deflation heals the economy")

    Is Deflation Really Bad for the Economy?
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 12-02-2010 at 03:27 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Inflation and deflation both have the same uncertainties about the future. If the rates of either are consistant, then the uncertainty is low. If they are changing, then the uncertainty of the future is higher. That is why the Fed has in the past attempted to target a stable rate of inflation. Can you differentiate between what is "good" investment and what is "bad" investment? You have both all the time. A good investment is one that pays off. This can occur in good or bad economic times.

    During the last recession, (2001) US car makers cut back. Korean car makers in this country (think Kia) invested more. After the recession eased, Kia was in a position to improve their sales and market share. Both thought they were making good decisions based on the information they had at the time and both faced the same rates of inflation and interest rates.

    What "better use" would you say a company should make during an inflationary period? If prices are rising (and they are making more off their products) should they cut back on investment in future higher production?
    Are you on the payroll of the fed? or CIA or any other govt entity or government sponsored instrumentality?

  34. #30
    I wonder how Zippy voted?

    No one can control inflation or deflation and to even attempt it is pure lunacy.

    The main point of the Creature is that the FED is an international banking cartel that controls the system so they can eliminate competition from smaller banks (and savings) and make all the money and destroy the middle classes of developed countries to gain more power over the world population and move toward world government... imo.
    Member of Ron Paul Forums Double Flat Tariff Only Society - Working towards eliminating all the foreign producer/outsource subsidizing internal federal taxes in favor of an across the board flat tariff applied equally to every country and every product.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-14-2011, 01:06 PM
  2. The Creature from Jekyll Island
    By jth_ttu in forum Books & Literature
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 02:00 PM
  3. Who has read "Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin?
    By FrankRep in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 06-28-2009, 06:56 PM
  4. The Creature from Jekyll Island
    By RedStripe in forum Books & Literature
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 09:56 PM
  5. The creature from Jekyll Island
    By thehighwaymanq in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-07-2008, 11:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •