Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 63 of 63

Thread: Kucinich And Stephen Zarlenga Anti-Gold Drive

  1. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafayette View Post
    Oh... i see. So for the sake of argument lets just forget for a second that the bankers and all the other special interests and complexes don't infest and control government. We just put the printing press into the hands of guys who bring us such wonderful things as the patriot act, NDDA, assassinations of US citizens, TSA, the war on drugs, endless foreign wars and 10s of trillions in debt and unfunded liabilities and things will be sooooooo much better....
    I didn't say that. It is not the Treasury or the Mint that does those things, but the executive and to a lesser extent the legislature. While it is true that many historical examples of hyperinflation have resulted from putting the power to create money in the same hands that spent it, that is not the proposal. The proposal is to put the power to create money in the hands of an independent Mint. Its primary legal mandate would be price stability. It would achieve this goal by printing enough money to accommodate economic growth, and delivering it to the Treasury to spend into circulation. It would be legally prohibited from printing money if the previous year's measured rate of commodity price increase was greater than some small number, say 2%. It would be legally required to print a fixed fraction of GDP in new money each month that the previous year's commodity price index declined, and deliver it to the Treasury to spend into circulation. Between those two extremes, it would have discretion to smooth anticipated price fluctuations.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    18,574

    Default

    I didn't say that. It is not the Treasury or the Mint that does those things, but the executive and to a lesser extent the legislature. While it is true that many historical examples of hyperinflation have resulted from putting the power to create money in the same hands that spent it, that is not the proposal. The proposal is to put the power to create money in the hands of an independent Mint. Its primary legal mandate would be price stability. It would achieve this goal by printing enough money to accommodate economic growth, and delivering it to the Treasury to spend into circulation.
    Sounds kinda like the Federal Reserve. Except if they were truely independent you could not dictate them what actions to take.


    It would be legally prohibited from printing money if the previous year's measured rate of commodity price increase was greater than some small number, say 2%. It would be legally required to print a fixed fraction of GDP in new money each month that the previous year's commodity price index declined, and deliver it to the Treasury to spend into circulation. Between those two extremes, it would have discretion to smooth anticipated price fluctuations.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  4. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Sounds kinda like the Federal Reserve.
    Only to someone who has no idea how the Federal Reserve works.
    Except if they were truely independent you could not dictate them what actions to take.
    A legal mandate to do its job is not me "dictating" what actions to take.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

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