Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 143

Thread: Economic Storm Clouds Gather, but Ending the Fed Provides Hope

  1. #1

    Economic Storm Clouds Gather, but Ending the Fed Provides Hope

    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives...provides-hope/

    The Federal Reserve recently increased interest rates to 1.75 percent. This is the highest interest rates have been since 2008, but it still leaves rates at historic lows. While the Fed says economic growth justifies future rate increases, an honest examination of the economy suggests that future rate increases are unlikely.

    The Fed’s claim that the economy is strong is based on misleading government statistics. For example, the official unemployment rate understates true unemployment by not counting those who have given up looking for work. According to John Williams of Shadow Government Statistics, the real unemployment rate is above 20 percent. Government figures also understate the rate of inflation by pretending that you are not negatively impacted by inflation if you can still buy hamburger when you cannot afford steak. Shadow Stats estimates that the real rate of inflation is as much as four times higher than the official rate.

    President Trump’s tariffs will further weaken the economy. While export-driven industries, including manufacturers that rely on imported materials, will be particularly hard-hit, the tariffs combined with the inevitable retaliation from other counties will impact all sectors of the economy. A global trade war could also lead other countries to stop buying US debt instruments, increasing pressure on the Fed to keep rates low.

    Since Republicans have held control of the White House and Congress over the last year, federal spending has increased 12.9 percent. Clearly those in Congress serious about reducing government spending are few and far between. The sad fact is that both major parties are happy to increase welfare and warfare spending, although many Republicans pretend to oppose deficits when a Democrat sits in the White House. This puts tremendous pressure on the Fed to keep rates low so as not to increase the federal government’s already high interest payments.

    This cannot last forever. Eventually the combination of a spendthrift Congress and a print-happy central bank will cause a major economic crisis. This crisis will herald the end of the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that sustains it. The only question is whether the existing system will be replaced by a free market and limited constitutional government or we will complete our descent into totalitarianism.

    Fortunately, more Americans are becoming aware of the freedom philosophy and demanding that government roll back the welfare-warfare state and rein in the Fed. Many are also demanding protection of their right to opt out — not just from government programs like Obamacare but also from the Federal Reserve System. For example, Wyoming recently joined Arizona in passing a law recognizing gold and silver as legal tender. Citizens of these states are now able to protect themselves from the coming dollar crisis by using what has historically been considered real money.

    At the federal level, the movement to audit the Fed remains strong. As the failures of Keynesianism become more apparent, the movement to audit and end the Fed will grow in size and strength. Hopefully this movement will ensure the end of the welfare-warfare state and the fiat currency system as well as lead to a new era of liberty.
    Anyone remember Stiff the Fed?

    I think this may only be half of the solution that is absolutely necessary to stabilize the money system. Most people, including far too many Libertarians do not fully understand how our money system works. It is not their fault. People that do not understand are not supposed to understand. It is that very confusion that creates an opportunity to hide in secrecy, just as JFK warned us about. Lets explain this clearly so that everyone can understand how our money system works without confusion.

    Whether it is accurate or not, we have all heard the term the "govt just prints money". It is a half truth because it is greatly oversimplified. To understand what really happens, the Terms need to be more easily explained for everyone.

    • Monetary Policy - Print the money (yes, oversimplified)
    • Fiscal Plicy - Destroy the money (Federal Income Tax)


    In order to maintain "balance" in this type of system, the money that is "printed" must also be destroyed. If you have a bucket of water, and just continue to pour more and more water into the bucket, it will overflow and water will be wasted. What also happens is that the value of each smaller measurement of water is devalued, the purchasing power continues to go down. Inflation is an "increase in the money supply" which causes the purchasing power of each individual dollar to go down. Infinite money printing therefore is not sustainable without a measure to prevent "overflow".

    Fiscal Policy is a system that is designed to reduce the total volume of money. Again, refer to the bucket of water. If you remove as much water from the bucket as you put in, you have a "balance". When you hear most people refer to Fiscal Policy, it is both expressed and thought of by most people as "Taxation" which means to "collect money". There are major problems with the way that people understand this. First, the Federal Government does NOT use Federal Income Tax to fund its expenses. What is collected by the Federal Income Tax is NOT used to fund the Federal Government. Not One Cent. Period. Second, the currency that has been collected by Federal Income Tax does NOT stay in circulation. Since the government does not use Federal Income Tax to fund any expenditures at all, that money (non tangible such as a checking acct balance) is quite literally destroyed. The next major misconception that causes confusion is that the IRS is a part of the Federal Government. It is not. The IRS is the counterpart to the Federal Reserve Bank, which, despite the confusion inferred by the name is also not a part of the Federal Government. The Federal Reserve Bank is no more Federal than Federal Express.

    Both the money creation and money destruction are part of the designed system. Both the Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS were created by the 16th Amendment, and both are needed to "balance" the system. If you have too much currency in the system, the purchasing power of each individual dollar decreases by a proportional amount to the increase in the money supply. If you have a total volume of 100 dollars, and print up one new dollar, that new dollar gets its value from the existing currency, causing the value of the existing currency to go down. Thus, with a total of 101 dollars, the purchasing power of each dollar drops to 99 cents. The way to balance the system here would be to "Tax" one dollar out of circulation, reducing the total volume of money back to 100, and in theory, cause the existing currency to retain its purchasing power.

    The big problem is that there are two systems in place that work together. Removing only one part of the system unbalances the entire system. Remove just the IRS and the money supply increases. Remove just the Federal Reserve Bank and the money supply decreases. Abolishing the IRS is part of the solution, but what no layman is ever taught is that they need to focus just as hard on removing and replacing the Federal Reserve Bank, and its bank notes with US Treasury bank notes.

    Despite anything that Zippyjuan will say, this is what makes Central Banks more dangerous than standing armies to the long term survival of all nations. Please note that I have purposefully oversimplified the functions and have not factored in Interest at all. This is Keynesian Economics at its most simple form, and in theory, it works. Does it work in practice? You tell me. Take a look around. Tell me if this money system frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, or enslaves them? You tell me if a small business will be granted a loan, not based solely on their credit reputation, but on the intended function of the business. You tell me if a mom and pop publication would be granted a loan to print information that discredits our entire banking and money system. You tell me if JP Morgan pulled funding from Nikolai Tesla who intended to create free electricity for everyone. You tell me if a cheap cancer cure would be funded, or denied in favor of more expensive and less effective medical treatments. You tell me if the direction of our country is determined by a small group of dominant men or not, who control that direction by issue of credit and currency.

    You tell me if our money system is Honest.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintian an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    You are Ron Paul's Media!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Then life will be perfect. No unemployment. No inflation. Everybody will have a high paying job (whether they want one or not) and everything will be cheap. Governments will quit spending any money or collecting taxes and there will be no more war or disease.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-02-2018 at 03:55 PM.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I didn't actually read any of the thread. I now mostly just come here to mess with Zip.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Then life will be perfect. No unemployment. No inflation. Everybody will have a high paying job (whether they want one or not) and everything will be cheap. Governments will quit spending any money or collecting taxes and there will be no more war or disease.
    Right on cue.

    Your demeanor for true economic reform, which this country and the entire world sorely needs, is being directed straight at RON PAUL himself. Or did you fail to notice the source of the article?

    -REP for snarking at RON PAUL

    You REALLY dont belong here. You cant get any more in the red than you already are. Maybe you should think about changing your perspective to offer TRUE economic liberty that used to make this country a place people wanted to live. We are already living under your ideas. And the real $#@!hole country is THIS one.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintian an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    You are Ron Paul's Media!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  5. #4
    Just to poke at some of these ideas or maybe to clarify...

    Suppose Water is our Money and the Bucket is the Market. The value of our money is manipulated, but in theory is the purpose of that because our market or the size of the Bucket changes? That the Fed's job is to tweak our money to sort of be in sync with the size of the market? Now I do suppose that during these tweaks if new money is created there is some favoritism on who gets that money first which is one of the complaints about how that is handled.

    Or maybe the Fed's behavior inadvertently has an effect on the size of the Bucket/Market as well, so when they perform their job it or do a correction for their correction it's like they Double-Down leading to escalation instead of stabilizing?

    Sorry for the bad analogies; I'm no economist.

    For the sake of discussion though, I'm curious if Zippy's reply to this is skepticism at End The Fed versus perhaps Audit the Fed and even reform? Maybe it's better than being changed to the inflexible Gold Standard?
    Last edited by VIDEODROME; 04-03-2018 at 07:56 AM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Right on cue.

    Your demeanor for true economic reform, which this country and the entire world sorely needs, is being directed straight at RON PAUL himself. Or did you fail to notice the source of the article?

    -REP for snarking at RON PAUL

    You REALLY dont belong here. You cant get any more in the red than you already are. Maybe you should think about changing your perspective to offer TRUE economic liberty that used to make this country a place people wanted to live. We are already living under your ideas. And the real $#@!hole country is THIS one.
    The funny thing is that lately I'm not as irritated as I used to be with Zippy. He more or less admits that he's a liberal keynesian. The guy who really bugs me is TheCount. He's a liberal Keynesian like Zippy but he pretends he's a libertarian. It's kind of like Rachel Maddow vs Anderson Cooper. Rachel Maddow admits she's a liberal doing a liberal talk show from a liberal point of view. Anderson Cooper is dishonest, he pretends to be doing a neutral news program. The dishonesty irritates me more.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    You REALLY dont belong here.
    I'm curious as this is literally my first post. I have a question for anyone willing to answer it. If you don't agree with the consensus here, does that mean you aren't welcome? Is this forum intended to be an echo chamber for those that agree with each other, or do people invite others to challenge their ideas?

    Respectfully,

    E4E1

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    Suppose Water is our Money and the Bucket is the Market. The value of our money is manipulated, but in theory is the purpose of that because our market or the size of the Bucket changes? That the Fed's job is to tweak our money to sort of be in sync with the size of the market? Now I do suppose that during these tweaks if new money is created there is some favoritism on who gets that money first which is one of the complaints about how that is handled.
    I'd like to offer a different perspective.

    Your Money and Bucket analogy is actually quite brilliant. So is recognizing that there is a difference in spending money and what it's spend on. However, before I can explain my opinion why, I think we need to establish what value is in an economy (like the US). I apologize in advance if it seems obvious (as I won't be surprised if I'm ridiculed for asking for clarification of this term).

    What do you think determines the value of money?

    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    Or maybe the Fed's behavior inadvertently has an effect on the size of the Bucket/Market as well, so when they perform their job it or do a correction for their correction it's like they Double-Down leading to escalation instead of stabilizing?
    Again, very insightful. There is a lot I'd like to address in this comment, but I'm going to hold off except to say that the Fed is one "cog" in a long chain of events.

    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    Sorry for the bad analogies; I'm no economist.
    Nor am I, though I have studied economics on my own since ~2005. Honestly, I think following mainstream thought can be a hindrance to understanding how the economy works. Some people here might agree, though I doubt we'd agree on all points as to why.

    Quote Originally Posted by VIDEODROME View Post
    For the sake of discussion though, I'm curious if Zippy's reply to this is skepticism at End The Fed versus perhaps Audit the Fed and even reform? Maybe it's better than being changed to the inflexible Gold Standard?
    I'll just say I'm not in favor of ending the Fed. I'm sure my reasons why will come out somewhere in this thread if anyone wants to discuss it with me.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    I'm curious as this is literally my first post. I have a question for anyone willing to answer it. If you don't agree with the consensus here, does that mean you aren't welcome? Is this forum intended to be an echo chamber for those that agree with each other, or do people invite others to challenge their ideas?

    Respectfully,

    E4E1
    Zippyjuan has a habit of spamming rather than engaging, as you may have noticed from his snarky post above. So, he gets under the skin. That said, you will note that he has been disagreeing with both the consensus and the gentleman the site is named after continually for just over a decade. Perhaps that answers your question.

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    I'd like to offer a different perspective.

    Your Money and Bucket analogy is actually quite brilliant. So is recognizing that there is a difference in spending money and what it's spend on. However, before I can explain my opinion why, I think we need to establish what value is in an economy (like the US). I apologize in advance if it seems obvious (as I won't be surprised if I'm ridiculed for asking for clarification of this term).

    What do you think determines the value of money?
    Supply and demand determines the value of money, as with everything else. Increase demand, by making it illegal to use anything else for exchange within a nation, or by bombing countries who dare to sell some popular commodity (like petroleum) for any other form of payment internationally, and demand (and the value of the currency) goes up. Print just a little bit more than enough to satisfy that extra demand, and the value of the currency (and the value of a person's wages, and the value of a savings account) goes down. The people with the monopoly license to print the stuff (people who are not the federal government, despite the Fed's deceptive name) get a little richer, and the people who have to use the currency get a little poorer. Of course, if that money creation is kept below the level of demand, this devaluation does not happen. But, somehow, this devaluation always happens. The value of the "dollar" has, in fact, only gone up once since 1913, and that led FDR to confiscate large quantities of gold.

    There's quite a lot of discussion on this topic already on this site. Perhaps if you'd really like to know what we know and what we think about those facts, you'd take a little time to look at the discussions that have already happened on this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    Again, very insightful. There is a lot I'd like to address in this comment, but I'm going to hold off except to say that the Fed is one "cog" in a long chain of events.
    Do you mean events like a cabal of large bankers, led by Morgan, loaning money to speculators and creating an artificial sellers' market, then demanding immediate repayment of those loans, creating an artificial buyers' market? Thereby reaping considerable profits, and coincidentally creating a string of panics, most notably those of 1893 and 1907?

    Isn't it interesting that most of those same bankers are the very people who were instrumental in creating the Federal Reserve?

    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    Nor am I, though I have studied economics on my own since ~2005. Honestly, I think following mainstream thought can be a hindrance to understanding how the economy works. Some people here might agree, though I doubt we'd agree on all points as to why.



    I'll just say I'm not in favor of ending the Fed. I'm sure my reasons why will come out somewhere in this thread if anyone wants to discuss it with me.
    Many of us are not in favor of ending it either. A good many of us, however, would prefer not to invade countries when they sell oil for other currencies, and a good many of us would prefer to repeal the law that says it's illegal to use other forms of exchange within the U.S.

    Do you find either of those notions objectionable?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 04-03-2018 at 10:19 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Ron is wrong...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Amash is wrong...



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    I'm curious as this is literally my first post. I have a question for anyone willing to answer it. If you don't agree with the consensus here, does that mean you aren't welcome? Is this forum intended to be an echo chamber for those that agree with each other, or do people invite others to challenge their ideas?

    Respectfully,

    E4E1
    Personally, I enjoy the majority of Zippy's posts. Now, enjoy doesn't equate into agree with mind you. But many times I'll give his posts +Rep simply for both stating an argument to something (to be honest, I'm confident he does so simply to play devil's advocate at times as opposed to relaying a heartfelt opinion) as well as having the intestinal fortitude for doing so on this forum.

    Part of the reason I thoroughly enjoy and recommend this site is due to the debates, because I've never seen full consensus even among people who are almost identical in views. It kind of goes with libertarian thought as personal interpretation and application of things like Natural Law can really vary from person to person. But this "argumentative atmosphere" allows a large majority of people in the community a forum (some who should be either working for NASA or teaching civics, economics, or law) to dissect each other's ideas in open debate. And that's just good for all of us as a whole.
    "Self conquest is the greatest of all victories." - Plato

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    The funny thing is that lately I'm not as irritated as I used to be with Zippy. He more or less admits that he's a liberal keynesian. The guy who really bugs me is TheCount. He's a liberal Keynesian like Zippy but he pretends he's a libertarian. It's kind of like Rachel Maddow vs Anderson Cooper. Rachel Maddow admits she's a liberal doing a liberal talk show from a liberal point of view. Anderson Cooper is dishonest, he pretends to be doing a neutral news program. The dishonesty irritates me more.
    I am not going to snark because it is Ron Paul and I bite my tongue on these kinds of articles.

    But do you really think the unemployment rate is 20% right now like Ron says? Ron is saying the unemployment rate is higher than the peak of the Great Depression. It isn't.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I am not going to snark because it is Ron Paul and I bite my tongue on these kinds of articles.

    But do you really think the unemployment rate is 20% right now like Ron says? Ron is saying the unemployment rate is higher than the peak of the Great Depression. It isn't.
    It has come very, very close since 2008, and the official numbers don't reflect that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Ron is wrong...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Amash is wrong...

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I am not going to snark because it is Ron Paul and I bite my tongue on these kinds of articles.

    But do you really think the unemployment rate is 20% right now like Ron says? Ron is saying the unemployment rate is higher than the peak of the Great Depression. It isn't.
    Depends on how you calculate unemployment.

    There are a LOT of people out of the workforce who are not included because they gave up looking for a job.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    I'm curious as this is literally my first post. I have a question for anyone willing to answer it. If you don't agree with the consensus here, does that mean you aren't welcome? Is this forum intended to be an echo chamber for those that agree with each other, or do people invite others to challenge their ideas?

    Respectfully,

    E4E1
    Of course you are free to participate in discussion. What is the purpose of discussion? To create better understanding and to learn.

    Zippy doesn't learn. You can give them the same facts 20 times over and they will come into a thread two days later and say the same thing.

    They operate like they are working out of a textbook, or a government owned binder.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Depends on how you calculate unemployment.

    There are a LOT of people out of the workforce who are not included because they gave up looking for a job.
    If they aren't looking for a job do they want a job? And if they don't want a job, should we care if there is or isn't a job available for them? Williams includes people who haven't looked for work in over a year. He also counts part- time workers who say they might like a few more hours as unemployed. They may be UNDER employed, but they are not UN employed.

    If you tried to use his methods on unemployment during the Great Depression, it would be well over 50% unemployed. He likes to say things are worse than the Great Depression while accepting the official figures for then while not applying the same methods of measurement so a more relative comparison can be made.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-03-2018 at 12:19 PM.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I didn't actually read any of the thread. I now mostly just come here to mess with Zip.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If they aren't looking for a job do they want a job?
    LOL, almost nobody wants a job..

    And if they don't want a job, should we care if there is or isn't a job available for them?
    If it is because of high taxes or regulation, then yes.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    I'm curious as this is literally my first post. I have a question for anyone willing to answer it. If you don't agree with the consensus here, does that mean you aren't welcome? Is this forum intended to be an echo chamber for those that agree with each other, or do people invite others to challenge their ideas?

    Respectfully,

    E4E1
    Yes. We are here to build coalitions, not debate with liberal trolls.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    If they aren't looking for a job do they want a job? And if they don't want a job, should we care if there is or isn't a job available for them?
    Depends on why they don't want a job. If they don't want a job because it screws up their benefits. If they don't want a job because they lawyered up and finally got disability. In short, if they aren't adding measurable value to society, count them.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Depends on why they don't want a job. If they don't want a job because it screws up their benefits. If they don't want a job because they lawyered up and finally got disability. In short, if they aren't adding measurable value to society, count them.
    So retired people on Social Security should be counted as unemployed. They are on benefits and have given up looking for a job.

    If you are collecting unemployment insurance, one condition of that is that you say you are trying to find a job (yes, some people do lie about that and supply fake lists of places they have contacted looking for work). If you say you are trying to find a job, you are counted as "in the labor force and unemployed".
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-03-2018 at 12:23 PM.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I didn't actually read any of the thread. I now mostly just come here to mess with Zip.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I am not going to snark because it is Ron Paul and I bite my tongue on these kinds of articles.

    But do you really think the unemployment rate is 20% right now like Ron says? Ron is saying the unemployment rate is higher than the peak of the Great Depression. It isn't.
    I don't think it's nearly as high as the Great Depression, however I also think unemployment stats are highly subjective. I like more objective data like trade deficits, budget deficits, total debt, etc. Even GDP is a lot more objective than unemployment.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    I'm curious as this is literally my first post. I have a question for anyone willing to answer it. If you don't agree with the consensus here, does that mean you aren't welcome? Is this forum intended to be an echo chamber for those that agree with each other, or do people invite others to challenge their ideas?

    Respectfully,

    E4E1
    You just can't take it personally. People gonna disagree. Welcome to the Forum!
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 04-03-2018 at 01:01 PM.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    I didn't actually read any of the thread. I now mostly just come here to mess with Zip.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  24. #21
    Apologies in advance for the length. There was a lot to address.

    Just a comment on the quote. While I agree that government reporting of unemployment, specifically the "official" U6 figure is not indicitive of the true state of unemployment, I'd like to point out that "Shadow Stats" should be taken with a grain of salt.

    This is from the Shadow Stats site:

    The ShadowStats number—a broad unemployment measure more in line with common experience—is my estimate. The approximation of the ShadowStats “long-term discouraged worker” category—those otherwise largely defined out of statistical existence in 1994—reflects proprietary modeling based on a variety of private and public surveying over the last two-plus decades. Beyond using the BLS U.6 estimate as an underlying monthly base, I have not found a way of accounting fully for the current unemployment circumstance and common experience using just the monthly headline data from the BLS.
    [emphisis mine]

    Source: http://www.shadowstats.com/article/c810x.pdf

    I'm neither going to confirm or deny Mr. Williams claim about the actual unemployment rate as I have no particular insights into it, I would, however, tend to agree that the way the government reports unemployment is very misleading. I'm inclined to agree the reality is somewhere between the "official number and Mr. Williams estimate. Another category I didn't see mentioned when it comes to unemployment is "underemployment". People who are specifically trained in a particular job, but take one that pays less because they cannot find a job in their chosen field or find/ afford training in a new line of specialized work. I think this is also a very big problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Anyone remember Stiff the Fed?
    Personally, I'm unfamiliar with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    I think this may only be half of the solution that is absolutely necessary to stabilize the money system. Most people, including far too many Libertarians do not fully understand how our money system works.
    Totally agree

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    It is not their fault.
    Disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    People that do not understand are not supposed to understand.
    I'd say that it's not a question of supposed to or not supposed to, rather economics is a difficult subject that does not lend itself to people's intuition about it. Unfortunately, too many people cling to their own intuitive ideas rather than taking the time to question their own assumptions and learn.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    It is that very confusion that creates an opportunity to hide in secrecy, just as JFK warned us about. Let's explain this clearly so that everyone can understand how our money system works without confusion.
    Can you link me something to What Kennedy said? Personally, I'm unfamiliar with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Whether it is accurate or not, we have all heard the term the "govt just prints money". It is a half truth because it is greatly oversimplified. To understand what really happens, the Terms need to be more easily explained for everyone.


    • Monetary Policy - Print the money (yes, oversimplified)
    • Fiscal Plicy - Destroy the money (Federal Income Tax)

    I'd disagree with that assessment. If I were to oversimplify it as you've done I'd define it like this:


    • Monetary policy - Responsible for setting the cost of money. This is largely carried out by the Fed.

    • Fiscal policy - Responsible for spending so the government can provision itself and taxes to offset (some or all) spending. This is determined by Congress.



    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    In order to maintain "balance" in this type of system, the money that is "printed" must also be destroyed. If you have a bucket of water, and just continue to pour more and more water into the bucket, it will overflow and water will be wasted. What also happens is that the value of each smaller measurement of water is devalued, the purchasing power continues to go down.
    I definitely like the bucket analogy, but I'd suggest that you've left a few things out of your analogy and therefore doesn't reflect economic reality.

    Let's define the terms....

    If the size of the bucket represents the nations potential output, too little water in the bucket would result in unused capacity (unemployment) and too much water results in the bucket overflowing (inflation).

    To be clear, inflation is a rise in prices. Prices rise when demand for goods and services exceeds supply.

    Fiscal and monetary policy can both affect the size of the bucket and the amount of water in the bucket but in different ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Fiscal Policy is a system that is designed to reduce the total volume of money.
    Fiscal policy carried out by Congress increases and decreases the supply of bank reserves via spending and taxing.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Again, refer to the bucket of water. If you remove as much water from the bucket as you put in, you have a "balance".
    However, you haven't identified everything that adds to or removes "water from the bucket".

    For example, if you live in a nation that is a net exporter, then water (money) is added to your economy (bucket). How this is accomplished is fairly complicated and depends on several variables I'd be happy to expand on.

    In the same way, if your nation (the US for example) is a net importer, that means US dollars are being funneled into accounts of foreign interests that aren't subject to significant taxation if any at all. As it stands today, the foreign sector has accumulated $10 trillion dollars of our money (water). So if you try, in the US, to "balance" the water level in the bucket by having taxes=spending the bucket will drain because the foreign sector is net taking money (about $700 billion per year) and in return is supplying goods and services.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    When you hear most people refer to Fiscal Policy, it is both expressed and thought of by most people as "Taxation" which means to "collect money".
    That's part of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    There are major problems with the way that people understand this. First, the Federal Government does NOT use Federal Income Tax to fund its expenses. What is collected by the Federal Income Tax is NOT used to fund the Federal Government. Not One Cent. Period. Second, the currency that has been collected by Federal Income Tax does NOT stay in circulation. Since the government does not use Federal Income Tax to fund any expenditures at all, that money (non tangible such as a checking acct balance) is quite literally destroyed.
    Wow, quite right. Few people understand this.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    The next major misconception that causes confusion is that the IRS is a part of the Federal Government. It is not. The IRS is the counterpart to the Federal Reserve Bank, which, despite the confusion inferred by the name is also not a part of the Federal Government. The Federal Reserve Bank is no more Federal than Federal Express.
    Completely disagree.

    Being granted independence from Congress is not the same as saying that the Fed is independent of Congress.

    I'd be happy to enumerate all that I understand about the relationship between the Fed and Congress (the body that created the Fed and the Body that can dissolve it), but I'll wait as this post is already very long.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Both the money creation and money destruction are part of the designed system.
    Yes, getting back to the bucket analogy, money enters the economy via a "faucet" (spending) and exits via a "drain" (taxes) in the bucket (as examples). THus the faucet and the drain are not connected. However, there's another property of the bucket that is hard to imagine in intuitive terms.

    The size of the bucket. Historically the bucket increases in size. Remember that the size of the bucket is meant to represent the productive capacity of the economy. There are a few major factors that influence the buckets size.

    The number of people that work in an economy.
    How efficient an economy is on a per-capita basis or how much work a person can do.

    So for example, in 1980 there were 100 million fewer people and more people, at the time, did bookkeeping in paper ledgers for businesses.

    Today there are 100 million more people in the US than in 1980, but as a percentage of the population, thanks to increased efficiency (computers), there is a tiny fraction of people responsible for doing a companies books. Some of this labor shifted into the building, marketing, selling, transporting computers and the rest into other things), but since computers can do more than just accounting (a LOT more), overall efficiency increased and the number of people needed to do work in accounting (and overall) relative to 1980 has decreased thanks to increases in efficiency. So even if the population and more specifically the number of people in the workforce remained exactly the same as 1980, the bucket could get larger because of per-person productivity increases thanks to technology. Of course today we have both increases in technology AND increased the population soi the bucket is larger for two reasons.

    Thus, when looking at your bucket, if you balanced spending with taxes (the water level) the water level would stay in the same place, but relative to the size of the bucket would get lower as the bucket got larger thanks to population and efficiency and the water level would actually decline thanks to the nation being a HUGE net exporter.

    So for example, below we see the water (dotted line) level is the same, but thanks to more people and increased per-person productivity, potential output (above the line) is greater. Thus maintaining the "water level" will only result in lost productivity and unemployment as fewer people will be able to do the same level of work.






    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Both the Federal Reserve Bank and the IRS were created by the 16th Amendment, and both are needed to "balance" the system. If you have too much currency in the system, the purchasing power of each individual dollar decreases by a proportional amount to the increase in the money supply.
    The amount of dollars in the system is a variable when determining the value of money, because no business owner sets their prices based on the quantity of money in the economy because no one knows on any given day how much money is created, how much is destroyed how much is moved into foreign and domestic savings.

    The value of money, in the simplest terms, is based on what can be obtained with and what can be obtained with it is subject to the supply and demand of goods and services. As long as overall supply keeps pace with overall demand and prices are stable, the value of the dollar is maintained.

    Now, as I said, creating and spending more money can cause the value of money to decline as the demand for goods and services increases relative to supply, but the economy has become pretty good at dealing with fluctuations in demand. The best example of this is Christmas. Demand is high yet prices are the same or lower (sales). This is because increases are predicted and output and inventories are expanded in anticipation of increased demand because the potential for increased output does not require large-scale financed spending for "plant and equipment" (capital resources).

    The economy as a whole has a certain amount of elasticity to it, thus short-term changes, if predicted and even some unpredicted have minimal impact.

    People borrow money over Christmas (increasing the amount of money circulating in the economy), but that increased money is met with increased or greater output, resulting in the same or lower prices.

    Every dollar on a credit card is potential spending, does the amount of potential money affect the value of the dollar?

    No, of course not, because sellers set prices based on the demand for their goods relative to the supply not based on the number of dollars.

    By way of analogy, it would be incorrect to assume that auto accidents are caused by the motion of a car, yet, you cannot have an accident unless your care is moving. Would it be correct to assume that motion causes accidents? No, because we know cars can move without crashing. Thus, movement, or more specifically the rate of movement relative to external variables determines the risk of crashing, in the same way, you cannot have inflation without money, but it's not correct to say that money causes inflation (price inflation). The amount of money relative to external variables causes inflation. Thus, you must define the state of the external variables (conditions) before it can be concluded that an increase in money caused an increase in overall prices.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    If you have a total volume of 100 dollars and print up one new dollar, that new dollar gets its value from the existing currency, causing the value of the existing currency to go down. Thus, with a total of 101 dollars, the purchasing power of each dollar drops to 99 cents. The way to balance the system here would be to "Tax" one dollar out of circulation, reducing the total volume of money back to 100, and in theory, cause the existing currency to retain its purchasing power.
    That would only be true if productive output were fixed. However, as we both know it's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    The big problem is that there are two systems in place that work together. Removing only one part of the system unbalances the entire system. Remove just the IRS and the money supply increases.
    While the IRS is the organization that collects taxes, why not just say "taxes"?

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Remove just the Federal Reserve Bank and the money supply decreases.
    The Fed does not determine the money supply. The Fed influences the cost of money via open market operations. This adds to or reduces the supply of banking reserves. However, the system as it existed between 1974-2008 was undone thanks to the GFC. I don't want to make this any longer than it is, so I'll skip, for now how the new system works, however, let me be clear, banks DO not determine the total amount of money in the economy because every single dollar a bank creates is offset with an equal liability. That liability must be settled by destroying real money that already exists in the economy (*again, something I'd be happy to explain in a follow-up).

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Abolishing the IRS is part of the solution, but what no layman is ever taught is that they need to focus just as hard on removing and replacing the Federal Reserve Bank, and its banknotes with US Treasury bank notes.
    We can address this in a follow-up.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Despite anything that Zippyjuan will say, this is what makes Central Banks more dangerous than standing armies to the long-term survival of all nations.
    I'm not Zippy, but I disagree as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Please note that I have purposefully oversimplified the functions and have not factored in Interest at all.
    You'd have to explain why you think it matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    This is Keynesian Economics at its most simple form, and in theory, it works. Does it work in practice? You tell me. Take a look around. Tell me if this money system frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, or enslaves them?
    Keynes was a smart guy, but the money system has changed significantly since he wrote and commented on the economy. You have to know what has changed and how it changes the conclusions he made.

    Calling people in the US economic "slaves" is an insult to those who suffer real economic slavery thought the world. People in the US experience one of the highest levels of living in the world, especially when you factor in the size and diversity of our population. Certainly, I would agree that the system, the way it's employed right now benefits people, like myself, at the higher end (I'm not rich by any sense of the imagination, but there is nothing that anyone could offer me that I need. I am fortunate that I have only wants and many of those are fulfilled.
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    You tell me if a small business will be granted a loan, not based solely on their credit reputation, but on the intended function of the business. You tell me if a mom and pop publication would be granted a loan to print information that discredits our entire banking and money system.
    I did not achieve economic independence via business ownership, so perhaps someone here can correct me, but most businesses raise capital by attracting investors, sometimes individuals, but I imagine there are businesses that represent groups of investors in order to diversify and minimize risk. If a person is to risk their money, should they not have some say in what they are willing to risk it in? Shouldn't the incentives to lend be based mostly on profit and not political motivation at least in the private sector?

    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    You tell me if JP Morgan pulled funding from Nikolai Tesla who intended to create free electricity for everyone.
    So you don't believe it's because "free energy for everyone " was a bad idea from an investors point-of-view and that's why they pulled funding?


    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    You tell me if a cheap cancer cure would be funded, or denied in favor of more expensive and less effective medical treatments. You tell me if the direction of our country is determined by a small group of dominant men or not, who control that direction by issue of credit and currency.

    You tell me if our money system is Honest.
    Ironically, eliminating the Fed would put Congress in control of both Monetary and Fiscal policy. At that point, the government, incentivize by politics, would determine winners and losers, rather than banks, which are motivated by profit.

    Respectfully,

    E4E1
    Last edited by econ4every1; 04-03-2018 at 02:25 PM.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    If you don't agree with the consensus here, does that mean you aren't welcome? Is this forum intended to be an echo chamber for those that agree with each other, or do people invite others to challenge their ideas?

    There are people paid to post here. Sometimes they look like this:





    Usually, they look like this:








    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    The dishonesty irritates me more.

    Impossible! I've read the user profiles of our paid members!


    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    You just can't take it personally. People gonna disagree.
    I didn't and I don't, I was just curious what the consensus he was. Some forums are echo chambers others are not. Glad that's not the case here. Should make for interesting conversation.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Yes. We are here to build coalitions, not debate with liberal trolls.
    Is there a difference between a "Liberal" and "Liberal Troll"? Just curious.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    Is there a difference between a "Liberal" and "Liberal Troll"? Just curious.
    Nope.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  30. #26
    Hmm; The return of Christopher A Brown?


    LOL
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
    Hmm; The return of Christopher A Brown?


    LOL
    No, but it's ironic as my name is Christopher Brown, only my middle initial is S, not A.

    Dam, you mean there's more than one Christopher Brown? Dam I thought I was the only one!

    LOL

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    I'm curious as this is literally my first post. I have a question for anyone willing to answer it. If you don't agree with the consensus here, does that mean you aren't welcome? Is this forum intended to be an echo chamber for those that agree with each other, or do people invite others to challenge their ideas?

    Respectfully,

    E4E1
    As long as you have an open mind and can understand the current system hurts many people badly, we are all for welcoming you here. Except Zippy who will always tell you that the Gold Standard we had before was bad, and Ron Paul is wrong on everything economic.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintian an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    You are Ron Paul's Media!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    As long as you have an open mind and can understand the current system hurts many people badly, we are all for welcoming you here. Except Zippy who will always tell you that the Gold Standard we had before was bad, and Ron Paul is wrong on everything economic.
    Iat the risk of coming of as a fence sitter....I agree there are problems with the system and there are problems with people's understanding of how it works.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by econ4every1 View Post
    No, but it's ironic as my name is Christopher Brown, only my middle initial is S, not A.

    Dam, you mean there's more than one Christopher Brown? Dam I thought I was the only one!

    LOL
    Are you a surveyor?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-18-2015, 04:45 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2012, 12:54 PM
  3. Get your head out of the clouds...
    By awake in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 01:32 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-25-2011, 03:38 PM
  5. Credit Card Companies Outlasting Economic Storm
    By bobbyw24 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 11:28 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
  •