Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 31

Thread: Tulsi Gabbard: Break Up the Big Banks

  1. #1

    Tulsi Gabbard: Break Up the Big Banks

    Published on May 26, 2017 by Tulsi Gabbard

    Last week Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin indicated that the Trump administration will oppose any common sense legislation to break up the big banks and they will also support allowing “too big to fail” banks to continue to gamble with American’s hard earned savings, retirements funds, etc., just like they did before the Great Recession and the $700 billion taxpayer bailout of Wall Street.

    In a word, the Trump administration will cater to the demands of Wall Street, rather than what’s needed for the American people. I have long pushed for a 21st Century Glass Steagall Act, to break up the “too big to fail” banks, separate risky Wall Street investments from ordinary commercial banking, close loopholes that allow risky banking practices, and enforce penalties for banks that break the law. It is absurdly hypocritical for the Trump administration to say that they support some sort of Glass Steagall Act but they simultaneously want to gut the entire purpose of the legislation.



    How did 4 banks take over the entire US banking system?

    The Banking Oligopoly in One Chart



    The “Big Four” retail banks in the United States collectively hold 45% of all customer bank deposits for a total of $4.6 trillion.

    The fifth biggest retail bank, U.S. Bancorp, is nothing to sneeze at, either. It’s got 3,151 banking offices and employs 65,000 people. However, it still pales in comparison with the Big Four, holding only a mere $271 billion in deposits.

    Today’s visualization looks at consolidation in the banking industry over the course of two decades. Between 1990 and 2010, eventually 37 banks would become JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup.

    Of particular importance to note is the frequency of consolidation during the 2008 Financial Crisis, when the Big Four were able to gobble up weaker competitors that were overexposed to subprime mortgages. Washington Mutual, Bear Stearns, Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch, and Wachovia were all acquired during this time under great duress...snip http://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-...-in-one-chart/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Banks are like mercury....

    Heavy, poisonous, expands under heat, explosive under pressure and seeks to regroup....

  4. #3

  5. #4

  6. #5
    Repealing Glass-Steagall had zero to do with the financial crisis. Not even anything to do with it. No need for more bad rules.

    The Great Recession was primarily due to bad monetary policy. Nominal GDP targeting would be a big step forward. As far as regulating the banks, the easiest fix would be to restrict the amount of leverage they can use. That would solve every systemic problem and you wouldn't need more rules. Every brokerage does this with their customers. You never hear about brokerages going bust because of their customers blowing up . Just mandate it by law for banks and it literally fixes everything. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/deb...-up-2017-03-16
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 05-27-2017 at 07:42 PM.

  7. #6
    Breaking up the "big" banks is a non-solution.

    Freedom is the solution. When freedom reigns, neither banks nor any other entity is able to position itself in ways inimical to the better interests of the individual; at least, not for very long.

    Were we free, the markets would be free and people would enjoy the capacity to do as they please, all within the customary caveats as per Proper Human Relations.

    Government regulation, not only of banks but of all entities, introduces indirect effects (often unanticipated) that sends tentacles in many directions, almost universally with attendant deleterious effects. The web is so large, complicated, and convoluted, that one cannot simply plug a "hole" over here and expect the problem at hand to be resolved. My mom is in the hospital. She is 83. She is on various medications for this and that, which lead to side-effects that are often worse than the condition being treated. The point here is that humans are extremely complex creatures, biochemically speaking. There exists a subtle and very complicated balance of variables, the maintenance of which is "God's" affair. That is, we are not nearly smart enough (at least not yet) to know how to properly correct things that go wrong at that level of function.

    And so it is with societies and their concomitant economies. The moment men begin to interfere with the natural order of things, which is to say that they put their noses into matters beyond issues of actual and demonstrable criminality, the balances get altered and new problems arise. As those new issues are addressed, almost universally with the same ham-fistedness of the typical government stooge (however well intending he may be), more problems arise in turn. Before you know it, the little Dutch Boy has all ten fingers, toes, tongue, nose, and pecker stuck in the holes he has created in the dyke, with no relief in sight. This is the typical manner in which "government" has addressed what has been perceived as "problems". I submit that the issues in question are problems only because people want something for nothing.

    For example, people want to be able to invest without having to think, and become trillionaires in twenty minutes. They act without knowing what they are doing, or with whom they are doing it, then whine and cry for a bailout when they are swindled by crooks or fall to the house-odds at the roulette table, so to speak. Then "government" steps in and it's all downhill in a jiffy from that point onward.

    The basic problem here is that people want something for nothing. They want to be able to screw with no consequence of disease, babies on the way, or emotional complications. They want to get high without the consequences of addiction. They want things without having to pay, the THAT is why the "left" has been so decisively victorious over liberty: they appeal to the utmost corruption of what are otherwise natural and correct instincts in individuals.

    The demands of the Meaner, shrieked with such shrill and persistent stridence, drives the "state" to respond, albeit always in the worst possible ways. Rather than telling people to get stuffed when they are acting like tantrum-pitching brats, Theye kow-tow with promises and then turn to the adults in the room, pull a pistol, and say "OK assenholes, hand it over." And like the nitwits that even the "adults" tend to be, rather than pull their own pistols to put the "state" in its proper place, they comply like dead-behind-the-eyes lumps of mere flesh. Welcome to your slavery.

    Our current circumstance is a compound of vast numbers of interferences with the freedom of the individual and groups thereof. We may assume the best of intentions, or the worst, it matters no whit because the result is the same.

    We are in a corner and the only way out is going to entail some very serious pain. Freedom is the answer. It is literally the only solution, all others being mere masquerades. There is no way to do it gently, for every day we spend at it offers the cowards and carpetbaggers an opportunity to retrench and get us back onto our current path to hell. Cold turkey is the only correct approach, and it is the one that will almost certainly never be attempted for fear of the short-term results, which admittedly stand to be rather ugly in many cases. And so once again we see how people try to avoid the costs of attaining a goal in the attempt to get something for nothing.

    Until we cowboy up, nothing of substantive good is going to come to us. We are, effectively speaking, slaves. There is no credible denial to be offered.

    Leave the banks alone. Kill the fed and all other invalid governmental interference, then sit back and watch the fun. The shambles would likely appear as the end of the world at some point. But if people show some courage and fortitude, the day would come when people begin figuring out the who freedom deal and a new and far healthier balance would be realized. As for those banks that some are so eager to molest, freedom would bring a new reality to them and they would be faced with the choice of toeing the line of free men, or they would go the way of the dodo. It is really as simple as that.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Breaking up the "big" banks is a non-solution.

    Freedom is the solution.
    I just wanted to remind you we are still on planet Earth. Your chances of getting freedom are smaller than hitting a jackpot in a national lottery. You might want to concentrate on the latter before you dismiss breaking the too-big-too-fail banks as a non-solution.

  9. #8
    But is freedom the ability of a bank to practice fractional reserve? Or is that fraud and a major factor of economic instability?

    [EDIT[ There are IMO valid arguments on both sides of the issue. You could for e.g. put your savings in a non FR credit union...
    Last edited by merkelstan; 05-29-2017 at 01:01 PM.
    >_<



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    I just wanted to remind you we are still on planet Earth. Your chances of getting freedom are smaller than hitting a jackpot in a national lottery. You might want to concentrate on the latter before you dismiss breaking the too-big-too-fail banks as a non-solution.
    I cannot agree. I am well aware of the chasm between the proper solution and those non-solutions likely to be attempted. Just because the wrong answers are almost certain to be the path taken, it doesn't make them any more likely to produce the presumably desired result. If they break up the banks as suggested, how will our lives improve?
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    But is freedom the ability of a bank to practice fractional reserve? Or is that fraud and a major factor of economic instability?

    [EDIT[ There are IMO valid arguments on both sides of the issue. You could for e.g. put your savings in a non FR credit union...
    I've read and seen a lot on the supposed evils of fractional reserve banking. When I was doing the MBA, we admittedly spent a small time on it, but it might be that there really isn't that much to it. What we were taught was that fractional reserve places the requirement upon a bank to have at least 10% of its assets in the vault in the form of cash. As to whether all the claims of re-loaning the non-cash deposits is true, I remain skeptical because they do not quite track with certain elements of the reality.

    We all know that an FRN is not money, but is in fact, anti-money. Money is perhaps above all else a store of value, whereas the FRN is literally a debt instrument in very much the same way as is a mortgage. The FRN is, by all reason, a fraud. That said, fractional reserve banking as I was taught is nothing more than a cash maintenance requirement.

    Further rendering the popular positions suspicious is the claim that the same dollar can be loaned to several people at once. The only other possibility, which has also been suggested by some, is that the bank in question creates new currency out of thin air... or does so "effectively". I do not believe that this can be the case for the following reasons.

    Consider physical currencies printed on paper. Each and every bill is marked with a unique serial number. The same is so with digital and virtual currencies/monies such as bitcoins. Electronic dollars are digital currencies and therefore every dollar is uniquely serialized. Furthermore, the only issuing authority for a dollar is the Federal Reserve Bank. How, then, can another bank generate dollars from thin air? They cannot. Therefore, they would have to loan a proportion of a given dollar to more than one person, which in principle the bank could do as many as 44 times at which point they will have loaned a penny on that dollar to someone. This can be nothing short of fraudulent because if I loan you $100, it then becomes effectively yours, within the stipulations of the loan agreement. You may loan all or some of that amount, but I can no longer do so. If I loan someone else, say, $90 of that $100, I have just sold the same square-foot of swampland to another buyer and that is definitely fraud.

    If we assume that this is allowed, what then happens when two or more people attempt to move those funds, let us say at the same time? "It's MY dollar!" "No, it's MINE!".

    Therefore, unless I have missed something that fundamentally alters the conditions, these claims must be erroneous.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Therefore, unless I have missed something that fundamentally alters the conditions, these claims must be erroneous.
    I think you have missed something very elementary..

    I deposit 1000 USD into the bank. The bank lends-out 90% to someone else, but tells me I can still withdraw "my" 1000 USD from the bank. The bank has entered into a contract with me that it can not keep if more than 10% of the customers decide to withdraw.

    It is effectively creating money. And the chain doesn't stop with that one bank. The loan recipient can put some or all of his loaned money into his bank, which then repeats the process.

    You know the tale of the goldsmith who started printing more gold receipts than he had deposits on hand? That's the "clever" innovation from a very dishonest mindset.

    Beyond the problem of bank runs is that this innovation leads to a money supply that can undergo swift expansion and contraction. This doesn't serve the goal of stability..

    A 100% reserve system doesn't prevent loans from occurring. The depositor merely enters an agreement to not withdraw his deposit for a certain period of time, in exchange for interest or fees on the loan. With this system, loanable funds reflect people's true savings and time preference for money. The customer can also deposit money to the bank in checking accounts which can be drawn-upon at any time, and which assets remain in the bank. The bank then charges fees for services such as storage and facilitating checking or electronic payments.
    Last edited by merkelstan; 05-29-2017 at 10:44 PM.
    >_<

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    I think you have missed something very elementary..

    I deposit 1000 USD into the bank. The bank lends-out 90% to someone else, but tells me I can still withdraw "my" 1000 USD from the bank. The bank has entered into a contract with me that it can not keep if more than 10% of the customers decide to withdraw.
    Typically, banks do not lend that which resides in checking accounts, as they are considered "current" funds, meaning they cannot be relied upon to be there when needed by whomever might be placing a claim on them at a given moment. That leaves savings accounts and special instruments such as CDs. Savings has been generally regarded as reliable in the sense that it will be there for the bank to loan to others. That bit is not fraudulent. You are loaning the bank $X at r interest. The bank takes your $X and forwards it to a third-party at r + ∆. It's all valid.

    The going story with FRB is different. It says I deposit $1000 in an account, after having been loaned it by the bank. The bank loans 90% of that to another, and so on down the line. That, too, is valid so long as everyone fulfills their obligations to pay. Now that I'm thinking on it, my assertion that it is fraudulent does not hold up to scrutiny. My error. However, this all has little to do with the limitations set by FRB, which only says that you have to retain a 10% cash reserve on all your deposits.

    It is effectively creating money.
    I suppose that could be so, depending on one's working definitions. I am not sure mine would allow me to come to that conclusion. The effect of FRB, then, is actually to limit the maximum number of times a sum may be re-loaned, thereby shortening the potential chain of claims to a given dollar.

    And the chain doesn't stop with that one bank. The loan recipient can put some or all of his loaned money into his bank, which then repeats the process.
    But that is still not creating more money, but rather increasing its "velocity", as the saying goes. The money is doing more work per unit, as it were. The fraud, if it comes in anywhere, seems to lie in the fact that the same dollar is going to pay both Peter and Paul at the same time. However, I am not certain it is a case of fraud because it only holds for DEPOSITS. Once the money loaned you is gone from the bank, lets say to buy capital equipment, then it is no longer available to banks to re-loan... at least not until someone deposits it into a bank once more, in which case the institution now has its hands on that much more resource for lending.

    It's a convoluted beast.

    You know the tale of the goldsmith who started printing more gold receipts than he had deposits on hand? That's the "clever" innovation from a very dishonest mindset.
    That is clear fraud. This is something different.

    Beyond the problem of bank runs is that this innovation leads to a money supply that can undergo swift expansion and contraction.
    Again, this predicated upon one's working definitions. I do not see it a categorically so.


    A 100% reserve system doesn't prevent loans from occurring. The depositor merely enters an agreement to not withdraw his deposit for a certain period of time, in exchange for interest or fees on the loan. With this system, loanable funds reflect people's true savings and time preference for money. The customer can also deposit money to the bank in checking accounts which can be drawn-upon at any time, and which assets remain in the bank. The bank then charges fees for services such as storage and facilitating checking or electronic payments.
    I am as yet not convinced that a reserve rate effects this in any manner different. Perhaps you can give an illustrative example of how 100% reserve fixes the problem.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  15. #13
    You are so smart but please try to reply with less than a wall of unparsable text. It makes it time consuming to find nuggets like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    When I was doing the MBA,
    How did it work for you?

    We all know that an FRN is not money, but is in fact, anti-money.
    ROTFLMAO

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    How did it work for you?
    In some ways really well.


    ROTFLMAO
    You think that's funny? Down in Guyana the colloquialism for homosexual is "anti-man", which I think is brilliant. I now use it regularly.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  17. #15
    I forgot a central point.

    Fractional reserve, while perhaps not a particularly good idea from several standpoints, is not quite the monster some crack it up to be, IMO. The core evil in the federal reserve system is the interest that each FRN carries with it. Our system is not a monetary system, but rather a banking system. The two are not the same, contrary to what so many seem to believe.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Typically, banks do not lend that which resides in checking accounts, as they are considered "current" funds
    Thanks for taking the time to reply. I will look into this.

    If, however, you are implying that the fractional reserve system is therefore stable. I would entrain you to learn about the history of bank runs and bank failures.
    >_<



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I forgot a central point.

    Fractional reserve, while perhaps not a particularly good idea from several standpoints, is not quite the monster some crack it up to be, IMO. The core evil in the federal reserve system is the interest that each FRN carries with it. Our system is not a monetary system, but rather a banking system. The two are not the same, contrary to what so many seem to believe.
    What is the interest paid (or charged) on each FRN? Who pays it and to whom?

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to reply. I will look into this.

    If, however, you are implying that the fractional reserve system is therefore stable. I would entrain you to learn about the history of bank runs and bank failures.
    I'm implying no such thing. However, the issues at hand have arisen more out of the nature of the FRN, than anything else. It is, as I quipped earlier, anti-money. It is mere currency that represents nothing other than debt. Were we to use actual money as currency, I believe our economic reality would be different, all else equal.

    The real problem in all of this is not the currency in use, but the corruption of men. Even gold money will fail when those in positions of power get cute ideas. Byzantium was a prime example of this. For 900 years men experienced relative economic linearity with gold coin as the standard store of value. Then someone with ideas decided to begin debasing the coin until the money became next to worthless and, well, the rest is history as they say. So even mighty gold cannot save men from their corrupt selves.

    None of the problems we face stem from anything other than ourselves. Money v. mere currency is a non-issue, save that one might work to keep men on the fringes of decency on the straight and narrow. But those who are committed to perfidies well past the pale, there is nothing save perhaps bullets that keep them from wreaking havoc. We are our own worst enemies in virtually all aspects of human travail... save the various "acts of God".
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    I just wanted to remind you we are still on planet Earth. Your chances of getting freedom are smaller than hitting a jackpot in a national lottery. You might want to concentrate on the latter before you dismiss breaking the too-big-too-fail banks as a non-solution.
    Everything is impossible with that attitude, seriously. A defeatist mentality is self defeating, this is why they keep winning. I am sure the founders thought the same thing, when they um- founded or whatever they did. I am sure Ron Paul never thought he would get 1% of 1% of of the vote- but he got enough to get silenced by controlled opposition, even his son got silenced. Ron Paul will get the last laugh though no one will ever shut him up- and his son has the same bug, just try not to ask him a question about drones.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What is the interest paid (or charged) on each FRN? Who pays it and to whom?
    Whatever the Fed rate is at the time of issue... though how that works over time, I am not certain. Does the rate float, or is the issue of a given dollar fixed until it is repatriated? The interesting bit comes with all the money issued at what is effectively 0%. I do not know the effect it has on things.

    I suspect there are other forms of profit that may indeed be far more valuable. The sheer power enshrined in the authority to control the currency of the largest economy on the planet is vast. That power puts tentacles into all aspects of human endeavor.

    But as the old example asks, if there is but one dollar in the world and the Fed loans it to you at interest, whence the interest portion of the debt, come time to repay?

    We are up to our eyeballs in a huge scam.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    Everything is impossible with that attitude, seriously. A defeatist mentality is self defeating, this is why they keep winning. I am sure the founders thought the same thing, when they um- founded or whatever they did. I am sure Ron Paul never thought he would get 1% of 1% of of the vote- but he got enough to get silenced by controlled opposition, even his son got silenced. Ron Paul will get the last laugh though no one will ever shut him up- and his son has the same bug, just try not to ask him a question about drones.
    The version of history you are being fed is not entirely accurate. Will breaking the big banks prevent you from accomplishing the noble goal of FED destruction?

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    The version of history you are being fed is not entirely accurate. Will breaking the big banks prevent you from accomplishing the noble goal of FED destruction?
    You are not thinking of it in the version of history that I am accustomed to. Does getting the population to be comfortable and normal with the government not only being manipulated by the banks, but also regulating the banks by proxy themselves heading towards regulatory capture, or an end to the fed?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Whatever the Fed rate is at the time of issue... though how that works over time, I am not certain. Does the rate float, or is the issue of a given dollar fixed until it is repatriated? The interesting bit comes with all the money issued at what is effectively 0%. I do not know the effect it has on things.

    I suspect there are other forms of profit that may indeed be far more valuable. The sheer power enshrined in the authority to control the currency of the largest economy on the planet is vast. That power puts tentacles into all aspects of human endeavor.

    But as the old example asks, if there is but one dollar in the world and the Fed loans it to you at interest, whence the interest portion of the debt, come time to repay?

    We are up to our eyeballs in a huge scam.
    Put those blinders on and get back on the hamster wheel...

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Whatever the Fed rate is at the time of issue... though how that works over time, I am not certain. Does the rate float, or is the issue of a given dollar fixed until it is repatriated? The interesting bit comes with all the money issued at what is effectively 0%. I do not know the effect it has on things.

    I suspect there are other forms of profit that may indeed be far more valuable. The sheer power enshrined in the authority to control the currency of the largest economy on the planet is vast. That power puts tentacles into all aspects of human endeavor.

    But as the old example asks, if there is but one dollar in the world and the Fed loans it to you at interest, whence the interest portion of the debt, come time to repay?

    We are up to our eyeballs in a huge scam.
    So when I have a dollar in my pocket, I pay interest to the Federal Reserve? The Fed only charges interest to banks who borrow money overnight from them- that is the rate they set. The Fed also receives interest (just like all holders) on the securities they hold like US Treasury notes but they turn all profits (after their costs) back to the US Treasury. They are not charging you interest on the money you and I have.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So when I have a dollar in my pocket, I pay interest to the Federal Reserve? The Fed only charges interest to banks who borrow money overnight from them- that is the rate they set. The Fed also receives interest (just like all holders) on the securities they hold like US Treasury notes but they turn all profits (after their costs) back to the US Treasury. They are not charging you interest on the money you and I have.
    devaluation (inflation) and interest might be different to you, but they do the same thing
    Seattle Sounders 2016 MLS Cup Champions 2019 MLS Cup Champions 2022 CONCACAF Champions League - and the [un]official football club of RPF

    just a libertarian - no caucus

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by surf View Post
    devaluation (inflation) and interest might be different to you, but they do the same thing
    Inflation goes to sellers, not to the Fed. If inflation is two percent, the person you buy something from is charging you two percent more. He gets that money- not the Fed.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    They are not charging you interest on the money you and I have.
    Oh yes they are. You may not be paying it directly, but you are paying. Think "devaluation" as a starting point. Notice how real stores of value do not undergo such alterations, all else equal. If anything, they tend to grow in value as an economy grows. Some call it "deflation" and claim it is necessarily evil. I am not convinced.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Put those blinders on and get back on the hamster wheel...
    What's not to like about this arrangement?

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Inflation goes to sellers, not to the Fed. If inflation is two percent, the person you buy something from is charging you two percent more. He gets that money- not the Fed.
    Fed could get the money by raising interest rates but they chose not to.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Inflation goes to sellers, not to the Fed. If inflation is two percent, the person you buy something from is charging you two percent more. He gets that money- not the Fed.
    to quote someone else that used to influence the conversation on these boards: "inflation is a tax on the poor"
    Seattle Sounders 2016 MLS Cup Champions 2019 MLS Cup Champions 2022 CONCACAF Champions League - and the [un]official football club of RPF

    just a libertarian - no caucus

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Would neocons go after Tulsi Gabbard next?
    By enhanced_deficit in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-15-2022, 12:08 PM
  2. Tulsi Gabbard Hands CNN Tapper: His Ass
    By goldenequity in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-22-2016, 06:10 PM
  3. Tulsi Gabbard: I don't fear Clintons
    By timosman in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-11-2016, 01:36 AM
  4. Tulsi Gabbard on Greta
    By Brian4Liberty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-11-2015, 08:15 PM
  5. (D) Tulsi Gabbard on US interventionism
    By Cabal in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2015, 03:36 PM

Posting Permissions

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