[urbanrealtor]

[quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=arraya]Rush and his ilk are terrorists. Guardians to their kleptocratic masters playing on peoples fears and insecurities while distracting them from the systemic looting that is going on.[/quote]

As a hater of Rush I have to ask:
Isn’t it a contradiction to be both a terrorist and a member of the kleptocracy?

Also, if looting is systematic, isn’t that just a withdrawal??

Fun post though.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).

For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.

I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.

Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).

For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.

I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.

Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).

For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.

I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.

Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).

For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.

I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.

Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cvk][quote]How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.
[/quote]

You’re correct, he wasn’t a soldier at the time, so the criticism is entirely valid.

But even if he were still a soldier, he’d still be culpable.

The concept that soldiers are free of consequences for their actions provided that they are following orders from superiors was thrown out in WW2 when german soldiers tried to use it to escape responsibility for their roles in the ethnic cleansing of the jews. [/quote]
Okay but gas chambers are a far cry from following US rules of engagement (as a soldier) let alone debating your boss on dealing with a country you think has WMD’s (as a civilian adminstrator).

For the record: I can’t believe you have me defending the Iraq war.

I mean you can’t advise soldiers that they are paid to kill and that they will be charged for following orders. You just have to say when some types of killing are inappropriate and out of bounds.

Similarly, the dude towed the party line as an administrator (which was his job) and then quit when it got sufficiently bad (which is appropriate in an administrative position). The only valid criticism I see here is that he did his job by towing the line and then not quitting soon enough.

Again, I can’t believe you are putting me in a situation to defend a pro-war position.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Bryan]Arraya, you are very close.

The recurring boom and busts are not inherent with the free market. The culprit has always been the expansion of bank credit. It not only produces rising prices but it also distort the production process.

[/quote]
Any government distorts markets. That unto itself is not a valid criticism. The whole nature of republican democracy is to mitigate pure market relationships.

The argument that boom and bust is not part of the free market is not consistent with history.

The 19th century was very turbulent in this regard. During most of this period there was no central bank. That turbulence was the motivation for the establishment of a central bank.

[quote=Bryan]
Read Murray Rothbard’s book— A History Of Money and Banking In The United States.

Here’s my recollection–
Before the US central bank came into being in 1913, private banks issued their own notes. They could not however, coordinate their issuing. In fact, when one over issues the other immediately redeems them in specie, so inflation was arrested in this manner.
The arrival of the US central bank and government decree to use government issued bank notes changed the game entirely. Bank credit can now be coordinated by a central authority. Expanding bank credit caused the 1929 bank panic and turned into a great depression by government economic policies.

[/quote]

Drawing the line between the Fed and 1929 is not a theory that has a solid constituency. You may be able to pull some author out some hat but this is not a book club.

Most economic historians do not recognize the depression as the fault of the government. Certainly the government represented a large part of the ecosystem but to ignore margins or innovative (to the point of stupidity) personal lending appears, on its face, noticeably incomplete.
[quote=Bryan]
The US have in fact defaulted on its obligations when Nixon simply refused to honor our commitment
to the Bretton Woods agreement. The US dollar was
being used as a reserve currency in which the foreign central banks can pyramid their own currencies. The main feature of the agreement was that foreign central banks has the right to redeem their paper dollars for gold. The American peoples gold was confiscated by Roosevelt and had Fort Knox built to store it, so they had no redemption option.

[/quote]
And right there we landed in black helicopter land.
Seriously, this is getting pretty far-fetched.

[quote=Bryan]
The foreign central banks continued to redeem paper dollars for gold up until Nixons time because they realized that the US is devaluing their dollar holdings by continuing to inflate.

American productivity backs the debt the US Treasury
issues.
When the central bank “buys” US debt from the Treasury , it “credits” the govts account with the central bank. New money just created and the govt funds their projects with the new money.

When the central bank “buys” govt bonds from commercial banks, they also pay for it by “crediting” the banks account with the district Fed.
Based on this “reserves” from the Fed, commercial banks can expand credit trough the loan market.
This money often create job creating booms so the illusion of prosperity is there, until the Fed reverses its monetary stance and the bust arrives.

[/quote]
The only purpose of money is as a means of wealth distribution or medium of exchange. Its generic. If monetary fiscal policy results in greater productivity, then thats not much of an illusion. You have a point that it may be short lived but the argument that Mr. Bernanke is Dr. Claw doesn’t appear to bear a lot of fruit as an analytical framework.

I would really be interested in hearing a less hyperbolic version of this framework. It sounds like it might have some merit (without claiming the fed is using the weather satellite). Does anyone (Bryan or otherwise) have less salacious version of 20th century American money?

Specifically, can anyone make a good case as to why a precious metal standard is better than precious paper?

Enough people I consider intelligent have said it, that I would like to hear a good argument for it.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Bryan]Arraya, you are very close.

The recurring boom and busts are not inherent with the free market. The culprit has always been the expansion of bank credit. It not only produces rising prices but it also distort the production process.

[/quote]
Any government distorts markets. That unto itself is not a valid criticism. The whole nature of republican democracy is to mitigate pure market relationships.

The argument that boom and bust is not part of the free market is not consistent with history.

The 19th century was very turbulent in this regard. During most of this period there was no central bank. That turbulence was the motivation for the establishment of a central bank.

[quote=Bryan]
Read Murray Rothbard’s book— A History Of Money and Banking In The United States.

Here’s my recollection–
Before the US central bank came into being in 1913, private banks issued their own notes. They could not however, coordinate their issuing. In fact, when one over issues the other immediately redeems them in specie, so inflation was arrested in this manner.
The arrival of the US central bank and government decree to use government issued bank notes changed the game entirely. Bank credit can now be coordinated by a central authority. Expanding bank credit caused the 1929 bank panic and turned into a great depression by government economic policies.

[/quote]

Drawing the line between the Fed and 1929 is not a theory that has a solid constituency. You may be able to pull some author out some hat but this is not a book club.

Most economic historians do not recognize the depression as the fault of the government. Certainly the government represented a large part of the ecosystem but to ignore margins or innovative (to the point of stupidity) personal lending appears, on its face, noticeably incomplete.
[quote=Bryan]
The US have in fact defaulted on its obligations when Nixon simply refused to honor our commitment
to the Bretton Woods agreement. The US dollar was
being used as a reserve currency in which the foreign central banks can pyramid their own currencies. The main feature of the agreement was that foreign central banks has the right to redeem their paper dollars for gold. The American peoples gold was confiscated by Roosevelt and had Fort Knox built to store it, so they had no redemption option.

[/quote]
And right there we landed in black helicopter land.
Seriously, this is getting pretty far-fetched.

[quote=Bryan]
The foreign central banks continued to redeem paper dollars for gold up until Nixons time because they realized that the US is devaluing their dollar holdings by continuing to inflate.

American productivity backs the debt the US Treasury
issues.
When the central bank “buys” US debt from the Treasury , it “credits” the govts account with the central bank. New money just created and the govt funds their projects with the new money.

When the central bank “buys” govt bonds from commercial banks, they also pay for it by “crediting” the banks account with the district Fed.
Based on this “reserves” from the Fed, commercial banks can expand credit trough the loan market.
This money often create job creating booms so the illusion of prosperity is there, until the Fed reverses its monetary stance and the bust arrives.

[/quote]
The only purpose of money is as a means of wealth distribution or medium of exchange. Its generic. If monetary fiscal policy results in greater productivity, then thats not much of an illusion. You have a point that it may be short lived but the argument that Mr. Bernanke is Dr. Claw doesn’t appear to bear a lot of fruit as an analytical framework.

I would really be interested in hearing a less hyperbolic version of this framework. It sounds like it might have some merit (without claiming the fed is using the weather satellite). Does anyone (Bryan or otherwise) have less salacious version of 20th century American money?

Specifically, can anyone make a good case as to why a precious metal standard is better than precious paper?

Enough people I consider intelligent have said it, that I would like to hear a good argument for it.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Bryan]Arraya, you are very close.

The recurring boom and busts are not inherent with the free market. The culprit has always been the expansion of bank credit. It not only produces rising prices but it also distort the production process.

[/quote]
Any government distorts markets. That unto itself is not a valid criticism. The whole nature of republican democracy is to mitigate pure market relationships.

The argument that boom and bust is not part of the free market is not consistent with history.

The 19th century was very turbulent in this regard. During most of this period there was no central bank. That turbulence was the motivation for the establishment of a central bank.

[quote=Bryan]
Read Murray Rothbard’s book— A History Of Money and Banking In The United States.

Here’s my recollection–
Before the US central bank came into being in 1913, private banks issued their own notes. They could not however, coordinate their issuing. In fact, when one over issues the other immediately redeems them in specie, so inflation was arrested in this manner.
The arrival of the US central bank and government decree to use government issued bank notes changed the game entirely. Bank credit can now be coordinated by a central authority. Expanding bank credit caused the 1929 bank panic and turned into a great depression by government economic policies.

[/quote]

Drawing the line between the Fed and 1929 is not a theory that has a solid constituency. You may be able to pull some author out some hat but this is not a book club.

Most economic historians do not recognize the depression as the fault of the government. Certainly the government represented a large part of the ecosystem but to ignore margins or innovative (to the point of stupidity) personal lending appears, on its face, noticeably incomplete.
[quote=Bryan]
The US have in fact defaulted on its obligations when Nixon simply refused to honor our commitment
to the Bretton Woods agreement. The US dollar was
being used as a reserve currency in which the foreign central banks can pyramid their own currencies. The main feature of the agreement was that foreign central banks has the right to redeem their paper dollars for gold. The American peoples gold was confiscated by Roosevelt and had Fort Knox built to store it, so they had no redemption option.

[/quote]
And right there we landed in black helicopter land.
Seriously, this is getting pretty far-fetched.

[quote=Bryan]
The foreign central banks continued to redeem paper dollars for gold up until Nixons time because they realized that the US is devaluing their dollar holdings by continuing to inflate.

American productivity backs the debt the US Treasury
issues.
When the central bank “buys” US debt from the Treasury , it “credits” the govts account with the central bank. New money just created and the govt funds their projects with the new money.

When the central bank “buys” govt bonds from commercial banks, they also pay for it by “crediting” the banks account with the district Fed.
Based on this “reserves” from the Fed, commercial banks can expand credit trough the loan market.
This money often create job creating booms so the illusion of prosperity is there, until the Fed reverses its monetary stance and the bust arrives.

[/quote]
The only purpose of money is as a means of wealth distribution or medium of exchange. Its generic. If monetary fiscal policy results in greater productivity, then thats not much of an illusion. You have a point that it may be short lived but the argument that Mr. Bernanke is Dr. Claw doesn’t appear to bear a lot of fruit as an analytical framework.

I would really be interested in hearing a less hyperbolic version of this framework. It sounds like it might have some merit (without claiming the fed is using the weather satellite). Does anyone (Bryan or otherwise) have less salacious version of 20th century American money?

Specifically, can anyone make a good case as to why a precious metal standard is better than precious paper?

Enough people I consider intelligent have said it, that I would like to hear a good argument for it.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Bryan]Arraya, you are very close.

The recurring boom and busts are not inherent with the free market. The culprit has always been the expansion of bank credit. It not only produces rising prices but it also distort the production process.

[/quote]
Any government distorts markets. That unto itself is not a valid criticism. The whole nature of republican democracy is to mitigate pure market relationships.

The argument that boom and bust is not part of the free market is not consistent with history.

The 19th century was very turbulent in this regard. During most of this period there was no central bank. That turbulence was the motivation for the establishment of a central bank.

[quote=Bryan]
Read Murray Rothbard’s book— A History Of Money and Banking In The United States.

Here’s my recollection–
Before the US central bank came into being in 1913, private banks issued their own notes. They could not however, coordinate their issuing. In fact, when one over issues the other immediately redeems them in specie, so inflation was arrested in this manner.
The arrival of the US central bank and government decree to use government issued bank notes changed the game entirely. Bank credit can now be coordinated by a central authority. Expanding bank credit caused the 1929 bank panic and turned into a great depression by government economic policies.

[/quote]

Drawing the line between the Fed and 1929 is not a theory that has a solid constituency. You may be able to pull some author out some hat but this is not a book club.

Most economic historians do not recognize the depression as the fault of the government. Certainly the government represented a large part of the ecosystem but to ignore margins or innovative (to the point of stupidity) personal lending appears, on its face, noticeably incomplete.
[quote=Bryan]
The US have in fact defaulted on its obligations when Nixon simply refused to honor our commitment
to the Bretton Woods agreement. The US dollar was
being used as a reserve currency in which the foreign central banks can pyramid their own currencies. The main feature of the agreement was that foreign central banks has the right to redeem their paper dollars for gold. The American peoples gold was confiscated by Roosevelt and had Fort Knox built to store it, so they had no redemption option.

[/quote]
And right there we landed in black helicopter land.
Seriously, this is getting pretty far-fetched.

[quote=Bryan]
The foreign central banks continued to redeem paper dollars for gold up until Nixons time because they realized that the US is devaluing their dollar holdings by continuing to inflate.

American productivity backs the debt the US Treasury
issues.
When the central bank “buys” US debt from the Treasury , it “credits” the govts account with the central bank. New money just created and the govt funds their projects with the new money.

When the central bank “buys” govt bonds from commercial banks, they also pay for it by “crediting” the banks account with the district Fed.
Based on this “reserves” from the Fed, commercial banks can expand credit trough the loan market.
This money often create job creating booms so the illusion of prosperity is there, until the Fed reverses its monetary stance and the bust arrives.

[/quote]
The only purpose of money is as a means of wealth distribution or medium of exchange. Its generic. If monetary fiscal policy results in greater productivity, then thats not much of an illusion. You have a point that it may be short lived but the argument that Mr. Bernanke is Dr. Claw doesn’t appear to bear a lot of fruit as an analytical framework.

I would really be interested in hearing a less hyperbolic version of this framework. It sounds like it might have some merit (without claiming the fed is using the weather satellite). Does anyone (Bryan or otherwise) have less salacious version of 20th century American money?

Specifically, can anyone make a good case as to why a precious metal standard is better than precious paper?

Enough people I consider intelligent have said it, that I would like to hear a good argument for it.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Bryan]Arraya, you are very close.

The recurring boom and busts are not inherent with the free market. The culprit has always been the expansion of bank credit. It not only produces rising prices but it also distort the production process.

[/quote]
Any government distorts markets. That unto itself is not a valid criticism. The whole nature of republican democracy is to mitigate pure market relationships.

The argument that boom and bust is not part of the free market is not consistent with history.

The 19th century was very turbulent in this regard. During most of this period there was no central bank. That turbulence was the motivation for the establishment of a central bank.

[quote=Bryan]
Read Murray Rothbard’s book— A History Of Money and Banking In The United States.

Here’s my recollection–
Before the US central bank came into being in 1913, private banks issued their own notes. They could not however, coordinate their issuing. In fact, when one over issues the other immediately redeems them in specie, so inflation was arrested in this manner.
The arrival of the US central bank and government decree to use government issued bank notes changed the game entirely. Bank credit can now be coordinated by a central authority. Expanding bank credit caused the 1929 bank panic and turned into a great depression by government economic policies.

[/quote]

Drawing the line between the Fed and 1929 is not a theory that has a solid constituency. You may be able to pull some author out some hat but this is not a book club.

Most economic historians do not recognize the depression as the fault of the government. Certainly the government represented a large part of the ecosystem but to ignore margins or innovative (to the point of stupidity) personal lending appears, on its face, noticeably incomplete.
[quote=Bryan]
The US have in fact defaulted on its obligations when Nixon simply refused to honor our commitment
to the Bretton Woods agreement. The US dollar was
being used as a reserve currency in which the foreign central banks can pyramid their own currencies. The main feature of the agreement was that foreign central banks has the right to redeem their paper dollars for gold. The American peoples gold was confiscated by Roosevelt and had Fort Knox built to store it, so they had no redemption option.

[/quote]
And right there we landed in black helicopter land.
Seriously, this is getting pretty far-fetched.

[quote=Bryan]
The foreign central banks continued to redeem paper dollars for gold up until Nixons time because they realized that the US is devaluing their dollar holdings by continuing to inflate.

American productivity backs the debt the US Treasury
issues.
When the central bank “buys” US debt from the Treasury , it “credits” the govts account with the central bank. New money just created and the govt funds their projects with the new money.

When the central bank “buys” govt bonds from commercial banks, they also pay for it by “crediting” the banks account with the district Fed.
Based on this “reserves” from the Fed, commercial banks can expand credit trough the loan market.
This money often create job creating booms so the illusion of prosperity is there, until the Fed reverses its monetary stance and the bust arrives.

[/quote]
The only purpose of money is as a means of wealth distribution or medium of exchange. Its generic. If monetary fiscal policy results in greater productivity, then thats not much of an illusion. You have a point that it may be short lived but the argument that Mr. Bernanke is Dr. Claw doesn’t appear to bear a lot of fruit as an analytical framework.

I would really be interested in hearing a less hyperbolic version of this framework. It sounds like it might have some merit (without claiming the fed is using the weather satellite). Does anyone (Bryan or otherwise) have less salacious version of 20th century American money?

Specifically, can anyone make a good case as to why a precious metal standard is better than precious paper?

Enough people I consider intelligent have said it, that I would like to hear a good argument for it.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=peterb]Eventhough Powell quit, he still took the job and did what he was told for a long time. Ruined his street cred. [/quote]

How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=peterb]Eventhough Powell quit, he still took the job and did what he was told for a long time. Ruined his street cred. [/quote]

How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=peterb]Eventhough Powell quit, he still took the job and did what he was told for a long time. Ruined his street cred. [/quote]

How valid is that criticism when applied to a soldier?

Mind you I don’t necessarily disagree but the purpose of the military is to follow orders and enact policy of the civilian leaders, not to think critically or create policy themselves.
He was a part of the civilian leadership at the time you mention but that was not his background.

[Author]

Posts