179 responses to “The Federal Reserve Under Fire”

  1. christine

    Practice a Little Preventative Medicine …and Stop Our Government NOW.

    I know many of us are justifiably complaining about issues with our government. Some of us are feeling there is little that we can do to actually see an immediate change, some relief from so much negativity coming at us at once. We’re enduring financial hardships, joblessness, and seeing our liberties being taken away by the passing of each new law, our personal wealth stolen and our kids in debt before they have even been born.

    Well, I suggest to you now that each one of us has an opportunity right now, TODAY, to make a huge change in the course of history and help our nation avoid a lot more misery, pain and suffering.

    No one here doubts that much of our government is secretive and working against us. We are angry about the shadow government, the elite bankers and those within the FED, with Goldman Sachs and major corporations who are surrounding us like an army, taking our wealth and taking our country down. We have felt helpless. This all goes against what America is to us in our hearts was at its inception. It is land of a free people, not an oppressed people.

    http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=352%3Acomplaint-to-stop-enforced-vaccinations-in-washington-state&catid=1%3Alatest-news&lang=en

    I would like you to take a look at a complaint being filed in Washington State. The print is tiny (CTRL+ will give you larger print). Be sure to read through it all the way to the end. You will get an education! If you have anger towards any of the elite and secret groups, NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM ! YOUR COMPLAINT CAN CAUSE AN INVESTIGATION AND CRIMINAL CHARGES TO BE LEVELED AGAINST THOSE WHO HAVE HARMED US AND CONTINUE TO HARM US. They won’t stop themselves, so we have to. We call it then end of tyranny. Let’s get back to living fully in freedom. We need to eradicate them from our financial and governmental system! This complaint summarizes one of the largest crimes planned against Americans and other people around the world, ever! This is global. It will start in a couple of months, mid-October, so we haven’t much time to act. Point by point, you will see that this fall our government with several other organizations listed in the complaint have actually planned to harm us in ways we could never have ever imagine. Obama has appeared on television telling us how he has encouraged several countries to be prepared to also force vaccinate its citizens. As he puts it “they are responsibly prepared”. Nice sounding, but far from nice.

    Names like Goldman Sachs, the elite bankers, criminal syndicate, the World Health Organization (WHO) and many others, several in Illinois, and drug executives who plan to make a lot of money from the sale of a vaccine for the H1N1 virus, but this vaccine is contaminated and lethal. A criminal indictment has firstly been filed against WHO and others by Jane Bergermeister.

    Charges Filed Against Baxter and Avir
    http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2009/04/

    Help take down the criminals who have stolen so much from us already, and who now plan to systematically take our very lives, once again under the guise of helping us. No, they are not helping us, they are helping themselves to everything we own if we die from this vaccine! There is so much documentation. Get legal counsel if you need to. Talk it over with others, but please consider filing a complaint in your state. Who will stand up and put your anger to good use? As Ron Paul says, we need to convert that energy of anger into good use. Here’s your opportunity.

    A Guide to Filing for an Injunction in a State
    http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351%3Aa-guide-to-filing-an-injunction-in-a-state&catid=1%3Alatest-news&lang=en

    You can also visit my website at http://livingquests.com for links to more interviews with Jane, videos and info. It’s not a fancy website, but it will do for now.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. christine

    I strongly suggest that everyone get educated and pay attention to what is happening concerning the upcoming government-controlled, mass, forced flu vaccination plan. We only have a couple of months before we will be hit with something larger than any other issue. This is designed to change our country, the world as we know it.

    Much has already been posted on the several “Health” sections of this forum. Please check out the information, especially more towards the bottom of the entries.

    For anyone who is working towards preserving our liberty, freedom from tyranny…check out the agenda (there’s always an agenda) from the Swine Flu Conference held in Washington D.C., especially #2 & #6

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/32605.html
    http://www.new-fields.com/ISFC/brochure.pdf

    Jane Bergermeister has filed a criminal indictment against the World Health Organization (WHO) and Obama due to the evidence she has about contaminated flu vaccines being distributed for mass depopulation. Know her story, her case.

    Important Websites to Keep Informed
    http://birdflu666.wordpress.com
    http://theflucase.com

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Dean's Credit Ideas Guide

    These replies have been an interesting read…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. stojan nenadovic

    Dear Nate Y, prices must be allowed but prices level must be constant without inflation.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. stojan nenadovic

    Formula is mathematics. It is truth. There is not demand for non-credit money. Non-credit money is gift which come from formula.
    Velocty of money circulation is not constant. Money circulation velocity retards permanently. Only prices must be constant. Without inflation.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      Nothing is constant in Economics. Prices must be allowed to freely adjust to changing conditions if we are to achieve any type of economic harmony.

      At this point, I think it best for us not to carry on this convo any further. I very much doubt either one of us will convince the other.

      Cheers

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Nate Y

    Marc Faber is so damn cool.

    He mentions Krugman and his class of economists near the end of part 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAIn-8n-OMw

    And continues spreading the knowledge in part 2 (he also lights up a cig because he’s such a badass)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs5IZDHfAYQ&NR=1

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. longshotlouie

      First heard of Marc Faber from an economics professor at SMU in the ’70z. Good to see he can still lay down the facts.
      Sounds like Ron Paul with a different accent.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. stojan nenadovic

    Dear Nate Y, economics can be understood as physics. There is not problem.
    Hereve Gogain, I think the very same.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. stojan nenadovic

    Dear Nate Y, today, ther is not commodity used as money. Only all supply and all demand determine money.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      Indeed, money today is not a commodity. That’s the problem.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Herewe Goagain

        Agreed

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. stojan nenadovic

    Dear Nate Y, all supply and all demand must be reduced to formula.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      Again, all supply and all demand can’t be reduced to a formula because they are in a constant state of flux brought about by the actions of humans. Economics cannot be understood in the same manner as physics.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Herewe Goagain

        Amounts of supply and demand do fluctuate, this is true.
        How does this mean that it cannot be reduced to a formula.
        ‘If’ we deduce that the formula is correct, are we not able to simply insert the correct numbers into the formula at any given time?
        Economics is science after all, but I see art in it’s implementation.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Nate Y

          We can view ecnomics as a science. But it is a science of human action. That is the key distinction that separates it from physics, chemsitry, other natural sciences, and applied sciences (engineering). Physics has the comfort of constants. Economics does not. Economics has to reckon with the choices made and actions taken by human beings. Physics does not. Given these facts, economics cannot be understood in the same manner as physics.

          Let’s now focus on this proposed formula.

          You ask “‘If’ we deduce that the formula is correct, are we not able to simply insert the correct numbers into the formula at any given time?”

          Nope. Because even if the formula is correct, there is no way to know what the “correct numbers” are. The formula itself consists of variables derived from variables derived from variables derived from variables etc. It is quite easy to see how this type of calculation is problematic. If any one of the variables (or derived variables) is incorrect, the entire formula breaks down.

          It is impossible to properly measure and quantify the value judgements of billions of people. But that is exactly what the formula claims to do.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Sean

            HAHA! Austrian Economics is the science of human behavior. That is why they can predict trends..

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Sean

            You can properly measure the amount of money, and the demand for money.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Nate Y

            Yep. And because Austrians understand Economics to be a science of human action they were able to see the current crisis from a mile away. While Keynesians and those of other schools who think Economics can be understood in the same manner as Physics were blindsided by it and left staring at their precious formulas with befuddled looks on their faces.

            “You can properly measure the amount of money, and the demand for money.”

            This is a strawman and not worthy of a response.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Sean

            Paul Krugman saw the crisis coming so your statement is false holds no value.

            And there are income based money demand modules. Our crisis wasn’t an issue of money or inflation anyways. It was an issue of malinvestment, sub prime loans, deregulated derivatives and credit swaps.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Sean

            A typical money-demand function may be written as
            Md = P * L(R,Y)
            where Md is amount of money demanded, P is the price level, R is the nominal interest rate and Y is real output. An alternate name for a term such as L(R,Y) is the liquidity preference function.

            And you can determine the velocity of money and how many times it is turned over. During the recession, the velocity of money decreased 14%…

            The most basic “classical” transaction motive can be illustrated with reference to the Quantity Theory of Money. According to the equation of exchange MV = PY, where M is the stock of money, V is its velocity (how many times a unit of money turns over during a period of time), P is the price level and Y is real income. Consequently PY is nominal income or in other words the amount of transactions carried out in an economy during a period of time. Rearranging the above identity and giving it a behavioral interpretation as a demand for money we have

            or in terms of demand for real balances

            Hence in this simple formulation demand for money is a function of prices and income, as long as its velocity is constant.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. Sean

            Stojan has a very good point. The problem is demand cannot create enough money as Ben Bernanke and statistics have shown. If we don’t borrow money, than our whole economic system freezes. Because commercial real estate is down, we are going to have issues with our M1, or a lack of money in circulation.

            If we could put money into both the supply and demand side of the economy, than I believe it would be beneficial for all.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. Nate Y

            The expansion of the money supply (inflation) and the subsequent artifically low interest rates sowed the seeds for malinvestments, sub prime loans, deregulated derivatives and credit swaps.

            Also, it is true that Krugman eventually caught on to the problem in housing. Although he never properly identifies the culprit (The Fed). He also promoted the housing bubble in the first place after the bursting of the tech bubble…

            “Economic policy should encourage other spending to offset the temporary slump in business investment. Low interest rates, which promote spending on housing and other durable goods, are the main answer.”
            -Krugman, 2001

            Paul Krugman, being a proper Keynesian, doesn’t understand economics and merely prescribes bubble after bubble as the soulution to economic ills. He’s currently lamenting the stimulus because he thinks it is too small. For some odd reason, he wants a treasury/bond/dollar bubble. We need that like we need a hole in the head.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          8. Herewe Goagain

            From Mises’ last book

            “What is needed to prevent a scholar from garbling economic studies by resorting to the methods of mathematics, physics, biology, history or jurisprudence is not slighting and neglecting these sciences, but, on the contrary, trying to comprehend and to master them. He who wants to achieve anything in praxeology must be conversant with mathematics, physics, biology, history, and jurisprudence, lest he confuse the tasks and the methods of the theory of human action with the tasks and the methods of any of these other branches of knowledge.”

            I’m just sayin’.
            Theoretical formulas are starting points.
            The formula can stay the same. The numbers applied to each derivation can change.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          9. Sean

            Low interest rates did cause malinvestments, but not subprime loans, deregulations, or credit swaps.

            haha! Low interest rates obviously do encourage business investment. He straight out blamed Alan Greenspan and the fed for keeping them too low for too long bc it created a large bubble.

            Paul Krugman obviously does understand economics. He did map out the entire trade spectrum of the world and won the nobel prize for it. He has proved Austrians wrong many of times with detailed data but Austrians argue that data is irrelevant, which is totally stupid.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          10. Sean

            “On the other hand, the common claim that economists ignored the financial side and the risks of crisis seems not quite fair — at least from where I sit. In international macro, one of my two home fields, we’ve worried about and tried to analyze crises a lot. Especially after the Asian crisis of 1997-98, financial crises were very much on everyone’s mind. There was a substantial empirical literature from economists like Carmen Reinhart and Graciela Kaminsky (with Ken Rogoff joining in latterly); there was modeling from Guillermo Calvo, Jose Andres (grrr) Velasco, Nouriel Roubini, Paolo Pesenti, and others, including yours truly.

            Speaking for myself, I saw the housing bubble and expected the bust; but I hadn’t appreciated in advance either the vulnerability of the shadow banking system or the leverage of American consumers. Once the crisis was underway, however, I had a more or less ready-made intellectual framework to accommodate these revelations: at a meta level, this was very much the same kind of crisis as Indonesia 1998 or Argentina 2002.

            Domestic macro people may have been more astonished by what happened. But the prevailing trend now is to assert that there are more risks in the economy than were dreamed of in our philosophy; I don’t think that’s fair.”

            - Paul Krguman

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          11. Herewe Goagain
          12. Sean
          13. Herewe Goagain

            Thanks, but I think we have heard enough of the NWO Mouthpiece Krugman’s revisionist history to last a lifetime, and it probably will.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          14. Sean

            Awards:

            1991, American Economic Association, John Bates Clark Medal.[26] Since it was awarded to only one person, once every two years (prior to 2009), The Economist has described the Clark Medal as ‘slightly harder to get than a Nobel prize’.[27]

            1995, Adam Smith Award of the National Association for Business Economics

            2000, H.C. Recktenwald Prize in Economics, awarded by University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany.

            2002, Editor and Publisher, Columnist of the Year.[28]

            2004, Fundación Príncipe de Asturias (Spain), Prince of Asturias Awards in Social Sciences.[29]

            2004, Doctor of Humane Letters honoris causa, Haverford College[1]

            2008, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, formally The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel – for his contributions to New Trade Theory.[30] He became the twelfth John Bates Clark Medal winner to be awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize.

            What have you ever won in your life time? Look, all these awards are 10 years after the fact.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          15. Herewe Goagain

            I know, that makes it an even bigger shame that he is so wrong so often.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          16. Herewe Goagain

            “haha! Low interest rates obviously do encourage business investment. He straight out blamed Alan Greenspan and the fed for keeping them too low for too long bc it created a large bubble.”

            I really should scroll slower. How did I miss this gem?

            Sean, have you ever heard of malinvestment?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          17. Herewe Goagain

            “In 1982 Krugman thought inflation was caused by the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar, the price of commodities, and the price of oil. But as anybody with a lick of common sense could tell him, he had it completely backward — these things are the effect of inflation, not the cause.”

            Did you feel that hammer, Sean?
            What someone else here called the symptoms are what this author calls effects. Not cause, but effect.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          18. Sean

            You really should scroll slower, i’ve talked about malinvestment several times in this thread, and I was refering to malinvestment in that statement you just quoted me on, “bubble.”

            That other comment you just made is a stupid ignorant word game. The exchange rate effects the price of commodities and goods which does cause inflation or rising prices.

            If you could actually read and understand what he is talking about, he says lowering interest rates(expansion of money supply) causes inflation. He says this on that website you posted. So shut your mouth.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          19. Sean

            hahahaha!

            “We believe that it is reasonable to expect a significant reacceleration of inflation in the near future. Much of the apparent progress against inflation has resulted from the temporary side effects of tight money and high real interest rates. These side effects must be expected to reverse themselves as real interest rates decline and the economy expands.” – Paul Krugman from that website you posted.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          20. Sean

            by the way, interest rates effect the money supply, or inflation.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          21. Matt

            Hmmm, I guess a lot of people were very wrong back in 1981-1982…

            “We probably will see widespread civil disorder in the 1980s, as a result of our faltering economic system.” – Ron Paul

            At least Krugman was ‘only’ hoping inflation wouldn’t return, while Ron Paul was predicting RIOTING IN THE STREETS! Looks like Ron Paul misidentified the Cause, and totally blew the Effect.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          22. longshotlouie

            Sean and Matt:

            Ladies,
            Every 28 days you recycle the same whines.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          23. Nate Y

            Here comes Matt trotting out his favorite quote. So I will reply with something similar to that I posted last time. Ron Paul was wrong about widespread civil disorder in the 80s. So what? It’s not his fault the American people couldn’t see or didn’t care to see how the government and banking system were confiscating and redistributing their wealth. Also, do you really expect anyone to have perfect forecasts? You pick on this one slip up and attempt to use it to cast suspicion on the Austrian school approach in general.

            I really do not understand why you post on this site. You claim to be open minded and seeking answers but it’s quite obvious your mind is made up. You know the Austrian answers and reject them. Do you do this in your real life? Do you seek out parties full of people who hold ideas you can’t stand? It’s like an atheist going to church every Sunday claiming he wants salvation but he constantly mocks what the Bible, the priest, and his fellow churchgoers have to say.

            Disclosure: I’m an atheist.

            Anyway, here’s Ron Paul calling the 1987 recession which the Fed successfully inflated away. And by “inflated away” I mean postponed, delayed, and made worse in the long run. They’re attempting to do the same thing this time around but many conditions have changed in 20+ years. I’m betting their Keynesian “money solves everthing” solution won’t work for much longer.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FmlsK_nJKU

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. stojan nenadovic

    Dear Nate Y, real money emerges from the market. Real non-credit money emerges from all spply and all demand. All Supply and all demand are the market too.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      It’s impossible to quantify or understand “all supply and all demand” because they are in a constant state of flux. They cannot be reduced to formulas.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. stojan nenadovic

    Dear Nate Y, only formula can determine what money is.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      Incorrect. People, through free exchange, determine what commodity is to be used as money.

      Your proposals sound very similar to the so-called “Greenback Solution” of Ellen Brown. They are incompatible with freedom and won’t work in the long run.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Nate Y

    Real money emerges from the market. People should be free to determine what they want to use as money. No formula or legislative act can determine what money is.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. stojan nenadovic

    Non-credit money as real money is gift which come from formula:
    dM = kM ; k = (supply – demand)/demand ;
    Without inflation, without debt, without gold, without Federal Reserve.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. stojan nenadovic

    Dear Nate Y, we calculate that the growth rate of mankind progress is 3% and we calculate that it is necessary 3% of non-credt money. If inflation is zero, we are hit. If are not, inflation cannot be greater than 3%. Today, inflation is greater. We are yet better.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Erika

    I understand what Sean is saying and to an extent, I agree with him.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      Well then perhaps you could help explain his posts? Have at it.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Herewe Goagain

        Hahahahaaaaaaaa

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Erika

          What are you laughing about, foreigner?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. longshotlouie

            You are on the world wide web, ma’am.
            There are no foriegners.

            Here We Go Again

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. longshotlouie

            ouch, ‘foreigners’

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. stojan nenadovic

    Nate Y, the sours of non-credit money is the growth of economic rationality. The growth of rationality in production diminishes the costs and augments production and supply. The growth of rationality in consumption augments the utiity, what retards the money circulation velocity and diminishes demand. Utility – cost = surplus utility. Surplus utility demonstrates as non-credit money.
    The growth rate of mankind progress is equal to the growth rate of non-credit money. Non-credit money get producers as profit and consumers as consumer’s surplus.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      Oh boy. Best of luck attempting to quantify “the growth rate of mankind progress”. Why not simply let the market function and let the people decide what they want to use as money?

      How are we to grow economic rationality?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. stojan nenadovic

    Banks cannot emitting new money as credit. New money is only non-credit money. Banks can loan only from collected saving. Consumers spending and increasing demand prevent deflation. Inflation cannot exist. Giving money to pensioners is the way for emitting non-credit money. There is in USA American Monetary Institute and American Monetary Act which propose Dennis Kucinich, as a kind of non-credit money, and which anticipate consumption of non-credit money. Pensions are only example.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. stojan nenadovic

    Mr. Sean, We give money to consumers. Consumers buy by producers. Producers get money without debt. All get!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. sean

      Consumer spending is the profit, not the base capital used to produce. Businesses generally don’t have the money to produce and purchase goods without borrowing it. The majority of businesses cannot increase enough profit to replace base capital.. If anything, your idea would benefit major corporations while neglecting small businesses.

      Giving money to pensioners is not going to increase overall spending. It will only increase selective spending which is a huge distortion to the market.

      You can’t create and counterfeit money and give it to a selective group of people, or special interests. I’m not for debt, but i’m also not for picking and choosing. You would have Karl Marx rolling in his grave.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. sean

        increasing consumer spending or increasing demand will cause inflation. It will cause more inflation than any other system of money.

        What about people who want to start a business? If banks can’t loan how can they start a business? they wont be able to build on profit.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. sean

          It would be better to instead of using a pension fund, the government creates non-credit money and builds infostructure with it, and pays for social security, and removes taxes. This way the money goes directly into banks instead of the stock market, so the borrowers and people without pensions can benefit as well.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. VR

    Try the website
    http://noncredit-money.org/

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. stojan nenadovic

    Thanks, longshotlouie.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. stojan nenadovic

    One source is debt another sourse is gift. I don’t know. Debt is credit, gift is money. Kucinich, Zarlenga and Cook thought so. I thought the same, but i call credit as credit money and money as non-credit money. Non-credit money is the only real money.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. longshotlouie

      Yes sir, understood.

      Have been through the first four papers on your website and it has been enjoyable. Maybe we can enjoy a discussion on gold after I read the rest of your papers.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. sean

      I’m just trying to understand a bit more. The majority of businesses from small to large, manufactoring to service, all run off of credit. Most businesses borrow money to use as capital to function.. Are you trying to say that we just give them money?

      Money is not and should not be gift for any reason. “Gift” is another word for counterfeit. Only special groups will benefit and not the country as a whole.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. stojan nenadovic

    Market (not government) determines supply and demand. Suuply must be greater to demand, if non-credit money can be created.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. stojan nenadovic

    Only new non-credit money is necessary for buying new (geater) production as well as the rest of unsold products due to diminishing demand (by reason of the retarding of money circulation velocity).

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      Doesn’t the supply side use commercial banking loans regularly?
      What is the difference from the supply side getting capital from one source or another.

      It seems like you will be replacing car and home buying with more corporatism and lower wage jobs.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Nate Y

      What is the source of this non-credit money? Who issues it?

      Your ideas seem similar to those presented by Ellen Brown in “Web of Debt”.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. stojan nenadovic

    Criterion is both the growth of economic rationality and equity.
    Money supply is connected both to actual growth and to actual retarding in money circulation velocity.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. stojan nenadovic

    Sean, if an economy grows, ther will be not inflation in the system of non-credit money.
    Lindsey, percentage 5% is the growth of quantity of money in circulation, which must be emitted as non-credit money. Milton Friedman proposed such as this percentage but with credit money it is not possible. It is possible only with non-credit money. Without credit and interest.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      I disagree because of the natural rate of unemployment theory.

      Anyways, I think the main argument against non-credit money is that it benefits the rich while neglecting the poor. How many poor people have pensions? It isn’t fair to create money and pick and choose who receives it.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Lindsey Brutus

      Stojan: I’m glad we finally got this clear. That was the answer I was looking for.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. VR

        I finally understood your question completely when Stojan answered. Turned out to be a good question. Thanks

        5% may be used as an average growth figure.
        If the money supply is connected to actual growth then it is leaps and bounds above the current system.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. stojan nenadovic

    Lindsey, percentage is of the quantity of money in circulation.
    Sean, inflation cannot exist in the system of non-credit money.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      If an economy grows, there will be inflation. That is true with any system of money.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Lindsey Brutus

      Stojan: I know what you’re saying! Is the percentage 5%, 8% etc. or can you give your best guess as to what the percentage should be!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. VR
  27. Matt

    Very good post, however Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the Primary cause of the housing bubble and resultant financial crash? No way.

    Good article from Barry Ritholtz that more accurately describes the machinations that occurred.

    http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/fannie-mae-and.html

    “Then there is the international issue: If Fannie and Freddie and the 1977 CRA (and amendments) are to blame for the US boom and bust, how did the rest of the world end up with a housing boom too? Why did prices and sales go skyward in the UK, France, Spain, Ireland, Australia, etc.? They had no CRA, or a Fannie Mae, or a Freddie Mac, — so then what caused their housing boom?

    The short answer: Ultra low rates, securitization, and perhaps some of our homegrown, innovative lending standards.

    For the non-partisan, non hacks amongst you, for the policy makers and academics and economists who are truly interested in how this came to pass, and what we can do to fix it, the bottom line remains: The CRA was irrelevant to the current crisis, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were mere cogs in a very complex financial machine, with many moving parts.

    But the primary cause of the mess? Not even close . . . “

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. VR

      WOW, I finally figured out that you don’t have trouble with the language. IT’S THE F###ING COMPREHENSION!! that you lack.
      In the context of this article, and in the real world, Fannie, Freddie, and a myriad of others ARE THE SYMPTOMS !!

      The origin of the illness is revealed EARLY in the article.
      Turn off your filter and read it again.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Nate Y

        Yep. It’s right there in the 3rd paragraph. “A nonfesant Fed, that ignored lending standards, and ultra-low rates”

        Bingo!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Matt

        Yeah, apparently that happened in a lot of other countries too that don’t have FRE/FNM or GSE’s (which was your original point, right? or did I misinterpret your minimal blame of deregulation and free market’s), and last I saw the Fed was not implicitly in charge of Mortgage lending standards.

        It is not one item in particular, and thank you for bringing me to my final point, which is where I believe Austrian Economics breaks down with respect to it’s asymmetric and irrational expectations of the intelligence and efficiency of free markets :)

        Austrians are assuming that entrepreneurs have strange irrational expectations. Rothbard states this fairly explicitly: “Entrepreneurs are trained to estimate changes and avoid error. They can handle irregular fluctuations, and certainly they should be able to cope with the results of an inflow of gold, results which are roughly predictable. They could not forecast the results of a credit expansion, because the credit expansion tampered with all their moorings, distorted interest rates and calculations of capital.” Elsewhere, he informs us that: “Successful entrepreneurs on the market will be precisely those, over the years, who are best equipped to make correct forecasts and use good judgment in analyzing market conditions. Under these conditions, it is absurd to suppose that the entire mass of entrepreneurs will make such errors, unless objective facts of the market are distorted over a considerable period of time.”

        Why does Rothbard think businessmen are so incompetent at forecasting government policy? Why does Rothbard believe that low interest rates cause a rational market to behave irrationally when they can adjust for EVERY OTHER component. Even if a simple businessmen just uses current market interest rates in a completely robotic way, why doesn’t arbitrage by the credit-market insiders make long-term interest rates a reasonable prediction of actual policies? The problem is supposed to be that businessmen just look at current interest rates, figure out the PDV of possible investments, and due to artificially low interest rates (which can’t persist forever) they wind up making malinvestments. But why couldn’t they just use the credit market’s long-term interest rates for forecasting profitability instead of stupidly looking at current short-term rates? Particularly in interventionist economies, it would seem that natural selection would weed out businesspeople with such a gigantic blind spot. Moreover, even if most businesspeople don’t understand that low interest rates are only temporary, the long-term interest rate will still be a good forecast so long as the professional interest rate speculators don’t make the same mistake.

        Greed, that is why. Free markets can become distorted REGARDLESS OF INTEREST RATE LEVEL if there are short-term profits that can be taken – in this case in the breakdown of free markets resulting from deregulation. Gold standard or no gold standard, bubbles are going to occur.

        If markets are as smart as Rothbard gives them credit for, we wouldn’t have this level of malinvestment – regardless of interest rate level.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. VR

          You are still assuming a free market where there is not a free market.

          “Austrians are assuming that entrepreneurs have strange irrational expectations.” ??? huh? The paragraphs that follow do nothing to support this premise.

          “Why does Rothbard think businessmen are so incompetent at forecasting government policy?” ??? huh? How competent are you or anyone else in forecasting government policy in more than the short term?

          Why does Rothbard believe that low interest rates cause a rational market to behave irrationally … ?
          The evidence is clear. Read the news.

          Greed needs government intervention. Without government intervention, the market can dispense of the greedy.

          Again, You are still assuming a free market where there is not a free market.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Matt

            “How competent are you or anyone else in forecasting government policy in more than the short term?”

            Thank you for backing up my statement, that was spoken like a true Austrian. That is the basis of my quandry regarding asymmetric application of intelligence to free markets.

            I dunno? How good are you at predicting floods, hurricanes, and wildfires over more than the short term – that is a helluva lot tougher and far more random than government policy. Oh, wait, the market DOES try to do that when setting commodities prices – which you find acceptable. (I will use commodities as one example, there are many other examples where Austrians ascribe intelligence to markets that are far more complex than the machinations of government)

            Oh wait, within commodities prices are also built in FOREIGN COUTRIES POLICY ACTIONS. You don’t think the crude market doesn’t try to determine what OPEC might do? You don’t think the possibility of civil unrest in Columbia changes coffee prices? The markets don’t try to gauge the implications of a new regime in Mexico on Sugar production? Really? Markets can figure it out abroad, but not at home? Really? I didn’t know markets had such a blind spot… I mean, foreign policy but not domestic? Interesting.

            What is the difference? Why does trying to anticipate our own government activity scare you, but trying to anticipate foreign governmental activity, mother nature, or technological advancement (all far more difficult) something the market can TOTALLY do?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. VR

            It’s amusing when you believe that your reply supports your argument, or even assails my own.

            Which moves faster, government or markets?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Matt

            “It’s amusing when you believe that your reply supports your argument, or even assails my own.”

            Let me try again… Why, if the Austrian free-market system is so infalliable and all-knowing, does malinvestment occur during a low interest rate period?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. longshotlouie

            Matt replies:
            July 21st, 2009 at 9:46 am
            Let me try again… Why, if the Austrian free-market system is so infalliable and all-knowing, does malinvestment occur during a low interest rate period?

            ?
            Are you pointing to an Austrian-style market for comparison? Which one?
            Why not keep it simple and ask, “Why does malinvestment occur?”
            An artificially low rate is an answer.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Nate Y

          We don’t live in a free-market system. Even if we did, it wouldn’t be infallible and all-knowing. But it would be much much better than the Fascist/Corporatist/Interventionist/Centrally Planned system we have at present.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Matt

            “longshotlouie replies:
            July 21st, 2009 at 2:29 pm

            Why not keep it simple and ask, “Why does malinvestment occur?”
            An artificially low rate is an answer.”

            Really? That is exactly the breakdown. So interest rates are even lower right now than they were then – what capital malinvestment is occurring now? Into what investment do you see being made even 1/10th of the scale of what free market participants were doing 5-6 years ago?

            You are implying that a market participant would currently be evaluating long-term investments based on current rates (just silly). This is either a failure of rational expectations (meaning free markets do a terrible job of allocating capital) or a capital market failure in that individuals rationally choose to make a ‘bad’ investment (also indicating free markets cannot allocate capital efficiently). Either way, it demonstrates a lack of understanding about how markets function.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. longshotlouie

            OK, again, don’t answer the question.

            Was there a different market 5-6 years ago?
            I’m talking about the same folks. You give yourself away as an Obamaho.

            Long term investments are based on long term projections.

            If the seed of your argument is dead, none of your logic will have life.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Matt

            *sigh*

            Here is a fairly succinct paper that explains what I am trying to explain to you.

            http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1024311

            I wouldn’t skip to the end, Louie.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. longshotlouie

            “I wouldn’t skip to the end, Louie.”
            Are you sure?

            Is this the paper published in February ’08 or October ’07? Or was it published in October ’07 and revised February ’08 and revised again in September ’08.
            Either way it’s a fairly new paper, so I’ll wait till he has not revised it for a year.

            My guess is that it is more about capital reswitching and capital reversing.

            http://mises.org/story/1148

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. stojan nenadovic

    Sean, non-credit money is gift for pensionary, and other.
    Lindsey, k is not value than percentage of value of GDP.
    k = (supply – demand)/demand ;

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Lindsey Brutus

      Stojan: What is the percentage?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Sean

      So you think we could just give away money as a gift? To whom would we just give away money to and how would that prevent distortions and inflation in the marketplace?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. VR

        Gift as in benefit, not freebie.

        I think.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          Same thing.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. VR

            So if the pensioner gets a net positive result then someone else ‘gave as a gift’ this result?
            Critical thinking is not a strong point of yours, huh.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Sean

            If the government gives money to pensioners, then yes, it is a gift, a subside, a freebie, a benefit, whatever you wanna call it. Rational thinking is by far out of the question for you.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. VR

            BAM !!

            There lies the problem. Why did you assume that a positive net result for the pensioner, from having a non-credit monetary system, came from government?

            It came from THE MARKET !!!

            You read the words money, credit, benefit, gift, ……
            and your immediate response is GOVERNMENT!!

            Could you be anymore of a statist tool?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. VR

            Wiki ain’t gonna help ya.

            I wipe my ass with wiki after eating statists and anti-theists.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Sean

            that is the concept of non-credit money..

            For the government to create money and put it into pension funds. How would the market create money ? It wouldn’t, you should go wipe your ass some more. I smell a bullshitter.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. VR

            Again you expose the flaw in your thinking. You have been socialist trained to believe that government creates wealth.

            What you smell is your top lip.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. Nate Y

            Money emerges naturally on the market.

            http://mises.org/story/1333

            “Money is not an invention of the state. It is not the product of a legislative act. Even the sanction of political authority is not necessary for its existence. Certain commodities came to be money quite naturally, as the result of economic relationships that were independent of the power of the state.”

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          8. VR

            We do not need the government to protect anything except our borders and our rights. Both duties of which they have been totally inadequate.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          9. VR

            I love it when you quote Menger.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          10. Sean

            If you want to understand the origin of money, you have to understand the origin of banking.

            Before there was money yes commodities were used as a means for exchange. People bartered with all items. Today we live in a world where business owners don’t want to trade goods, they want money.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          11. VR

            If you want to understand banking you must understand the origin of money.

            Ah, speaking of Menger,
            http://mises.org/story/1711

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          12. Sean

            i’m talking about the origin of paper money. That is true though.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          13. VR

            Yeah, me too.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          14. Sean
          15. VR

            Why do you post a link to a set of videos that trash your argument?

            Is this another Sean?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          16. Sean

            i’m not arguing for it so how would you know. i’m just telling nate how it is, how money is created. And it does support my argument on the power of banks That whole movie is about banks, not central banks.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          17. VR

            Hope you can get one of those ‘green jobs’, because you sure as hell are not any good at this one.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          18. Nate Y

            You’re playing a very disingenuous game of hide the ball. In fact, you abuse words so badly and switch the goal posts so often you even confuse yourself. First you ask: “how would the market create money?” as if there is not a ready answer. In turn, I respond with the answer. You casually acknowledge the answer but then you switch to talking about money as debt (which is not how the market would “create” or how money has freely emerged in the past).

            Now you’re posting the well done “Money as Debt” vids you’ve already posted and I’ve already seen. As VR has already stated, those videos shread your arguments. They expose unbacked paper money and fractional reserve banking for exactly what they are. That is, a vicious combination of force and fraud. Best to let the market function unfettered. Over time, it’ll lead us back to where we need to be.

            For some odd reason, you can’t seem to grasp that Central Banks are a result of fractional reserve banking. The so called “Lender of Last Resort”.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          19. Sean

            “Money emerges naturally on the market.”

            This is the most stupid thing i have ever heard. I wasn’t going to dog you on it but you wanna keep on arguing. It is stupid and I’m showing you that money doesn’t emerge naturally on the market.

            I never contradicted myself. You don’t even understand the word.

            You contradicted yourself when you didn’t know what you were talking about. You said that credit comes from savings but money doesn’t come from savings. When all money came from credit.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          20. longshotlouie

            yepper, fiat money does not emerge naturally

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          21. Nate Y

            I’m not arguing. I am merely pointing out facts and correcting the errors you make in your analysis.

            Let’s review…

            Money does not come from credit.

            Money emerges natrually on the market. As it has thousands of times for thousands of civilizations throughout history. Precious metals like gold and silver tend to be selected by the market as money whenever/wherever they are available for very good reasons.

            Credit comes from savings.

            Inflation is an expansion in the supply of money/credit.

            Fiat money is a fraud. It eventually seeks out its intrinsic value, zero.

            Economies are better understood as organic, not mechanical.

            Economics is a study of human action and must me scrutinized as such.

            Freedom works. Force does not.

            You don’t have a strong command of the English language and consistently write unintelligible sentences.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. sean

          “Money does not come from credit.” That is totally wrong. You don’t understand anything about economics because you don’t understand where money comes from.

          “Fractional-reserve banking CREATES MONEY whenever a new LOAN is created. In short, there are two types of money in a fractional-reserve banking system, the two types being legally equivalent [2][3]:

          central bank money (all money created by the central bank regardless of its form (banknotes, coins, electronic money through LOANS to private banks))

          commercial bank money (money created in the banking system through BORROWING and LENDING) – sometimes referred to as checkbook money[4]” – WIKI

          why do you think me and this other guy have been talking back and forth about credit money and the possibility of non-credit money. I’m sorry but we are just way out of your league.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. sean

            That is the fact., it seems like all you read is free market principles, so you don’t have any kind of universal knowledge on the subject of money.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. longshotlouie

            Is that a wiki boot on your neck?
            It must be why you cannot recognize the contradictions in your own posts.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. sean

            Name one contradiction I have ever made.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. longshotlouie

            Again?

            Let’s try another simple question.

            If we have a problem with debt, why is a quadrupling of debt the solution?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. sean

            I never said quadrupling the debt is the solution. You should try again.. You can read all you want, but I am very very consistent and you will not see me contradict myself.

            I have said MANY of times that we should raise tariffs to live within our means so we can stop borrowing money.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. longshotlouie

            While at the same time defending a system that perpetuates the debt solution.

            C O N T R A D I C T O R Y

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. sean

            haha no. I’m not defending the system. I’m simply pointing out what we are doing and what we can do which I have said many of times. Every suggestion I have given does not support more debt so you are putting me under false assumptions. I am not contradicting my beliefs or my words. I am in no way C O N T R A D I C T I N G myself. I think you are a push over and like to whine too much about things you don’t understand.. It’s pretty pathetic.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          8. longshotlouie

            Ring Around The Rosie

            you know the rest

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          9. Nate Y

            I understand that Fractional Reserve Banking is inherently inflationary because it pyramids debt. That’s the problem. Money as Debt is the problem. Which is exactly why we must let the market function and let it guide us back to sound money. I have little interest in any further attempts at educating you. I’m not gifted enough to unscramble your confused mind.

            But I’ll continue to point out your nonsense whenever you spout it.

            As has already been pointed out, tariffs do not work. They do not protect the people. They serve to enrich the government and the protected industries at the expense of everyone else.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          10. Sean

            Tariffs did prove not to work in a DEPRESSION/RECESSION. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why it wouldn’t work when unemployment is at an all time high.

            With tariffs, prices will be natural and fair. Foreign industry would receive the same treatment as domestic with a balanced tax policy. There will be no absolute advantage through dishonest trade and nation building.
            We would not need the income tax if we had tariffs..

            “[They say] if you had not had the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or dear depends upon what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer. Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man.
            [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest’…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.’ And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards.”

            -Abraham Lincoln

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          11. Sean

            I dunno why you are for free trade. It came about with the Federal Reserve. It was all a part of Woodrow Wilson’s “new freedom” policy. His goal was to eliminate tariffs and reform banking in the interest of expanding our empire overseas.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. longshotlouie

        How much more ass kicking can you take?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. sean

          Please, you have never outsmarted me. I laugh at your insults because they are stupid and inaccurate.. I can’t even debate with you because all you do is insult. Are you afraid you are too stupid?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. longshotlouie

            Ew, I guess you ‘told’ me.

            lmao

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. sean

            I told you the truth. I didn’t “kick your ass” and i’m not going to strut around saying I did. I’m not an ignorant prick.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. longshotlouie

            You get your ass kicked daily.
            No need to strut around about that.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. sean

            haha please. Just because I’m outnumbered doesn’t mean that I speak anything other than the truth. Maybe you can’t except the truth only because it’s coming from someone other than ron paul. Actually, I say a lot of things that ron paul says except I go into much much further detail. You should just go argue with him.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. stojan nenadovic

    Sean, Credit money is debt, non-credit money is gift.
    Lindsey, dM = kM ; k = (SUPPLY – DEMAND)/DEMAND ;

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      How will non-credit money be allocated? as debt..
      You can’t just throw a billion dollars into the economy and expect it to reach our hands without issuing it through debt.

      There are only two ways..
      1.The government spends money on war and infostructure to put money into the economy..

      2.Banks issue debt to put money into the economy.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. longshotlouie

        Why would you put trillions (made by a simple data entry) into the economy? Did the economy actually become (physically) larger? No, it only became larger on paper.

        Result: Same actual economy with more dollars, meaning every dollar is worth less.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          yes an economy grows physically larger.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. VR

            There you go again.
            Did I ask whether economies can grow physically larger?

            Come on, Sean. Focus.
            Did the economy become physically larger because of a data entry?

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. VR

          Sorry, didn’t notice I was jumping on others responses.

          My Bad

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Lindsey Brutus

      Stojan: What is the present value of K? Do you have an idea?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. VR

    To call the housing and credit crisis a failure of the free market or the product of unregulated greed is to overlook the myriad government regulations, policies, and political pronouncements that have both reduced the freedom of this market and led self-interested actors to produce disastrous consequences, often unintentionally.

    The two biggest players in the mortgage market are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Until they were nationalized recently, they were “government sponsored enterprises” (GSEs). That meant they enjoyed all the profit potential of a private business, but carried none of the risk. How would you run your business differently if you knew the government would bail you out or if Congress bullied you into adopting certain business strategies? Would you be acting greedily – or just rationally?

    Throughout the 1990s, Washington encouraged these GSEs to expand home-ownership among lower-income, and thus more risky, borrowers. In 2004 and 2005, following the accounting scandals at Freddie, both GSEs paid penance to Congress by agreeing to expand their direct lending to low-income, higher-risk customers. Both acquired more subprime and Alt-A loans, making it profitable for banks to originate them, confident that the US taxpayers ultimately stood behind Freddie and Fannie. From 2003 to 2006, the percentage of loans the GSEs made in those riskier categories grew from8 percent to about 20 percent in 2006. This meddling helped drive up housing prices, leading other players to pile fancy new instruments on top of those mortgages, leading to a speculative bubble that was, at root, caused by the actions of two government-sponsored entities unleashed from the normal profit-and-loss checks of the free market.

    Fueling this speculative fire was the Federal Reserve, also a government-sponsored organization. The Fed moved interest rates to extraordinarily low levels beginning in 2001. The additional credit it provided artificially lowered the cost of mortgages and dramatically accelerated the housing boom begun in the 1990s.

    Did people suddenly get greedy in their pursuit of McMansions, second homes, and flipping homes for easy profit? Yes, but only because abnormally low interest rates made it foolish not to be. This was hardly a failure of free markets or greed. It was the predictable consequence of government distorting the interest rate.

    The only relevant piece of deregulation of the past 15 years is the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Depression-era separation of investment and commercial banking. However, this has been a blessing rather than a curse, as it has enabled commercial banks to buy up failing investment banks and permitted other failing investment banks to save themselves by becoming commercial banks. Without that deregulation, today’s crisis would have been even more devastating.

    Good intentions are not enough in designing public policy. Regulations designed with the best of intentions are likely to lead to more crises if they distort incentives and thereby cause individual “greed” to undermine economic growth and harm millions. History is full of examples of politicians adopting short-run solutions without seeing the harmful long-run consequences.

    Today, the calls to “do something” are loud. Yet amid the cacophony, there are a few voices urging not more, but less; not faster, but slower; not short term, but long term; not intent, but outcomes. Those are the voices we should heed, because if we had listened to them 15 or 20 years ago, we might not be where we are today.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Nate Y

      Very well said.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. Matt

      Very good post, however Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the Primary cause of the housing bubble and resultant financial crash? No way.

      Good article from Barry Ritholtz that more accurately describes the machinations that occurred.

      http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/fannie-mae-and.html

      “Then there is the international issue: If Fannie and Freddie and the 1977 CRA (and amendments) are to blame for the US boom and bust, how did the rest of the world end up with a housing boom too? Why did prices and sales go skyward in the UK, France, Spain, Ireland, Australia, etc.? They had no CRA, or a Fannie Mae, or a Freddie Mac, — so then what caused their housing boom?

      The short answer: Ultra low rates, securitization, and perhaps some of our homegrown, innovative lending standards.

      For the non-partisan, non hacks amongst you, for the policy makers and academics and economists who are truly interested in how this came to pass, and what we can do to fix it, the bottom line remains: The CRA was irrelevant to the current crisis, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were mere cogs in a very complex financial machine, with many moving parts.

      But the primary cause of the mess? Not even close . . . “

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. VR

        wow, I finally figured out that you don’t have trouble with the language. IT’S THE F###ING COMPREHENSION!! that you lack.
        In the context of this article, and in the real world, Fannie, Freddie, and a myriad of others ARE THE SYMPTOMS !!

        The origin of the illness is revealed EARLY in the article.
        Turn off your filter and read it again.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. Sean

      Deregulation that caused the crisis.

      “In 1999, the U.S. Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This repeal has been criticized for reducing the separation between commercial banks (which traditionally had a conservative culture) and investment banks (which had a more risk-taking culture).[53][54]

      In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.[55][56]

      Financial institutions in the shadow banking system are not subject to the same regulation as depository banks, allowing them to assume additional debt obligations relative to their financial cushion or capital base.[57] This was the case despite the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in 1998, where a highly-leveraged shadow institution failed with systemic implications.

      Regulators and accounting standard-setters allowed depository banks such as Citigroup to move significant amounts of assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into complex legal entities called structured investment vehicles, masking the weakness of the capital base of the firm or degree of leverage or risk taken. One news agency estimated that the top four U.S. banks will have to return between $500 billion and $1 trillion to their balance sheets during 2009.[58] This increased uncertainty during the crisis regarding the financial position of the major banks.[59] Off-balance sheet entities were also used by Enron as part of the scandal that brought down that company in 2001.[60]

      As early as 1997, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated.[citation needed] With the advice of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets,[61] the U.S. Congress and President allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.[62] Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as “financial weapons of mass destruction” in early 2003″ – wiki

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. stojan nenadovic

    Non-credit money is the only real money. Non-credit money is inherent in value. This value is the growth of economic rationality.
    Non-credit money is created from the growth of economic rationality.
    Non-credit money is not debt than gift from the growth of economic rationality. Non-credit money is the necessary additional quantity of money in circulation (dM) as percentage (k) of existing quantity of money in circulation (M). dM = kM ; k = (supply – demand)/demandd
    If non-credit money is emitted according to the cited formula, inflation cannot exist. Also, taxes are annulled for the amount of non-credit money. The consumers pay less and producers get more than today, in the order of credit money. This is non-credit money.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      So you don’t think banks should create more money than they have in savings, but then again you think we should have a pension fund because you realize that all banks need extra capital to grow for the benefit of the economy.
      Wouldn’t a pension fund be the same thing as a treasury bond? Banks will still need to borrow capital, but instead of borrowing from the government they should borrow money from a pool that the government created. It’s basically the same thing. The money will still have to be allocated through credit so you really couldn’t call it “non-credit” money. It is just a different way to look at the system.

      There is no way to prevent inflation in a growing economy..

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. Lindsey Brutus

        Stojan: I have a question. What is the dm percentage now? Is it based on our population increase and the physical wearing out of old notes and coin? Just curious about the percentage and if there are any other factors that are included in determining this percentage. Thanks!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Nate Y

        “There is no way to prevent inflation in a growing economy..”

        Is exactly wrong. In fact, a productive economy causes prices to fall over time.

        I assume you (erronously) mean inflation to mean “rising prices”. Fix that asap. It’s really messing up your analysis.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          hahahaha! A productive economy grows which means extra costs which cause prices to rise. I think you need to learn the term because you are backward thinking on everything. Haha!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. VR

            hahahaha!

            You seem to be afflicted with a sort of Stockholm Syndrome.

            Haha!

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Nate Y

            Well this makes sense. You follow the likes of Krugman and Keynes while I keep company with Hazlitt and Mises. I want sound money while you want fiat paper. You focus solely on the short term consequences for a specific group while I also consider the long term effects on others. I view government regulation as cumbersome and disruptive while you view it as orderly and efficient. You favor force while I favor freedom.

            Focus on the computer/technology sector to see how productivity leads to falling prices.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Sean

            So you think deregulating the markets and letting them take on as much debt as possible is healthy? haha! just like you would rather have domestic taxes than tariffs.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Nate Y

            Congrats. Two strawmen in as many sentences.

            If people want to take on a pile of debt, they are free to do so. They are also free to suffer the consequences of their actions.

            I never said I favor domestic taxes over tariffs. I merely pointed out the bad consequences of tariffs.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Sean

            Tariffs made up 90% of government revenue before the income tax replaced it. The consequence of tariffs were no income tax.

            I for one do not think debt is good, and allowing financial firms to take on too much debt is a bad idea and is what led us to where we are.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. VR

        The troll home office really needs to strengthen it’s hiring technique. We need trolls that can actually formulate an argument, stay on a single thread of thought for more than two posts, and do so without sounding childish.

        But then they would have to pay more. Never mind.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. stojan nenadovic

    The Federal Reserve is not necessary in the system of non-credit money.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Sean

      There is no value to non-credit money..
      Credit money is as good as ones soul once they sign the paper.
      Creating money with no inherent value is a step in the wrong direction.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. longshotlouie

        If you are signing your soul over to the devil.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. Nate Y

        “Creating money with no inherent value is a step in the wrong direction.”

        We already have that type of money. They’re commonly called “dollars” and have “Federal Reserve Note” written on the top.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Sean

          I thought you said money comes from savings? Are you contradicting yourself?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Nate Y

            No. I said credit comes from savings. No contradiction here. You’ve got the contradiction market pretty well cornered anyway.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Sean

            Money is credit, all of our money came from credit in one way or another which does come from savings… haha, so you really didn’t understand what you were talking about.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. longshotlouie

            You keep repeating yourself, like a program.
            You may need to freshen your talking points.

            Oh wait, you could try the novel approach of actually explaining how what you say could be true.

            For instance, you said:
            “You can’t have real money with outstanding trade deficits. We don’t want to trade goods for gold. We would end up broke.”
            Prove this (without wiki)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. longshotlouie

          Real money is commodity, not credit/debt.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          1. Sean

            You can’t have real money with outstanding trade deficits. We don’t want to trade goods for gold. We would end up broke.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          2. Sean

            If you can’t understand this than you really need some additional help..

            We have almost a trillion dollar trade deficit. If we gave away a trillion dollars in gold more than we take in every year, than eventually we would run out. That is so simple to understand.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          3. Sean

            What if we returned to the gold standard. Hypothetically speaking..

            IN GOLD:
            USA______________> CHINA+OPEC
            2009
            12 TRILLION__________ > 12 TRILLION
            2010
            11 TRILLION__________> 13 TRILLION
            2011
            10 TRILLION__________ > 14 TRILLION
            2012
            9 TRILLION__________ 15 TRILLION….

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          4. Nate Y

            Indeed. Sound money is the way to go. Of course, people (Sean) will argue that we can’t have sound money. But that’s like saying we can’t have honesty or integrity. It is complete nonsense. We need sound money now more than ever.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          5. Sean

            You can’t have honesty or integrity without living within our means so you can’t have a gold standard without living within our means.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          6. VR

            Did someone say that sound money, backed by gold, was The Ark? the end all to save all?

            But without sound money we will continue on the road to more and more deficits.

            Sean, is your chart law. Do we need to continue to add more deficits to ‘build’ our economy?

            If you had any self-awareness you would see how you continue to chase your own tail, and each time you are called on it you start hurling names, condescending remarks, and laughter. All signs that are recognized as defensive (out of ammunition).

            Someone here used the term ‘Daisychain of Debt’.
            IMO, you represent the daisychain of doubt.

            Your seeds will not take root here. Send in the clowns.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          7. Sean

            haha that was a lot of nonsense. I was merely pointing out that we could not return to a gold standard before we start living within our means. We need tariffs so we will stop borrowing and spending so much money. Then we can consider moving back to a hard currency.

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. longshotlouie
  34. Erika

    Unbelievable! So sad to know that this economy will never again stand on it’s two feet with trillion and billions of dollars in debt. And it’s a shame that we, the people, unknowingly continue to bail out these thieves with their secret agendas at hand!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. VR

    A reminder to Congressman Grayson:

    We are a constitutional republic.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. Lindsey Brutus

      VR: Don’t detract fom Mr. Grayson’s message. I’m sure he knows that.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. VR

        Don’t see how I could have detracted from the message at all.

        We find ourselves here because the meaning of things are distorted by abuse of terms and language, and as a result we get the dumbing down effect (which explains Sean).

        If we are not vigilant on this point all of the victories will be for naught. We will arrive again at this destination.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0