|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mises wrote: |
| The lands can be exploited to produce things. America doesn't have to sell/lease all of the land. |
Ah, yes an economy based on extracting natural resources. This has done wonders for the governments of Africa and South America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, right. About that. America isn't Africa or South America. America is more similar to successful countries like Canada and Australia who have become extremely wealthy by selling resources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
It has nothing at all to do with "hard work". Our debt is the result of criminal fraud created by the Fed and banks in callusion with our corrupt government, which spends far beyond its means. It is an unnatural debt (the kind that actually consists of our entire money supply, which is created as debt through the fraudulent form of fractional reserve banking), one that is literally impossible to pay off.
In fact it is impossible for our debt (which has interest attached) to do anything but increase over time- this is a built in feature of our totally flawed monetary system. It is also known as a ponzi scheme.
Having said that, selling all our land and assets off would be completely futile as it wouldn't even come close to paying off all the debt plus interest owed back to the Fed and the banking system. The only solution is to abolish the Fed and write all the debt owed to it off, suffer the consequences, and issue a new currency. Either way it won't be pleasant... |
Abolishing the Fed would not put an end to the private banking system or fractional reserve banking, both of which existed long before the fed was created and would continue to exist after abolishing of the fed. Furthermore, "As of September 30, 2008, the FRB owned $221 billion, net of $256 billion in securities lent to dealers, for total holdings of $477 billion.". Obviously that is a tiny fraction of the U.S.'s debt and eliminating that debt would be pretty insignificant, especially since the Fed returns its profits to the U.S. Treasury. Can't you read? That's all the time I've got for you today troll. |
Also FOREIGN nations own most of the debt not the Fed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm surprised you got that totally wrong, since I already posted the correct information in another thread. Your source says federal reserve and intergovernmental holdings. "And" is connecting two different categories. Actually the Fed holds about 5%.
"Intragovernmental debt holdings represent balances of Treasury securities held by over 230 individual federal government
accounts with either the authority or the requirement to invest excess receipts in special U.S. Treasury securities that are
guaranteed for principal and interest by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Intragovernmental debt holdings
primarily consist of balances in the Social Security, Medicare, Military Retirement and Health Care, and Civil Service
Retirement and Disability trust funds.3 As of September 30, 2008, such funds accounted for $3,788 billion, or 90 percent, of
the $4,202 billion intragovernmental debt holdings balances (see Figure 4)." http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2008.pdf page 15
"As of September 30, 2008, the FRB owned $221 billion, net of $256 billion in securities lent to dealers, for
total holdings of $477 billion. As of September 30, 2007, the FRB owned $775 billion, net of $5 billion in
securities lent to dealers, for total holdings of $780 billion. These securities are held in the FRB System Open
Market Account (SOMA) for the purpose of conducting monetary policy" http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2008.pdf page 23 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The link I gave referred to IG holdings. 'Spose I should have been much more specific and looked into the details. Fun stuff too. Paying 1 visa with a 2nd visa. The actual reality of the debt is much, much worse than if the Fed just held 100% of it. What a ponzi!
As a side, I consider the Fed (and to lesser extent Treasury) websites to be on par with Alex Jones's little operation. He writes about conspiracies. The Fed is the product of a conspiracy. Can't trust anything that it says.
Any discussion of what is owed and by or to whom is pointless without an audit.
It sure has done a good job tho:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/09/5324.html
I don't know why you continue to defend the Federal Reserve system. The jury is in. It is belligerently terrible public policy that consistently benefits (and manufactures) the super-hyper rich. Not you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| The link I gave referred to IG holdings. 'Spose I should have been much more specific and looked into the details. Fun stuff too. Paying 1 visa with a 2nd visa. |
Nonsense, The social security trust fund and the others have cash balances because they have received payments that exceed their current needs. They will need that money to pay benefits in the future but in the meantime they have cash that they could deposit in a bank account or they or they could buy interest bearing U.S. Treasury debt instruments. The U.S. Treasury could borrow from the trust funds or borrow from the public on the open market. Borrowing from the trust funds is perfectly sensible and efficient and probably saves the government money by eliminating the middleman that would be involved in selling debt to the public.
| mises wrote: |
| The actual reality of the debt is much, much worse than if the Fed just held 100% of it. What a ponzi! |
If the Fed owned 100% of the debt, the governments interest expense would be minimal since all of the Feds profits after expenses are returned to the U.S. Treasury . On the other hand, the only way the Fed could buy all the governments debt is by printing money and monetizing the debt which would result in massive inflation. Is that what you would prefer?
| mises wrote: |
As a side, I consider the Fed (and to lesser extent Treasury) websites to be on par with Alex Jones's little operation. He writes about conspiracies. The Fed is the product of a conspiracy. Can't trust anything that it says.
Any discussion of what is owed and by or to whom is pointless without an audit. |
The source I quoted above is the Financial Audit performed by the GAO included on the US Treasury's website.
| mises wrote: |
| I don't know why you continue to defend the Federal Reserve system. The jury is in. It is belligerently terrible public policy that consistently benefits (and manufactures) the super-hyper rich. Not you. |
Which jury is that? The one that includes you, visitorq, pluto and ontheway? There are quite a few professional economists who think Bernanke is doing a good job. Apparently you've excluded them from the jury you have chosen.
Anyway, where have I defended the Fed? The way I see it, all I have done is criticize the invalid criticisms of the Fed. Your team leader claims that the Fed does not return its profits to the U.S. Treasury. That is factually incorrect. Your team leader claims that the US pays $450 billion a year to the Fed . That is factually incorrect. Your team leader claims the Fed owns trillions of dollars of U.S. debt. That is factually incorrect. You yourself claimed the Fed held 49% ot he U.S. debt. That is factually incorrect. If you want to criticize the Fed, go ahead, just get your facts right. When you misrepresent the actual facts you just make yourself look like just another ignorant hagwon monkey. As for the Fed's public policy decisions, do you really think you'd get better results if monetary policy was taken away from the Fed and given to the politicians? Aren't you the one who said what a great job Volker did at the Fed? Do you think his policies would have been enacted if it had been up to the politicians? Or to the Treasury officials who serve at the whim of the politicians? Even if the Treasury economists were shielded from undue political influence, do you really think actual monetary policy would be any different than if it had been left in the hands of the Fed? You might not like Keynesian economics or whatever it is that Bernanke believes in, but would his policies be any different if he was doing the same job at the treasury that he is doing at the Fed?
If you want transparency at the Fed or greater accountability or less secrecy, I don't see any problem with that. I don't disagree with any reasonable criticisms of the fed. What I disagree with is ignorance of or misrepresentation of the facts. I also think that the jury is at best divided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shoot, Mises. You didn't tell me you had a team. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Shoot, Mises. You didn't tell me you had a team. |
| mises wrote: |
Ok. Enough.
There is a thread or 10 specifically about the Fed. Visitorq, dude, I'm on your team. I do not like the current monetary arrangements. But every thread now becomes an anti-fed thread. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Which jury is that? The one that includes you, visitorq, pluto and ontheway? There are quite a few professional economists who think Bernanke is doing a good job. Apparently you've excluded them from the jury you have chosen. |
You might find this interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html
| Quote: |
| Your team leader claims that the Fed does not return its profits to the U.S. Treasury. That is factually incorrect. |
1) who is my team leader? And team?
2) I've corrected that claim many times.
| Quote: |
| When you misrepresent the actual facts you just make yourself look like just another ignorant hagwon monkey. |
I guess.
| Quote: |
| As for the Fed's public policy decisions, do you really think you'd get better results if monetary policy was taken away from the Fed and given to the politicians? |
I'd rather that not happen. I'm with Friedman.
| Quote: |
| Aren't you the one who said what a great job Volker did at the Fed? |
He killed inflation and was hated. Hated. Bernake is destroying the dollar and is loved.
| Quote: |
| Do you think his policies would have been enacted if it had been up to the politicians? Or to the Treasury officials who serve at the whim of the politicians? |
It isn't an either/or. There are other possibilities to how monetary policy can be run.
The Federal Reserve is the product of a conspiracy by bankers and the super elite in 1912 to create a system that would benefit them, at the expense of us. How it was formed has been widely documented and is completely in the public record. Further, it is not at all transparent or accountable.
Here's a nice read from today:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/smoking-gun-fed-controlling-gold
But I don't want to be a hypocrite. I asked visitorq not to ramble on about the Fed in unrelated threads so I'll stop here. If you have a desire to continue on kindly use one of the Fed threads. I'll do the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| Your team leader claims that the Fed does not return its profits to the U.S. Treasury. That is factually incorrect. Your team leader claims that the US pays $450 billion a year to the Fed . That is factually incorrect. Your team leader claims the Fed owns trillions of dollars of U.S. debt. That is factually incorrect. You yourself claimed the Fed held 49% ot he U.S. debt. That is factually incorrect. If you want to criticize the Fed, go ahead, just get your facts right. |
I've debunked your nonsense ad nauseum. You know nothing about economics or how the monetary system functions (despite calling the rest of us hagwon monkeys). All you've got is that pitiful "fed myths" propaganda article which you keep using as a crutch, as if it were actually worth a damn (it isn't). You just keep arguing from your false, deluded premises, based on lies and propaganda.
Anyway, if you want me to debunk you in detail (yet again), reply in the eliminate the fed thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
