Quote from clacy:
As you probably already know, it's entirely pointless to discuss the Fed, monetary policy, fractional reserve banking, etc with the "anti-fed" crowd.
For some reason, there is a segment of the public that has chosen the Fed as the boogeyman and the cause of all the ills in the world.
They will accuse you of spewing propaganda, when in turn they just spout all of the rhetoric that they get from shadowstats, coast to coast am, glenn beck, etc.
Not entirely pointless.
It's human nature to blame someone other than one's self. Scapegoating.
Federal Reserve's original mandate was 1. Stable prices. 2. Full employment. To more or less buffer the booms and busts. 1907 and 1873 come to mind.
Have "they" succeeded?
I use the Hershey bar as an example. For roughly 40 years it remained a nickel (albeit the size changed on occasion). In 1969, it went to a dime.
What's "it" today? Depict it graphically.
Full employment is deemed to be 5%. What's the rate today? Officially acknowledged at what just under 10%? What's the genuine proportion unemployed? Under-employed? More importantly, will the jobs "return"?
Blame it on the Fed? Naw, A combination of out-sourcing, technology replacing the human element and our schools minting gradutates with little job skills. Would you hire them? Then again, credit expansion, in effect shifting time forward and prompting spending played a role. Guess WHO is the root?
All in all, transitions from agraian to industrial to service/information economies. Can't outsource a hair cut, but how much will one pay for a haircut?
Multiplier effect of Fed open market operations buying Treasuries, from banks who maintain a reserve (sub-standard, doubtful, loss) and lend the rest can work in reverse.
Loan demand is down.
McChesney and Volcker were a good chairmen, Greenspan.............hmmm. Bernanke inherited the mess.
Mess, too harsh a word? No, mess means too much typing to discuss all facets.
Let's give "credit" where "credit" is due.
The name calling on here is a reflection of what?
