Trump craps the bed

[jem]

1. We created standards in the past. No reason we could not do it again. Could it be worse than an 96% loss in value?

Note, I am not saying we have to get rid of the Fed. I know we need more monitoring and limits on the money printing.

We can't expect a balanced budget would stop inflation... when inflation has most likely been caused by the creation of trillions of electronic dollars.

How can we make good choices without basic information about the Fed's money creation?


2. This is on the Feds own website... how many times do I have to show it to you.
The shares of the Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned.

(by the way... you must admit this to yourself... unless you can locate the shares... and tell me who the shareholders are and when they are having shareholder meetings. )


http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

(and the red herring is cute... because by putting there red herring in... they do bfuscate the obvious. they resemble private corporations because they are privately owned with profits being distributed in an unusual manner... but who needs profits when you have the right to mint U.S. Dollars (officially Federal Reserve notes) in any quantity you wish.

If you want a currency standard than suggest a standard and a mechanism that will work in today's world, i.e., be widely accepted by other nations.. No one else has been able to. You could be the first!

The Fed is not privately owned. To say that is ridiculous and weakens all your arguments. That is a fact, so it's you who are raising your voice and banging the table. Furthermore you are blaming the fed for all kinds of things they are not responsible for. Yes, they send dollars all over the world, but they are not the ones to make that necessary. That goes back to the U.S. dollar being the reserve currency which was an outcome of the Bretton Woods conference where the chief U.S.negotiator was not the Fed chairman, but Harry Dexter White who was representing the U.S. Treasury Department. The Congress makes decisions that underlie the things you are blaming the Fed for -- for example, inflation which is linked to deficits! You are blaming the Fed for things they must do to carry out their mandate. If you what to blame them for something, then find something where they have a reasonable choice in the matter. There are plenty of legitimate things you could blame on past Fed policy. Why not identify some of these things. You can try to second guess the Fed, like all those Wall Street Hedge fund jockeys, who managed to pull down a 4% return last year. (Personally, I'd put my money on the Fed as far more likely to get it right.)

 

[achilles28]

Donald Trump says "I love free trade," contradicting all his prior statements on trade


Then,
Watch: Rand Paul fact-checked Donald Trump when the Republican debate moderators didn't


And of course he holds the conspiracy view,
Why Republicans are getting one of the most obvious things wrong


"And Donald Trump andBen Carson both think the only reason the Fed isn't raising rates right now is that it's trying to help President Obama manage the debt."

-------------
-------------
-------------

One could make the case of a repeat of 1996 where the lunatic frontrunner gets crushed on Super Tuesday as the weaker candidates drop out to coalesce their support behind a legitimate candidate.

I think this was debate for the Donald and the beginning of the end.

Trump just surged to 42% in the latest poll. How do you like that, white bitch?

 

[piezoe]

1. We created standards in the past. No reason we could not do it again. Could it be worse than an 96% loss in value?

Note, I am not saying we have to get rid of the Fed. I know we need more monitoring and limits on the money printing.

We can't expect a balanced budget would stop inflation... when inflation has most likely been caused by the creation of trillions of electronic dollars.

How can we make good choices without basic information about the Fed's money creation?


2. This is on the Feds own website... how many times do I have to show it to you.
The shares of the Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned.

(by the way... you must admit this to yourself... unless you can locate the shares... and tell me who the shareholders are and when they are having shareholder meetings. )


http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

(and the red herring is cute... because by putting there red herring in... they do bfuscate the obvious. they resemble private corporations because they are privately owned with profits being distributed in an unusual manner... but who needs profits when you have the right to mint U.S. Dollars (officially Federal Reserve notes) in any quantity you wish.

Jem, I can tell that this is a topic that interests both of us. I want to mention that if you go to the NYFed website you can see an account of every Fed transaction in detail. They will tel you what they bought or sold and how much. The Fed audits are also available on the Web. There was a time in the not too distant past when the Fed wasn't very transparent, to say the least. But after the Greenspan era they responded to criticism by putting virtually everything into the public record, much of it in nearly real time with a few exceptions, and even the exceptions go into the public record on a delayed basis. Everything is there for you to see. Go to the NYfed site and verify this for yourself if you are so inclined. It is pretty astounding how much information is there..

The Bills to 'audit the Fed' now before Congress are disingenuous in that they aren't really about an audit -- the Fed is extensively audited already of course.. The Bills are really about giving congress more say over Fed monetary policy. That, in my opinion, is a very dangerous road to go down. The Congress did the right thing when they let the Fed establish monetary policy independent of the Treasury and Congress. The last thing any of us should want is more political interference with Fed operations. Of course the Fed works daily with the Treasury, but nevertheless the the Sec. of Treasury no longer sits on the Board of Governors. That's as it should be in my opinion.

The Fed profits, minus operating expenses all flow directly back to the U.S. Treasury. The Fed's operating expense includes a six percent dividend paid to member private banks in return for the Fed's use of their capital which they are required to leave with the Fed as a condition of membership in the Federal Reserve System. Of course the private banks do get a minority say in monetary policy and can influence fed policies in other ways. Nevertheless it is the Board of Governors that have the final say. It isn't a perfect system, but it seems pretty damn good. Recently there has been some agitation to get the dividend reduced. I think that makes sense in that it is a very low risk investment.

 

[jem]

1. Let's say we did not cover this before and I had not explained to you that the Fed is only showing you part of what they are doing and this is not full disclosure of how much money they create.

How would you go about proving me incorrect, when all I would have to do is prove to you they secretly created 7 to 13 trillion dollars to bail out banks and institutions doing the bank crisis... while putting on a big show regarding 750 billion from Congress.

In the last year I presented links from bloomberg talking about the creation of that money and that they did not report on it for a few years.

Here is time magazine talking about some of the secret cash creation... not revealed until 3 or 4 years later

http://theweek.com/articles/479867/federal-reserves-breathtaking-77-trillion-bank-bailout


"$7.7 trillion
Amount in undisclosed loans the Federal Reserve made to struggling financial institutions, according to the new Bloomberg report. "

2. The profits from some Fed operations may go back to the govt... but the profits that its shareholders make form getting free or next to free money are not given back to the govt. The big profits are in the money creation not the collecting interest on the bonds it buys through open market operations.

 

[fhl]

The Fed has already monetized 4 trillion dollars of public debt. How much worse could congress do?

At least if congress was doing it, it would be no secret that it was all about politics. But when you have a so called independent fed run by leftists that will do nothing to make the first black democrat president look bad for the entire time he's in orifice, even if it means helping to create enough debt and blow the biggest bubbles in history, it's going to discredit our entire monetary system.

 

[ETcallhome]

The Fed has already monetized 4 trillion dollars of public debt. How much worse could congress do?

At least if congress was doing it, it would be no secret that it was all about politics. But when you have a so called independent fed run by leftists that will do nothing to make the first black democrat president look bad for the entire time he's in orifice, even if it means helping to create enough debt and blow the biggest bubbles in history, it's going to discredit our entire monetary system.

better yet, let the fed control fiscal policy.

I would much rather have Janet Yellen announce what miltary spending will be and what social security and medicare taxes should be and what income taxes should be, and you can throw in what the min wage should be and the debt limit, than those dysfunctional clowns in congress.

 

[Tsing Tao]

better yet, let the fed control fiscal policy.

I would much rather have Janet Yellen announce what miltary spending will be and what social security and medicare taxes should be and what income taxes should be, and you can throw in what the min wage should be and the debt limit, than those dysfunctional clowns in congress.

Yes, by all means. Let's have a group that isn't elected, but instead appointed have access to control all spending on a fiscal basis for the country in addition to printing the currency. That can't possibly go wrong. Bravo.

 

[ETcallhome]

Yes, by all means. Let's have a group that isn't elected, but instead appointed have access to control all spending on a fiscal basis for the country in addition to printing the currency. That can't possibly go wrong. Bravo.

Yes, by all means, give some power to congress to print money. That can't possibly go wrong. Bravo.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Yes, by all means, give some power to congress to print money. That can't possibly go wrong. Bravo.

So your response to an asinine suggestion is to provide an even more off-the-wall one?

FHL is right - at least if Congress were doing it, they'd have to answer for it. They are elected. The Fed answers to no one.

 

[Covertibility]

I didn't include Trump's comment of low wages because really, the republican party doesn't care about working Americans. Take a look at their tax plans, each and every one favors the rich.

As for the Trumpites,

Trump just surged to 42% in the latest poll. How do you like that, white bitch?

Ah yes, national polling, it serves what purpose? Recall:

Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey


Final result: Obama 332 Romney 206
Not even close.

National polling means squat.

Google the 1996 republican primary. It is very likely 2016 will be a replay of that time period.