Money is a repository of value, and when the government that issues that money reduces its value by inflation, it is in fact committing the criminal act of grand larceny against everybody in the world holding that money.
Well, my very, very amateur understanding is that the "Federal" Reserve was essentially conceptualized and created by a handful of very powerful bankers, private individuals with inordinate power over the lives of many millions of ordinary people. But that the idea of a "central bank" itself is in response to the financial instability that allegedly arises out of many different private institutions printing their own money. I assume it's in all our interest to have some sort of assurance that our money is safe and valuable and that it is universally recognized as such. I assume that a central bank is the best way to do that. However, why should we give that responsibility undemocratically to a board of "trustees" who don't have to answer to "We The People"? Would you be in favor of socializing the Federal Reserve, Bob? By socializing the Federal Reserve, perhaps the AEP could enact it's policy of outlawing inflation. Otherwise the AEP, even if elected wouldn't have any power to tell the Fed what to do, would it?
Last edited by Gary Childress on Sat Apr 30, 2016 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FlashDangerpants wrote: So you need enough money to represent the full market value of every object. Even though that value changes when the object is made more valuable through work, or it just becomes more valuable through demand. And now you are accounting for services as objects of value which is immediately consumed and destroyed. So those service objects require you to print new money too, as they cannot be paid for using the money you printed to cover the value of real objects. You are describing an impossible project that fails to meet its basic obligation to control prices. If you want inflation to stop, you have to make it illegal for workers to get pay rises and for producers to increase their prices. A house has to be sold for exactly the price it was bought at, and improving objects to make them more valuable must be illegal too.
Please, no more gobbledegook.
Inflation is what happens when people change prices for stuff.
You can only influence that with money supply.
If you want it to stop - especially given your insane plan to print unlimited money for no reason...
You have to make it illegal to change prices of stuff.
FWIW, here's an 8 minute video of Noam Chomsky answering a question from a listener at one of his speaking events regarding the Fed: https://youtu.be/w2mik_g21gg
"If it wasn't for the Federal Reserve's ability to print money we would be in a deep depression right now."
Money is a repository of value, and when the government that issues that money reduces its value by inflation, it is in fact committing the criminal act of grand larceny against everybody in the world holding that money.
Well, my very, very amateur understanding is that the "Federal" Reserve was essentially conceptualized and created by a handful of very powerful bankers, private individuals with inordinate power over the lives of many millions of ordinary people. But that the idea of a "central bank" itself is in response to the financial instability that allegedly arises out of many different private institutions printing their own money. I assume it's in all our interest to have some sort of assurance that our money is safe and valuable and that it is universally recognized as such. I assume that a central bank is the best way to do that. However, why should we give that responsibility undemocratically to a board of "trustees" who don't have to answer to "We The People"? Would you be in favor of socializing the Federal Reserve, Bob? By socializing the Federal Reserve, perhaps the AEP could enact it's policy of outlawing inflation. Otherwise the AEP, even if elected wouldn't have any power to tell the Fed what to do, would it?
Under the AEP, only banks would be able to create money backed by certificates of property value. The government couldn't just print money willy-nilly to pay for anything, and would be required to pay for everything through taxation, and not allowed to create inflation. Any tendency toward inflation would be controlled through taxation to reduce the money supply.
bobevenson wrote:Any tendency toward inflation would be controlled through taxation to reduce the money supply.
higher taxes would provoke employees to demand higher wages, and employers would respond with higher prices, and you would have to respond with still higher taxes. Which is a spiral.
You give yourself only one tool to achieve a lot of policy objectives with this plan. Failure is built in.
bobevenson wrote:Money is a repository of value, and when the government that issues that money reduces its value by inflation, it is in fact committing the criminal act of grand larceny against everybody in the world holding that money.
Well, my very, very amateur understanding is that the "Federal" Reserve was essentially conceptualized and created by a handful of very powerful bankers, private individuals with inordinate power over the lives of many millions of ordinary people. But that the idea of a "central bank" itself is in response to the financial instability that allegedly arises out of many different private institutions printing their own money. I assume it's in all our interest to have some sort of assurance that our money is safe and valuable and that it is universally recognized as such. I assume that a central bank is the best way to do that. However, why should we give that responsibility undemocratically to a board of "trustees" who don't have to answer to "We The People"? Would you be in favor of socializing the Federal Reserve, Bob? By socializing the Federal Reserve, perhaps the AEP could enact it's policy of outlawing inflation. Otherwise the AEP, even if elected wouldn't have any power to tell the Fed what to do, would it?
Under the AEP, only banks would be able to create money backed by certificates of property value. The government couldn't just print money willy-nilly to pay for anything, and would be required to pay for everything through taxation, and not allowed to create inflation. Any tendency toward inflation would be controlled through taxation to reduce the money supply.
Two questions spring to mind, Bob:
1. If people don't agree to pay those taxes, what will you do to them?
2. Do you have any formal training in economics or are your economic beliefs "divinely inspired" or where do you place justification in your "prescriptions" for society at large?
bobevenson wrote:Any tendency toward inflation would be controlled through taxation to reduce the money supply.
higher taxes would provoke employees to demand higher wages, and employers would respond with higher prices, and you would have to respond with still higher taxes. Which is a spiral.
You give yourself only one tool to achieve a lot of policy objectives with this plan. Failure is built in.
Under the AEP, employers can hire whomever they want and pay whatever wages they want.
bobevenson wrote:Any tendency toward inflation would be controlled through taxation to reduce the money supply.
higher taxes would provoke employees to demand higher wages, and employers would respond with higher prices, and you would have to respond with still higher taxes. Which is a spiral.
You give yourself only one tool to achieve a lot of policy objectives with this plan. Failure is built in.
Under the AEP, employers can hire whomever they want and pay whatever wages they want.
What if your policies tank the economy, though? Then employers wouldn't be doing much hiring in any case. Before I vote for the AEP, I would want some sort of assurance that you know what you are talking about in economic matters before we go around making radical adjustments to the economic system.
Gary Childress wrote:What if your policies tank the economy?
Free-market capitalism is incapable of tanking the economy; only socialist-oriented governments can do that.
What is your proof of this claim? Can you present evidence to back this up? I mean, there have been horrible conditions under capitalism in the past. Before the Great Depression and the New Deal (and hence much government intervention in the economy), there were many other financial crises that erupted from time to time.
