Acantha

Every time I give an answer you respond with Ron Paul (or something like it), so why bother? Last time you asked for a reference as to what exactly was wrong with the federal reserve, I linked you to an entire book on it, and you ignored it and said Ron Paul, because apparently you saw his name on the page. Forget that the book was written well before anyone knew who Ron Paul was. You give no facts, only reference a time-line of economic downturns, and yet when I give facts about what led to those downturns they are ignored. Why would I continue to do so, when you give no such thought in your arguments? I've already done this, you just choose to ignore it and call it outdated, with no actual reasons to back it up. You're only idea for financing 13 trillion dollar economy is to counterfeit your way out of it. I'm not going to argue against that kind of inane thinking. Especially when you refuse to do any research of your own. Because it's not my job to sit here and write a book about how your one link reference page came to be. I didn't argue that the wiki link was wrong, only that the research it took find it took about 10 seconds. I did go through the first two and clearly show they came to be. And as far as I'm aware, there is no email chain letter that describes, in detail, the first few Central Banking charters and how and why they failed. But go ahead and ignore the history. There are plenty of books on the issue that describe the history of our economy and what was going on during those time to cause the downfalls. I'd give you a list, but you'd just reply with "Ron Paul", so why bother? This makes you an idiot. Nope, not 30. I got into economic in the early 90s. Spent the first couple years learning the same tired crap that you're preaching....mercantilism, socialism, spend more, regulate more, print more money. I was turned on to other forms of economics, the different families of scientific economics, around 94/95 or so I'd say. So about 15 years, tops. And now I'm done. I'm done letting you demand me to come up with replies to your nonsense in "minutes". Next time I'll come down to your level and just link to a Wiki article about Ron Paul so that you can find yourself in familiar ground.

This post is the first that you have ever tried to bring any type of rational to your opinions. And what do we get? Wiki....nice. But hey, let's look at it. The first example shown says: So let's see, what was happening in 1819? Oh yeah, that would be during the time of the Second Bank of the United States (given a 20 year charter in 1816, and who's notes were accepted by the government for payment of taxes). In less than 2 years the bank had increased the money supply by 46%, and the effects of the inflation were beginning to get out of hand. In 1818 the bank tried to put a check on it by contracting credit and calling in loans, and rapid changes made things worse. Of course government legislation trying to help matters ended up making things worse. 1819 was the beginning of the "War" between Andrew Jackson and the Nicholas Biddle who was the director of the bank. As they were approaching the end of the charter, Biddle drove the economy into a boom like it had never had before, inflating the money supply at will. His attempt to get public favor failed though as people realized what was going on, and Jackson won the war in 1836 and the charter was not renewed (and Biddle was arrested on fraud, something our current directors should be worried about). The second reference of the Wiki article: was the bust cycle resulting from the Second Bank of the United State's actions. I could keep going down the list, but the facts are all there. You continue to only look at the Federal Reserve, and think that everything before that was all sans Central Banking (or central banking standards). But it's just not true. What surprises me is not that there are people who want to go back to a banking system that works, it's that people are so lazy that they can't even take time to see that we have been down this road before. No, it's not my choice. Inflation takes that choice away from me. Without using banks, I end up losing money. THAT's the control that they have. EDIT: And just because I advocate a banking system not designed on fraud, doesn't mean I want to go back the barter system. Not that I'm surprised you say that. Your hyperbole is really the only thing you have going for you. Also leave out the fact that today's technology makes using a standard money easier than it has ever been in the past. Sound banking would be far more efficient with electronic banking than it ever was. Friggin broken record. Once upon a time, Greenspan had libertarian views (like, back in the 50's and 60's). But by the time he was in charge of the Fed, he had spent his time with Morgan and become a good cronie. The policies he put forth in his time there were anything but libertarian. But lets ignore that with everything else, why not? Yes, small banks would fail because they would use unsound business practices to get richer. Their clients would flock to them because they were giving out more money and everyone would be getting rich. Then those banks and their customers would fail, and the ones left would be the ones who acted responsibly. And those banks would stand out among the rest. God forbid we allow the honest business's to survive at the expense of the thieves.

ANY facts would be a start. Banks can lend out money with the permission of owner. These would TIME deposits, and the depositor would understand that there money was no longer in the bank, and they would part of the interest. Demand deposits would stay in the bank, available to depositor any time they wanted. All money would be accounted for. You can look through history (sorry if more than a 100 years or so is as far as you can go back) and see how the banking system can prosper when the inflation of reserve banking is not aloud. You can also go continue in that research, find the times where these same banks decided their profits weren't enough, and instituted fractional reserve, and watch the inevitable collapse (of those individual banks). Then you can watch the same thing happen once governments get involved and legalize fractional reserve while at the same time forcing people to accept the money. Your system has been proven to fail....over and over again. I'm talking Rome, Greece, France, England, Germany; they have all failed. This is only the most recent time, and I'm sure it will happen again. There's no way governments will ever give up the idea of controlling the money supply to get whatever they want. But please, continue to refuse to actually do any research into the matter, as you are so fond of claiming of others. You've talked before about the recessions that took place before the federal reserve was created, but pay no attention to how the prior central banks had a part in those recessions. And even when there wasn't a central bank, banks were creating money they didn't have, and the government was making that currency as legal tender to pay taxes, basically creating the same exact circumstances that you see today. When counterfeiting is backed by the government, it causes monetary and economic collapse on a national level. But again, you'll refuse to back up anything you say with anything other than some mocking retort, in hopes that everyone will assume you know what you're talking about and back down. And it's of absolutely no surprise that once again your answer to me is "Ron Paul!!", even though I have never mentioned him. Even worse is that you don't even make an argument about why he's wrong...you just say his name (or in this case link to story about him) and figure that's enough. Once again, there's no more point in this. Until you're willing to actually bring something to a conversation there's just no reason to bother. Maybe I'll be stupid enough to play along again someday.

How about for once you come up with some facts. I've yet to actually see you do anything but challenge people with vague opinions. Careful though, there has been more than one central bank making a mess of the US economy. And so you don't waste your time with your current argument, I could care less if it's one bank making money from nothing (or less than nothing since it's created from negatives), or a thousand. As long as money is created at will, it's all the same game. A central bank only exacerbates the fall and the legislation making it illegal not to accept the paper makes impossible for anyone to have other options. And then go ahead and forward me some of the chain mail's I'm supposedly plagiarizing. I'd like to see one.

Oh hey, it's the Keynesian shill. I have never said I have any problem with banks. I do have a problem with central banking and the mess that fractional reserves, with some help from legislation allowing our central bank to be able to create as much money as they like, cause. And while I see no reason to do so if things ran properly, the first and last examples you gave could be accomplished without "banks", or at least what we call banks today. It would be wonderful to have banks around to "store" my money in, but unfortunately my bank doesn't do that. I deposit it, and it lends it out. My money isn't actually there. So really, not a great riddle.

Either does anyone, apparently. It's all the same thing to the banking system which uses debt to create money. The boom/bust business cycle on a nation wide scale like we are seeing now is not a function of the capitalist system. It's a result of the banking system. Without the processes in place to reward creating these artificial bubbles, individual business (including banks) wouldn't be able to have the overwhelming impact they currently do. In a capitalist system, these individuals would over-extend and go bankrupt, hurting those that were involved with just those businesses.

I really didn't think the was even necessary.

Twice an hour....25 times a day. I've got the answer. Watch less TV.

So are regular taxes. At least with the lottery there's a chance at getting something back.

One thing that is absolutely obvious from reading through threads on this board is that there are very few people here that pay a lot of attention to college football players. Yet somehow, everyone is an expert.

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/03/breaki...ca.html?cnn=yes

While I'm pretty neutral on him, I can see worse things than picking up a very dependable, veteran, #2 WR who has a reason to show off twice a year against Miami.

It's oSu. Wait...wrong board.

You're supposed to include pics. (has to be some buried pics of TrendiChick around...)

And as I've said repeatedly in this thread, I don't care about this administration or the last one. They're all the same. Though at this point (in the last two administrations), it has gotten to the point where they don't even pretend to use the money for constitutional means. They are simply saying, "give us your money so we can give it other citizens." And also as I've said before, that is the definition of socialism (in addition to government owning financial institutions and private industry, which is also happening with these bailouts). While I don't really consider it so much worse than what they've been doing for around a century when you really break it all down (I think it's all really bad), I do think there is a danger in the fact that they are able to be so brazen about it without anyone caring. At least when they were trying to hide it I could use the excuse that the average citizen didn't know any better. Now it's just, eh...whatever. In other words, the fact that country is well-footed in the idea..., sucks. And as for state's rights, they might as well be non-existent. Does anyone actually know anymore what Article I and the 10th Amendment say? The federal governments powers are supposed to be almost nothing but protecting rights (to include military). Almost everything else goes to the states. Yet today, the Federal Government controls everything. By they way, how is the federal government taking money from the whole country and giving it to states in line with the example I gave? It's exactly the opposite. The citizens of each state and their reps have no rights in the matter. Well, outside of giving up money but not taking any of their own money back. What?

It does matter, because both of the above work together. And just to put it out there, actual inflation is generally calculated to between 7-9%. It will be more with what we are doing now. But again, we are paying with that inflation, with a larger percentage of our tax pool, and with the fact that our spending will very soon cause the collapse of our economy due to the dollar being trashed. These are all ways we are "paying". EDIT: To expand on what I mean by "both work together": If we were any other country in the world, we would have to be paying all of this as it happened (through taxes and inflation). The only reason what you're saying works is because other countries are willing to hold our dollars. So while we create 1 billion, 750million is sitting in overseas banks waiting to be spent on the world market. If that wasn't happening, you would see inflation match the debt. And with each and every move we make to weaken our dollar (everything we borrow and everything we create our of thin air), we come closer to that reality. I never said I wanted nothing. I said I wanted them to live within the restraints of the constitition. It's not all or nothing. You can use any sample you like. Obviously speaking of just my personaly opinion, if it means not heading down the slippery slope of socialism, I'm willing to do without some of these things until the private sector gets to them itself. And if it is necessary, it falls under state control. There are MANY things "government" can do to change our lives that doesn't have to have the word Federal in front of it. If NY wants to tax to support education great! If Idaho residents decide that they want it all privatized, wonderful! And then I either get to choose where to live, or I fight to get my point of view across and get my elected officials voted in. The choice is there for me. That's what the US was founded on.

We are certainly paying more than 3-4 percent inflation. The way inflation is officially calculated is absolutely insane (the CPI as taken from that link). They've even changed it over the years to get rid of specific factors that make it closer to reality. There are some very interesting books on the subject that break it all down, but it would be too hard to go through it all here. The reason we're able to keep putting things off is because the dollar is still the worlds trade currency. This will not always be the case. As our dollar weakens and it gets to expensive to buy American goods, the world will make a change. Whether it be the Euro, Yuan, or a yet to be named currency, the dollar is heading out. Once the rest of the world no longer wants to hold our dollar, we will have to pay the piper. It's a devastating prospect. I don't have the time to get into this too much, but I will come back to it later. For now, all I can say is that continuing to do what got us here just doesn't make sense. If we hadn't had so much intervention in the first place, we wouldn't be looking up from such a deep hole right now. I won't change my beliefs just because things have gotten so bad. And military and roads are part of the governments job (some federal, some state). The internet has nothing to do with it, and the more it's regulated, the more it will hurt. Department of Education...have you ever seen the statistics for general aptitude that span from before the government took control to after? IRS...how's that working? There's no private functions that the federal government has taken over that they have not run into the ground with bureaucracy. Also, I'm personally on the side of giving the powers back to the state, as called for in the constitution. Not saying the states would do things perfectly, of course they would not. But it's far better to screw up on a small scale and be able to fix that than it is to have the whole country brought down the way it is now.

Ugh..nevermind. When your argument goes balls up, change to another one with just as many flaws. Great.

EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR that the government spends comes from us. When money is borrowed from other countries, we pay it back. Since it's so much, generally we only pay back the interest. As the interest goes up, more and more of our taxes (assuming there are no tax hikes) goes toward just interest on the our debt, and nothing else (military, government programs, etc...). That in itself is taking money from "us". But what we are doing even more is "printing" the money from nothing. We DO pay this money back because of inflation. It's simple economics. I really wish people understood this more than they do. We ARE getting taxed through inflation. Our dollars will buy less than they did before the bailout because there are so many more of them in circulation. THAT IS A TAX. If anyone can take anything away from this thread, it's hopefully that there is not one single dollar that the government spends that does not come from taxpayers. Period. And for your other point, you get no interest from me. I haven't wanted any bailouts or intervention at all. I'm just as against this one as I was the last.

Please quote in the 16th amendment where it says this (specifically the bolded part) When you can't, please go read Article I and the quote where it says congress can give my money to another private citizen. When you can't do that, maybe you quote some of they many places that put restrictions on what congress can do, just for fun.

There's nothing in the sixteenth amendment that precludes it from being restricted by Article I. The amendmet doesn't make us socialist, only those who don't think they have to follow our constitution (and those who vote for them) do.

Doesn't take a genius. Borrowed money comes due at some point. And while the title of the thread and article may have started with Obama, the socialism question has nothing specifically to do with him, other than he is continuing what everyone else has done. So the whole, "they do it too" argument is worthless. And if money is taken from me and given to another private citizen (or their business), it sure as hell IS socialism. There is no more clear definition. Lets put it this way: You are doing pretty well, have your houses rented and your gold piled up, and you and your family have 2 cars. Meanwhile, the family down the street got pulled into the credit expansion, is about to lose everything they have, and can't even afford 1 car. One night, an agent of the government comes and takes one of your cars and gives it to the neighbor, free of charge. It's only right, of course. Now this neighbor can use his car to get to a job, and everyone will benefit from that. Sounds good, right? Can't be socialism, cause some how, some way you are going to benefit from him having a car (he'll be able to get a job, and the money he makes will be spent on good, etc...). Of course you probably aren't going to buy another car, cause it will just get taken away from you again, but you know, besides that... Now, how is it different when the agent of the government takes your money instead of your car?

You're right. And now it's getting much, much worse. They aren't even pretending to be using this money for things that everyone uses. They're using it to pay for Bob's house. The socialism argument is not restricted to republican or democrat, or just to the stimulus programs. We've been heading down that road for over a century. This is just where we are now. Wait until these stimulus' make things worse, and we have nowhere else to turn. It's not going to be forever until we are no longer our own nation.