Tiberius Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Do you just feel the need to ask questions? Because markets are not everything, they are just a part--a big part--of our society. So ensuring they run smoothly is only part of what the government does.. I ask questions to figure out and clarify what the !@#$ you're talking about. So ensuring the markets run smoothly is what the government does now with the resources they have why do they need more resources? Tanks can't be made from drool. Correct. However they can be filled with drool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Without the government creating the money, marker, value holder, whatever, there would be damn little factory labor going on. So, I guess, indirectly, the government facilitates the creation of labor, yes. Incorrect. Currencies exist, and have always existed, outside of the government. Governments simply seek to monopolize currency as a way to exert power and influence behavior. Were all governments, and government controlled currencies to disappear tomorrow, exchange would still occur, and markets would continue to thrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 1) So ensuring the markets run smoothly is what the government does now with the resources they have why do they need more resources? 2) Correct. However they can be filled with drool. 1) For other functions, like health care 2) Incorrect. Currencies exist, and have always existed, outside of the government. Governments simply seek to monopolize currency as a way to exert power and influence behavior. Were all governments, and government controlled currencies to disappear tomorrow, exchange would still occur, and markets would continue to thrive. No, the government creates currency to maximize efficiency. Ya, if government backed money disappeared tomorrow I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be a good thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve etc. The government makes the money in the first place You do realize the Federal Reserve is NOT a part of the US Government, but is a private entity, correct? Wait, of course you don't understand that, if you did, you wouldn't have written that last sentence which is factually untrue. Yes, they make the money. No, the do not. No, they print currency, which is nothing more than a marker for value. If it wasn't then there would be no such thing as inflation or deflation. This. They make the money. No, they do not. Saying it three times doesn't make it true. Do some research. Without the government creating the money, marker, value holder, whatever, there would be damn little factory labor going on. So, I guess, indirectly, the government facilitates the creation of labor, yes. I thought I knew nothing about economics but holy crap, you have no clue how anything works do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 No, the government creates currency to maximize efficiency. No, the government seeks to monopolize currency to exert influence and consolidate power. Your hero Alexander Hamilton agreed with me. The creation of a single currency and a national bank allowed for the government to establish a line of credit which it could use for federal expansion. It also made easier the collection of taxes. Ya, if government backed money disappeared tomorrow I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be a good thing! Bitcoin and other non-government currencies would immediately fill the gaps. The Free Banking Era proves exactly that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 1) For other functions, like health care What does health care have to do with the smooth and fair running of the markets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I thought I knew nothing about economics but holy crap, you have no clue how anything works do you? It really is amazing, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 It really is amazing, isn't it? It really is quite spectacular. I'm dumbfounded. I'm literally dumber for having read Gator's interpretation of how the economy works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 It really is quite spectacular. I'm dumbfounded. I'm literally dumber for having read Gator's interpretation of how the economy works. You should be terrified. He's ostensibly a liberal. So are you. So you get lumped in with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 This is as close as I can find to Gator talking about the economy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 This is as close as I can find to Gator talking about the economy: It's still always "double-dumbass on you!" when I read his drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I thought I knew nothing about economics but holy crap, you have no clue how anything works do you? I suspect he's been reading posts by Dorkington and feeling insecure about how little he really knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 What does health care have to do with the smooth and fair running of the markets? Nothing, you asked why the government needs more revenue. You do realize the Federal Reserve is NOT a part of the US Government, but is a private entity, correct? Not true. It is part of the FEDERAL government, hence the name Federal Reserve. So, you are wrong....again I thought I knew nothing about economics This is all you should have put down and left it at that. It's the only true statement you have made 1) No, the government seeks to monopolize currency to exert influence and consolidate power. Your hero Alexander Hamilton agreed with me. The creation of a single currency and a national bank allowed for the government to establish a line of credit which it could use for federal expansion. It also made easier the collection of taxes. 2) Bitcoin and other non-government currencies would immediately fill the gaps. The Free Banking Era proves exactly that. 1) Ummm....the money suply in the early part of the country's history was hardly monopolized. There was a lot of private notes that circulated as money. Buffalo's history was heavily affected by a guy, Ben Rathbun, who forged a ton of those notes and went, bankrupt in the late 1830's. He owned Niagara Falls, like the whole thing!- and most of the buildings in Buffalo and ended up in a jail he himself had had built. But the point is, my man Hamilton didn't create a money monopoly 2) Not going to happen, so whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Not true. It is part of the FEDERAL government, hence the name Federal Reserve. So, you are wrong....again NBC is the NATIONAL Broadcast Channel, does that mean it's part of the government? No. The name FEDERAL does not mean it's part of the US government. You're wrong. The Fed is a PRIVATE institution (/cartel) of banks. It has no oversight from the government, elected or unelected. http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 1) Ummm....the money suply in the early part of the country's history was hardly monopolized. There was a lot of private notes that circulated as money. Buffalo's history was heavily affected by a guy, Ben Rathbun, who forged a ton of those notes and went, bankrupt in the late 1830's. He owned Niagara Falls, like the whole thing!- and most of the buildings in Buffalo and ended up in a jail he himself had had built. But the point is, my man Hamilton didn't create a money monopoly Hamilton's creation of The First Bank of The United States in 1791 was absolutely an attempt to monopolize currency. Your Ben Rathbun example happened, as you mentioned, in the late 1830's, which was the beginning of the Free Banking Era. 2) not going to happen, so whatever Which is in no way relevant to your (poor) argument that the government "creates money". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'm just wondering why, if the government makes money, it needs to take some of it back. Why not just make more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 NBC is the NATIONAL Broadcast Channel, does that mean it's part of the government? No. The name FEDERAL does not mean it's part of the US government. You're wrong. The Fed is a PRIVATE institution (/cartel) of banks. It has no oversight from the government, elected or unelected. http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm You are wrong, right from your own link: As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government." http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12799.htm Also from your own link--so love it when idiots like you do my work for me! : The Federal Reserve, like many other central banks, is an independent government agency but also one that is ultimately accountable to the public and the Congress. You are a total moron Hamilton's creation of The First Bank of The United States in 1791 was absolutely an attempt to monopolize currency. Your Ben Rathbun example happened, as you mentioned, in the late 1830's, which was the beginning of the Free Banking Era. Which is in no way relevant to your (poor) argument that the government "creates money". Rathbun was carrying on before and after Jackson killed the bank. And private notes circulated before and after that. You have to admit that the "monopoly" has worked out really well, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 http://moneyfactory.gov/uscurrency/howmoneyismade.html Currency production at the BEP is quite different from its beginnings in 1862, which consisted of a handful of people separating notes with a hand-cranked machine in the basement of the Treasury building. The production of U.S. currency is not an easy or simple task, but one that involves highly trained and skilled craftspeople, specialized equipment, and a combination of traditional old world printing techniques merged with sophisticated, cutting edge technology. There are numerous, distinctive steps required in the production process. Money factory? Production? Craftspeople? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'm just wondering why, if the government makes money, it needs to take some of it back. Why not just make more? Still wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts