Get and (try) to read this book.... Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country.
It is 800 pages of pure insomnia-busting prose, your brain will literally execute a HALT command to end the misery. I've never made it past page 49. Now all I have to do is think of the book and my brain shuts down completely. It really is that horrible.
Get and (try) to read this book.... Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country
It is 800 pages of pure insomnia-busting prose, you're brain will literally execute a HALT command to end the misery. I've never made it past page 49. Now all I have to do is think of the book and my brain shuts down completely. It really is that horrible.
You must really pleased with yourself, champ. But like 99% of the propaganda digesters of reddit, you conflate the corporate-state-fuckfest we've experienced over the last four decades with free market capitalism.
I'm won't give you the blow-by-blow of the finance capital collapse. "Radical-Right" economists have been singing bubble before it was hip; they had that shit on limited clear vinyl. But I will dispel the "deregulated free-market" myth; but not by challenging the deregulation argument, though prior to and throughout the latest-and-greatest bust the SEC's personnel and payroll were at an all-time high. I will challenge the free market hypothesis by asking and answering one simple question.
In a free market society is there a central bank?
No.
These are those "entrenched inflation expectations" Jay Powell said he wanted to avoid:
>(In 1979) A jewelry manufacturer in Cedarhurst, New York, understood something about the American public that did not fit the President's message. Eugene Sussman had observed a new pattern of behavior among consumers which made it most unlikely that ordinary citizens however much they agreed with the President's (pro austerity) sentiments would actually act upon them. Sussman kept raising the prices on his luxury jewelry to keep up with the rising costs of gold and diamonds as well as wages. Each time he raised prices, he worried that he would kill his sales. Each time, his sales increased. The higher he set prices on the pins and rings and brooches, the more people bought.
>
>I'm talking about average working girls [Sussman said with wonder]. I see them on the street, wearing my jewelry. They're making $250 or $300 a week and they're spending it on jewelry. They have to have it. It's like food.
>
>I'm paying 120 percent more for my diamonds than I did last year, my labor is up 35 to 40 percent. My product gets marked up again and again. Rings that sold for $170 four years ago are $350, maybe $400. I can sell all I can make.
>
>The "working girls" who bought Sussman's fancy jewelry were on to something new in American life, the awareness that in this era of constant inflation it made sense to buy now and pay later -- to buy before prices went up again, even to borrow now and repay the debts in depreciated dollars. Most Americans could not pause for long to contemplate the President's warning about the emptiness of materialism. They were too busy buying things, buying them sooner rather than later.
from William Greider's "Secrets of the Temple".
Why does Powell want to avoid entrenched inflation expectations? The Federal Reserve was created by Congress and Wall Street and it serves the national interest, as defined by politicians. If politicians fear for their jobs due to inflation and "entrenched inflation expectations", then they will direct the Fed to step in. Of course the trick is how to slow the economy to reduce inflation, without causing job loss. Jamie Dimon just talked about "threading the needle". Is such a thing even possible? If you choose to juice the economy with monetary policy, is it possible to stop without withdrawal?
We will find out, especially with an election year coming up.
This read is excellent... https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567
Im currently looking to improve verbal by reading more as well. Working on this book here - https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671675567/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 . Safe to say this should be fine?
The Fed is a private corporation that is the largest single creditor to the US government. The Fed however has never been audited, and it is not accountable to US Congress, the President, or to anyone.
The pivotal issue in the documentary is that the Fed has a monopoly on printing money, which opens up the possibility for schemes for profit. It's kind of just saying an open secret because the Fed is already known to be a private corporation.
Critics and former politicians in the video argue a few additional points: 1) The Fed is the most powerful organization in the world, and 2) the Fed is the "one of the most corrupt institution in the world," and 3) the Founding Fathers particularly and sincerely believed that banking institutions are dangerous to liberty and sovereignty, 4) the Fed profits and gets power from the national debt
The video suggests as a solution, that the people and government should issue their own currency.
I have academic training in economics. Honestly, at that time, I was sold on mainstream economic theory on the Fed. It took me years to appreciate and realize the problems of inconsistencies and lack of disclosure surrounding the Fed.
Back then a professor I had recommended a great book, Secrets of the Temple. At the time, I burned a bit of credibility with him as I admonished him of the fact that this is fringe conspiracy territory, not accepted by mainstream economics. Years later I actually read the book. I should go and thank him for recommending it -- the fact I've come to realize is mainstream economics is not science; there are no experiments, no falsifiability of mainstream ideas: "distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—[...] such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific. The government won't let the public audit the fed. They won't allow any investigation.
>Any source that exposes the master plan?
Yes.
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567
> You got three economic experts discussing very specific details of the situation. You really have a problem with this?
If their arguments/conclusions are based on speculation, they ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, you have to question the decision to print a story that offers very little in the way of conclusive analysis. And expert opinion, especially an economist, is simply that. You have to evaluate it for yourself.
The conclusions of the second article are:
1) investors are confident (as evinced by the fleeing to US treasury securities)
2) CDC spikes indicate some anxiety about a debt ceiling deal
3) Things will return to normal after the deal is made since CDC prices are lower in the long term.
This is all well and good I suppose in terms of a short term outlook. The attitude towards it is just infuriating though: "Nobody panic. We're the largest economy in the world, and now matter how shitty things get, we'll be fine because our treasuries are as good as gold." It's nothing more than a reassuring bedtime story. The CDC analysis is interesting, I guess, but doesn't explain anything. It's just a bad omen detected by our economic shamans.
The problem I have is that this article, and the others, avoids the obvious explanation for all this turmoil. That is that the US Government is/will soon be insolvent. It sounds scary, I know, but there's no other way of putting it when a government can't pay off its debts.
Raising the debt ceiling to meet short term obligations doesn't address the underlying issue. Because if we allow everything to return to "normal", we'll simply be back in this situation a few months/years down the road. Each iteration of this cycle will be shorter and shorter until there's no choice but to abandon our delusions and admit to ourselves: the US government is insolvent.
When you stand back and look where all this money has gone, you'll notice that while nearly every corner of the country is crumbling from neglect, the defense industry, finance, pharma, agrobusiness, auto manufacturing, retail, etc... have all become increasingly monopolized. They become fat on government subsidies and protective regulations. Would lockheed martin even exist without taxpayer money? Probably not. I'd be so bold to say the existence of all of these monopolies is illegitimate. If this is normal, then we're truly fucked.
> This is the crux of the issue right here. You want a news outlet to be a university.
Absolutely not. University research is funded by the industry (eg. lawrence livermore academy.) I want independent thinking. The MSM is a gigantic circle-jerk proclaiming the greatness of this empire. American hegemony may be a fact of life now, but its current course is unsustainable. It's so easy to allow ourselves to be seduced by this superpower status and simply report on stories like the debt crisis as mere hiccups in a well oiled machine. "There's no way the US could possible default because it's the mightiest nation on earth. People flock to our treasuries as a safe haven. Let's all put our earmuffs on and stay positive and let this crisis resolve itself."
This thinking is akin to an elephant believing its flying after jumping off a cliff. In reality it's speeding closer and closer to the ground.
What's needed is a little common sense. We are the elephant (or donkey if you prefer) that is taking a leap off a cliff. Don't you think we have a better shot at survival if we for one moment face the reality that elephants can't fly and pack a parachute instead?
> Where would you go to find out about how a credit rating drop would affect the US?
I've read a lot of theories about US currency over the years. I think my current understanding is based on that. Not everything I read was correct, but they contain bits and pieces that I used to formulate my opinion. I use my judgement.
> where would someone who didn't know anything about economics go?
Regarding I haven't read it myself, I've heard good things about Secrets of the Temple.
An excerpt of an Amazon customer review:
> One might think of William Greider's "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" as "Central Banking for Poets." If you've ever scratched your head in wonder when reading how Alan Greenspan and the Fed have "lowered interest rates" or are "easing monetary policy," this book will be extremely enlightening and well worth the time it will take you to plow through all 700 plus pages. If (like me) you majored in economics, you'll be surprised how much better Greider is in explaining arcane economic theory than your college professors (and you'll probably learn -- or re-learn -- quite a bit in the process).
Banking isn't really that difficult to understand. It's just swathed in "arcane" language like "Quantitative Easing." Any newcomer can understand the concepts with relative ease once this obfuscation is removed. I read a book written by Edward G Griffin, who would be commonly regarded as a conspiracy theorist. The guy is obviously wrong in some areas, but I still think his description of "The bailout game" is probably the best thing I've every read on the subject. I was able to predict the TARP bailout in advance and understand what was going on during the initial crisis as bearsterns and lehmen brothers.
http://www.theantechamber.net/UsHistDoc/CreatureJekyllIsland.html#mm
He has an obvious libertarian slant, but the gist of the story is essentially verifiable. Please please suspend disbelief for a moment and consider what this guy is saying.
Really! Read a fucking book sometime; start here:
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567
>I wasn't comparing public vs. private.
Well seeing as how public vs private is what we've basically been discussing all along you've sorta take your eye off the ball then
>My point was that teachers make less than a lot of other professions.
Well no shit sherlock. And you must not have read that article you linked to me because it basically says teachers used to teach in private schools for less money but now, since private schools are way better, their salaries have risen, while public salaries and pensions rise markedly. Nice source fail.
>I disagree. The Libertarian stance is illogical. Reforming the system makes more logical sense then scrapping it.
I know you disagree, that is why we are having this discussion. And you may think that reforming the system makes more sense, but the facts state otherwise. We've tried reforming the system with a shitload of policy changes and budget increases, and newslfash, they didn't work.
>Yes, the Libertarian party wants to do away with public schools. Something that you denied earlier.
Again, this isn't true. I'm not going to deny that some libertarians may want to end public schools (they have a good point btw) but the platform calls for an end to the Department Of Education, which is a notoriously wasteful bureaucracy that has repeatedly been reformed to no avail. Am I making this clear?
>There's no monopoly on education. Private schools are an option.
Actually there is. Its actually the worst kind of monopoly, you are made to purchase a service which is getting more expensive and isn't improving, even if you don't utilize it. Vouchers, or dollar for dollar tax credit, would solve this problem.
>Money? Do you want private companies to start printing a competing currency or something?
Yes I do but I suspect you don't know much about monetary policy or you would realize that the Federal Reserve IS a private institution with a monopoly on the power to print money and artificially set interest rates. Recommended reading.
>Oh, we're too diverse! I don't see this as a valid argument.
No shit you don't see it as a valid argument, you disregard evidence at will. Even when a Swede points out that the socialist model in Sweden won't work in the US because its too diverse, you will probably deny the evidence again. Also, their school system includes vouchers for private schools, so you can credit Sweden's school system success because it adopted a classical liberal (libertarian) stance.
>Again, your diversity argument I don't find reasonable. And in the long term it leads to consistently better and more efficient healthcare.
Except that it doesn't. It leads to higher costs, rationing, and waste. Not to mention the fact that the current bill isn't even socialized medicine, its outright corporatism.
>This guys whole premise is flawed since socialized medicine consistently ranks higher.
Except that it doesn't. And in the end it only produces debt. But you'd probably prefer to reform debt than abolish it, abolishing it would be batshit crazy libertarianspeak.... Here is a quick quote.
"There are endless stories about Englishmen who trade their government-issued eyeglasses, wigs, and even false teeth, for beer. There are housewives who trade government-issued medicine for perfume and cigarettes. And there are some who pick up extra money by selling the gold fillings out of their teeth-getting them replaced by government dentists and then selling them again."
>The healthcare bill is far from perfect, it should have at least included the public option. It will help a lot of people though.
This is the sort of the blind faith collectivism that so worries me. The healthcare bill won't help me, in fact it hurts me. And as for helping a lot of people, you should really do more research because a lot of the analysis I've seen is that the current law helps the corporations more than anybody else. Even my doctor who prefers a single payer system or a medicare buy-in is opposed to this bill, because it does NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE SOARING COSTS. If HSAs were tax deductible that would drive the price of insurance down.
>They defined their beliefs and libertarian ideals as completely doing away with all government oversight on private industry and complete faith in greed and profit to fix all problems. Utterly unrealistic.
Yes well just because you believe something doesn't make it true anymore than what they believe is unrealistic. Fact is you can call anyone crazy for their beliefs it doesn't always make it so.
>Libertarianism seems to have quite a range and contradiction of beliefs though. Of that list what category do you see the Libertarian party most closely resembling and your own beliefs most resembling?
Yes we are a divided bunch, thats for sure. But its less contradictory than either party right now. But its not fair, and its dishonest to paint anybody with any belief set with such a broad brush. I'm more of a free market classical liberal. That traditionally lumps me in the the small L libertarians, which I'm fine with. I like Rands work a lot, I think objectivism is consistent. I think institutions like the Cato Institute and The Mises Institute broaden the debate in a non partisan way. I read Reason Magazine and the Economist, both of which are basically classical liberal publications. I wholeheartedly support Ron Paul on monetary policy (I read his book a few times now and I think everyone should) and I support Dennis Kucinich on ending wars. I supported Franken when he goes after corporatism, and I support Peter Schiff because he understands economics better than any man alive. I'm a complex individual as are we all, which is why onesize fits all solutions won't work in the US. Freedom of choice and of association is the best bet to fix market problems.
The Fed is a private corporation that is the largest single creditor to the US government. The Fed however has never been audited, and it is not accountable to US Congress, the President, or to anyone.
The pivotal issue in the documentary is that the Fed has a monopoly on printing money, which opens up the possibility for schemes for profit. It's kind of just saying an open secret because the Fed is already known to be a private corporation.
Critics and former politicians in the video argue a few additional points: 1) The Fed is the most powerful organization in the world, and 2) the Fed is the "one of the most corrupt institution in the world," and 3) the Founding Fathers particularly and sincerely believed that banking institutions are dangerous to liberty and sovereignty, 4) the Fed profits and gets power from the national debt
The video suggests as a solution, that the people and government should issue their own currency.
I have academic training in economics. Honestly, at that time, I was sold on mainstream economic theory on the Fed. It took me years to appreciate and realize the problems of inconsistencies and lack of disclosure surrounding the Fed.
Back then a professor I had recommended a great book, Secrets of the Temple. At the time, I burned a bit of credibility with him as I admonished him of the fact that this is fringe conspiracy territory, not accepted by mainstream economics. Years later I actually read the book. I should go and thank him for recommending it -- the fact I've come to realize is mainstream economics is not science; there are no experiments, no falsifiability of mainstream ideas: "distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—[...] such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific. The government won't let the public audit the fed. They won't allow any investigation.
Read Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal reserve Runs the Country by William Greider. http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1465262591&sr=1-1&keywords=secrets+of+the+temple
Oldie but goodie: Secrets of the Temple
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567