Home› A Moving Train

Please Answer: Why don't citizens care...

inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
edited April 2012 in A Moving Train
...about Monetary Policy?

Definition of 'Monetary Policy'
The actions of a central bank, currency board or other regulatory committee that determine the size and rate of growth of the money supply, which in turn affects interest rates. Monetary policy is maintained through actions such as increasing the interest rate, or changing the amount of money banks need to keep in the vault (bank reserves).


I'd particularly like to hear from those who rarely discuss the subject. Please answer why you don't care. I'm curious. Thanks!
Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    Well, I care, so I will answer despite your request for answers from those who don't care or who don't discuss the subject.

    1. It may have a lot to do with the fact that people don't have the knowledge necessary to care or to form an opinion.
    2. People are too distracted: TV, sports, self-interest, the mall, celebrity worship, etc.
    3. People are programmed to "care" more about other things that the mainstream media tells them to care about: socialism, the evil marxist in the White House (despite the fact that 99% of those who use this word have no clue who Marx is), Wall St is our friend, the insurance companies are our friends.
    4. People are poor. Monetary policy of the central bank is the least of their concerns. Working a second job and putting food on the table is more of a priority.
    5. People are lazy---35% obesity rate and climbing.....

    Just a few quick points to answer your question. We are falling behind in every aspect of education--20th place or worse in the major subjects, I believe. Quite pathetic for the "greatest country on the planet," the richest country on the planet, and the most advanced country on the planet. That serious lag in education extends far beyond the classroom, and is not relegated to students only. The public at large is uneducated and un/misinformed.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    whygohome wrote:
    Well, I care, so I will answer despite your request for answers from those who don't care or who don't discuss the subject.

    1. It may have a lot to do with the fact that people don't have the knowledge necessary to care or to form an opinion.
    2. People are too distracted: TV, sports, self-interest, the mall, celebrity worship, etc.
    3. People are programmed to "care" more about other things that the mainstream media tells them to care about: socialism, the evil marxist in the White House (despite the fact that 99% of those who use this word have no clue who Marx is), Wall St is our friend, the insurance companies are our friends.
    4. People are poor. Monetary policy of the central bank is the least of their concerns. Working a second job and putting food on the table is more of a priority.
    5. People are lazy---35% obesity rate and climbing.....

    Just a few quick points to answer your question. We are falling behind in every aspect of education--20th place or worse in the major subjects, I believe. Quite pathetic for the "greatest country on the planet," the richest country on the planet, and the most advanced country on the planet. That serious lag in education extends far beyond the classroom, and is not relegated to students only. The public at large is uneducated and un/misinformed.


    It's quite sad that we all bicker about politicians, when the reality is The Fed arguably does more to control the economy than both political parties combined.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    inlet13 wrote:
    whygohome wrote:
    Well, I care, so I will answer despite your request for answers from those who don't care or who don't discuss the subject.

    1. It may have a lot to do with the fact that people don't have the knowledge necessary to care or to form an opinion.
    2. People are too distracted: TV, sports, self-interest, the mall, celebrity worship, etc.
    3. People are programmed to "care" more about other things that the mainstream media tells them to care about: socialism, the evil marxist in the White House (despite the fact that 99% of those who use this word have no clue who Marx is), Wall St is our friend, the insurance companies are our friends.
    4. People are poor. Monetary policy of the central bank is the least of their concerns. Working a second job and putting food on the table is more of a priority.
    5. People are lazy---35% obesity rate and climbing.....

    Just a few quick points to answer your question. We are falling behind in every aspect of education--20th place or worse in the major subjects, I believe. Quite pathetic for the "greatest country on the planet," the richest country on the planet, and the most advanced country on the planet. That serious lag in education extends far beyond the classroom, and is not relegated to students only. The public at large is uneducated and un/misinformed.


    It's quite sad that we all bicker about politicians, when the reality is The Fed arguably does more to control the economy than both political parties combined.

    It is quite hilarious (in the saddest way imaginable), and it will never end. We simply can't turn the corner into some kind of society with engaged citizens who embrace critical thinking instead of a society of mis/uninformed, distracted armchair quarterbacks with no real knowledge.
    The media guides the public discourse, not the people.

    This is an example of the de-evolution of our logic:
    384029_336004159762377_205344452828349_1258945_1057176552_n.jpg
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    whygohome wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    whygohome wrote:
    Well, I care, so I will answer despite your request for answers from those who don't care or who don't discuss the subject.

    1. It may have a lot to do with the fact that people don't have the knowledge necessary to care or to form an opinion.
    2. People are too distracted: TV, sports, self-interest, the mall, celebrity worship, etc.
    3. People are programmed to "care" more about other things that the mainstream media tells them to care about: socialism, the evil marxist in the White House (despite the fact that 99% of those who use this word have no clue who Marx is), Wall St is our friend, the insurance companies are our friends.
    4. People are poor. Monetary policy of the central bank is the least of their concerns. Working a second job and putting food on the table is more of a priority.
    5. People are lazy---35% obesity rate and climbing.....

    Just a few quick points to answer your question. We are falling behind in every aspect of education--20th place or worse in the major subjects, I believe. Quite pathetic for the "greatest country on the planet," the richest country on the planet, and the most advanced country on the planet. That serious lag in education extends far beyond the classroom, and is not relegated to students only. The public at large is uneducated and un/misinformed.


    It's quite sad that we all bicker about politicians, when the reality is The Fed arguably does more to control the economy than both political parties combined.

    It is quite hilarious (in the saddest way imaginable), and it will never end. We simply can't turn the corner into some kind of society with engaged citizens who embrace critical thinking instead of a society of mis/uninformed, distracted armchair quarterbacks with no real knowledge.
    The media guides the public discourse, not the people.

    This is an example of the de-evolution of our logic:
    384029_336004159762377_205344452828349_1258945_1057176552_n.jpg

    That is a great pic! And it's so true.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    inlet13 wrote:
    whygohome wrote:

    It is quite hilarious (in the saddest way imaginable), and it will never end. We simply can't turn the corner into some kind of society with engaged citizens who embrace critical thinking instead of a society of mis/uninformed, distracted armchair quarterbacks with no real knowledge.
    The media guides the public discourse, not the people.

    This is an example of the de-evolution of our logic:
    384029_336004159762377_205344452828349_1258945_1057176552_n.jpg

    That is a great pic! And it's so true.

    And it is very, very unfortunate. We are the nothing is my fault generation!!!
    What is the incentive to go into teaching in an environment like this? Why go into any public service job when we have those on Wall St. making hundreds of thousands of dollar doing nothing, i.e. contributing absolutely nothing to society? How many Ivy Leaguers do you know who go into teaching? We live in a system where the average salary for a professional baseball player is 3.3 million dollars (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/avgsalaries), the average salary for a public school teacher is roughly $40,000 and the average salary for a soldier is 40,000-60,000 (depending on housing, location, etc.).

    So, to bring my post back to your original post, the Fed is simply not on people's radars, especially those who are struggling, and those who are blinded by their own egos and ignorance.
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    inlet13 wrote:
    ...about Monetary Policy?

    Definition of 'Monetary Policy'
    The actions of a central bank, currency board or other regulatory committee that determine the size and rate of growth of the money supply, which in turn affects interest rates. Monetary policy is maintained through actions such as increasing the interest rate, or changing the amount of money banks need to keep in the vault (bank reserves).


    I'd particularly like to hear from those who rarely discuss the subject. Please answer why you don't care. I'm curious. Thanks!

    interesting topic...not sure what you're looking for...I find folks who want to talk about monetary policy to be condescending and difficult to please...they seem to have this notion that they a better because they seem to care more about "monetary policy"....

    you seem displeased by the current "monetary policy"...what is you'd like to happen in terms of changing "monetary policy"...? and how will it make everything better...?
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
    So far you've gotten no "I don't care because" answers and I'm afraid I'm another "I do care". I'd venture to guess some people don't care because:
    -as individuals they believe they don't have any power to change things or
    -they have so much money that policy doesn't affect them much or
    -they have so little money they don't think they'll ever have enough anyway or
    -they don't care about things they don't understand
    -or just plain apathy.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    brianlux wrote:
    So far you've gotten no "I don't care because" answers and I'm afraid I'm another "I do care". I'd venture to guess some people don't care because:
    -as individuals they believe they don't have any power to change things or
    -they have so much money that policy doesn't affect them much or
    -they have so little money they don't think they'll ever have enough anyway or
    -they don't care about things they don't understand
    -or just plain apathy.

    That sums it up a bit. But I'd like to learn more. These threads are a good start. I'm interested in hearing more of what you think Inlet. I cant say I dont care, but I can say that I dont know enough to think i can make a difference.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    I can say that I dont know enough to think i can make a difference.

    You don't hear many people making statements like this these days. We're all experts on everything!!! :mrgreen:
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    inmytree wrote:

    interesting topic...not sure what you're looking for...I find folks who want to talk about monetary policy to be condescending and difficult to please...they seem to have this notion that they a better because they seem to care more about "monetary policy"....

    Personally, I don't think anyone's "worse" or "better" because they care more about monetary policy. I just don't understand why people, in general (those who are better and worse or whatever), don't care about the issue.

    inmytree wrote:
    you seem displeased by the current "monetary policy"...

    I am displeased with the current monetary policy, but what good does that do when the majority of Americans just don't care about Monetary policy and would rather argue about federal tax policies that (politicians on both sides admit) will never happen.
    inmytree wrote:
    what is you'd like to happen in terms of changing "monetary policy"...? and how will it make everything better...?


    For me - First, I'd like citizens to become more engaged on the issue. If they did, I think that would be the best first step forward we could have. Why? Well, for example, is it OK with you if the Fed bailed out the EU?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u8tFqOIarc

    How will the Fed not bailing out foreign countries make things better? Hmm. Well, first - how about lower gas and food prices (via lower inflation) - i mean they're printing money in order to do this which causes price increases because as you print more dollars, each dollar becomes less valuable. Further, why would it be ok to loan money that they very well may never get back? How about more money in our coffers rather than foreign countries? How about if we're going to print money, we lend it to our own government (which is broke)? How about not printing money at all, or atleast considering limits?

    This (bailing out the EU) is just one issue. There's tons of them. For me, it's frustrating that people just don't seem to care.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    @brianlux and @JonnyPistachio

    Good points.

    It's interesting because I think this is the one issue where America really would agree, if they just kinda were interested. Moreover, if the media was interested. I'll tell you what... in my mind, they will be. But, it just hasn't gotten to that point yet.

    I mean, from my vantage point, I see Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party both siding with limits to what the Fed does or can do. Sure, someone like myself, may want things to go even further (stricter rules or perhaps abolishment all together), but...

    ...what's so bad with something simpler we can all agree on - like a Fed audit? Don't we want to know what they are doing? Who exactly is against this and why?

    The message of why the Fed matters isn't being articulated well. I understand all too well why the Fed was set up independent, but letting them whatever they want unchecked is not wise. And typically, unfortunately, those who tout why what the Fed is doing wrong are cast off as people wearing tinfoil hats (ie Ron Paul). This isn't really a Democrat or Republican issue at all. It's really what's the proper scope of the Fed? And where do their powers end? I think most want to reign the Fed's powers in at least slightly.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    inlet13 wrote:
    inmytree wrote:

    interesting topic...not sure what you're looking for...I find folks who want to talk about monetary policy to be condescending and difficult to please...they seem to have this notion that they a better because they seem to care more about "monetary policy"....

    Personally, I don't think anyone's "worse" or "better" because they care more about monetary policy. I just don't understand why people, in general (those who are better and worse or whatever), don't care about the issue.

    inmytree wrote:
    you seem displeased by the current "monetary policy"...

    I am displeased with the current monetary policy, but what good does that do when the majority of Americans just don't care about Monetary policy and would rather argue about federal tax policies that (politicians on both sides admit) will never happen.
    inmytree wrote:
    what is you'd like to happen in terms of changing "monetary policy"...? and how will it make everything better...?


    For me - First, I'd like citizens to become more engaged on the issue. If they did, I think that would be the best first step forward we could have. Why? Well, for example, is it OK with you if the Fed bailed out the EU?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u8tFqOIarc

    How will the Fed not bailing out foreign countries make things better? Hmm. Well, first - how about lower gas and food prices (via lower inflation) - i mean they're printing money in order to do this which causes price increases because as you print more dollars, each dollar becomes less valuable. Further, why would it be ok to loan money that they very well may never get back? How about more money in our coffers rather than foreign countries? How about if we're going to print money, we lend it to our own government (which is broke)? How about not printing money at all, or atleast considering limits?

    This (bailing out the EU) is just one issue. There's tons of them. For me, it's frustrating that people just don't seem to care.

    thanks for this info and well thought out response...

    as for bailing out the EU...I wonder what the alternative would be....let counties default...? not sure how that can be a good thing...even if we could save a few cents at the pump and grocery store...

    anyhoo...I'll try to brush up on my MP knowledge...
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    I think people believe they are talking about monetary policy when discussing taxes, the budget, etc. That is the biggest problem. to those who do focus on monetary policy, general populations don't appear to care...but I honestly believe it is mostly caused by a misunderstanding of the distinctions. Not that people are incapable of understanding the ramifications of monetary policy, but they think the tax rates are monetary policy.

    The general population believe they are talking about it, while those in the know, in position to make a difference in policy are the ones who choose to ignore it. It doesn't win you votes.

    I don't think it is apathy, stupidity, or uncaring attitudes that make people not want to know the distinctions, I think it is a purposeful house of mirrors built and maintained so the fed can operate without too much vocal public pressure.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    inmytree wrote:
    thanks for this info and well thought out response...

    No problem.

    inmytree wrote:
    as for bailing out the EU...I wonder what the alternative would be....let counties default...? not sure how that can be a good thing...even if we could save a few cents at the pump and grocery store...

    Your question is a good one, and I commend you for asking it. I mean what's the proper role? I have my opinions - they may differ from yours. But, I say even if my opinions don't sway others or the public doesn't agree with me - a public dialogue on the subject is better than no dialogue at all, where all of us just trust that Bernanke and the rest or the Fed are genius. I sincerely believe what he does is just as important as what Obama or Bush or congress do. It effects all of us directly.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,428
    That segment in the video that you posted, inlet, about the Feds printing more money and the dollars getting smaller (i.e. lower value)- that really concerns me. Where does it end?
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    Like several people have already said, the 'I don't care' is from lack of understanding what 'monetary policy' is and how it impacts daily lives. Lack of information, not 'news worthy' from the media point of view? Or considered too 'specialist' for the lay-person, therefore why bother to educate?
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    redrock wrote:
    Like several people have already said, the 'I don't care' is from lack of understanding what 'monetary policy' is and how it impacts daily lives. Lack of information, not 'news worthy' from the media point of view? Or considered too 'specialist' for the lay-person, therefore why bother to educate?

    Combine the lack of knowledge, with the lack of time/energy in our lives, and basically the feeling of helplessness when it comes down to it.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    brianlux wrote:
    That segment in the video that you posted, inlet, about the Feds printing more money and the dollars getting smaller (i.e. lower value)- that really concerns me. Where does it end?

    Right. If know one knows or cares, it won't end. They have all the power in the world with no real checks and balances. We aren't even allowed to know what exactly they are doing.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLE Posts: 1,895
    I would like a real discussion about the role that capitalism has played in our current economic crisis. Capitalism may be the "best" economic system out there but surely the amount of getting ahead, do anything to be wealthy, be a success, mentality has played a role in this situation. However, calling capitalism into question is a big no-no. You're un-American and certainly bordering on being a socialist if you wonder about the effects of a system that only awards "winners" and if you're a "loser" then its because your stupid or lazy or any number of other derogatory adjectives.
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    @redrock @blackredyellow

    I understand what both of you are saying, but I mean people have a lot of opinions on tax policy (or fiscal policy in general). That's fairly specialized and semi-boring stuff. People don't seem to feel as hopeless about fiscal policy - they have real staunch opinions on it. Probably because they think, "well it affects me through taxes".

    My point is - this affects us too. When we see the price of bread, milk, oil and BEER (my biggest pet peeve) jumping... when we see house prices jumping or falling... when we deal with economic problems by turning on the printers... when we rationalize why everyone (citizens, banks, corporations, and now even nations) need bailouts.

    This is real. We don't have to have the same opinions, but I really think everyone should try to have an opinion. We don't all need to be experts, but we need to have a general idea. This is important stuff. You know what I mean?
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    riotgrl wrote:
    I would like a real discussion about the role that capitalism has played in our current economic crisis. Capitalism may be the "best" economic system out there but surely the amount of getting ahead, do anything to be wealthy, be a success, mentality has played a role in this situation. However, calling capitalism into question is a big no-no. You're un-American and certainly bordering on being a socialist if you wonder about the effects of a system that only awards "winners" and if you're a "loser" then its because your stupid or lazy or any number of other derogatory adjectives.

    I think this is interesting, but no offense, I'm not sure it really fits in this thread...

    For example, quick question:

    Would you consider a Central Bank to be a capitalist institution?
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLE Posts: 1,895
    inlet13 wrote:
    riotgrl wrote:
    I would like a real discussion about the role that capitalism has played in our current economic crisis. Capitalism may be the "best" economic system out there but surely the amount of getting ahead, do anything to be wealthy, be a success, mentality has played a role in this situation. However, calling capitalism into question is a big no-no. You're un-American and certainly bordering on being a socialist if you wonder about the effects of a system that only awards "winners" and if you're a "loser" then its because your stupid or lazy or any number of other derogatory adjectives.

    I think this is interesting, but no offense, I'm not sure it really fits in this thread...

    For example, quick question:

    Would you consider a Central Bank to be a capitalist institution?

    No offense taken. No I don't think a central bank of any sort is a capitalist institution but if the government has no hand in the system then would that leave it all to private industry? Private banks for instance? With no regulations imposed on the system by the government? I guess I am assuming that many people to whom I have spoken that want to get rid of the Fed or any central banking system want it to be purely privately run, therefore, a more capitalist system. If that is not your take on it, then I apologize for my assumption.

    Edit: However, you're right my comments don't fit the context of the discussion you initiated. But thanks for addressing my comment.
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    riotgrl wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    riotgrl wrote:
    I would like a real discussion about the role that capitalism has played in our current economic crisis. Capitalism may be the "best" economic system out there but surely the amount of getting ahead, do anything to be wealthy, be a success, mentality has played a role in this situation. However, calling capitalism into question is a big no-no. You're un-American and certainly bordering on being a socialist if you wonder about the effects of a system that only awards "winners" and if you're a "loser" then its because your stupid or lazy or any number of other derogatory adjectives.

    I think this is interesting, but no offense, I'm not sure it really fits in this thread...

    For example, quick question:

    Would you consider a Central Bank to be a capitalist institution?

    No offense taken. No I don't think a central bank of any sort is a capitalist institution but if the government has no hand in the system then would that leave it all to private industry? Private banks for instance? With no regulations imposed on the system by the government? I guess I am assuming that many people to whom I have spoken that want to get rid of the Fed or any central banking system want it to be purely privately run, therefore, a more capitalist system. If that is not your take on it, then I apologize for my assumption.

    You said "with no regulations imposed on the system by the government"... I'd respond - what exactly are the regulations (or better put the checks and balances or constraints) to limit "the Fed's" power? Are there any whatsoever?

    I think most who are for the removal of the Fed want to return to a Gold Standard. This provides a check in the form of the gold's value. I see a lot of positives with this.

    For me, personally, I do think Free Banking is another possibility. I understand why this would concern someone though, but I think one can make a real argument that the market is more of a constraint then the current constraints against the Fed.

    At the end of the day, however, I think most people really want the Fed if it exists to have "regulations" or "checks and balances" regarding what it does. All other aspects of our government does. That seems to be a reasonable compromise. In my opinion, this problem isn't as simple as free-market vs. government. The Fed is a psuedo-government organization with very limited checks against it. Anyone arguing that the Fed provides regulatory safety should ask themselves... who oversees the Fed?
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    inlet13 wrote:

    My point is - this affects us too. When we see the price of bread, milk, oil and BEER (my biggest pet peeve) jumping... when we see house prices jumping or falling... when we deal with economic problems by turning on the printers... when we rationalize why everyone (citizens, banks, corporations, and now even nations) need bailouts.

    That's what I was trying to explain (probably not very well!). Most people do not 'see' how this 'monetary policy' affects our daily lives. Taxes - yes - means less take home pay. But monetary policy? Isn't that for the 'big guys up there'? What they talk about during their G8 summits or whatever meetings? Bailouts? Pfft... won't affect me. So they think.... Now, if the basic media would come out and say 'policy x agreed at the summit will mean that your beer will double in price because.... then people may start to try and educate themselves about this. I believe, for most, this is just above their heads. They think it's a 'country to country' thing and not something that trickles down to the individual. I guess people are like that - it doesn't affect them directly, there is an apathy about things.
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    redrock wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:

    My point is - this affects us too. When we see the price of bread, milk, oil and BEER (my biggest pet peeve) jumping... when we see house prices jumping or falling... when we deal with economic problems by turning on the printers... when we rationalize why everyone (citizens, banks, corporations, and now even nations) need bailouts.

    That's what I was trying to explain (probably not very well!). Most people do not 'see' how this 'monetary policy' affects our daily lives. Taxes - yes - means less take home pay. But monetary policy? Isn't that for the 'big guys up there'? What they talk about during their G8 summits or whatever meetings? Bailouts? Pfft... won't affect me. So they think.... Now, if the basic media would come out and say 'policy x agreed at the summit will mean that your beer will double in price because.... then people may start to try and educate themselves about this. I believe, for most, this is just above their heads. They think it's a 'country to country' thing and not something that trickles down to the individual. I guess people are like that - it doesn't affect them directly, there is an apathy about things.

    I get what your saying. Good point. That's probably it. I hope that changes, but I suppose it won't.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • redrockredrock Posts: 18,341
    inlet13 wrote:

    I get what your saying. Good point. That's probably it. I hope that changes, but I suppose it won't.

    I think it will inlet. The 'younger' generation is a lot more savvy now. I guess it is a bit different in the US than it is in Europe and that Europeans are a bit more au-fait with these matters. (Note: not an 'anti-US' jibe, just the political nature of the countries). It may take a little while but it will change.
  • DriftingByTheStormDriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    riotgrl wrote:
    if the government has no hand in the system then would that leave it all to private industry? Private banks for instance? With no regulations imposed on the system by the government? I guess I am assuming that many people to whom I have spoken that want to get rid of the Fed or any central banking system want it to be purely privately run[...]

    If you are talking about the role of the "central bank" (ie. US Federal Reserve Bank) in monetary policy ...
    US Constitution: Article I Section 8 wrote:
    The Congress shall have power [...] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

    The CONGRESS shall have the power.

    You have to be a "loose construction-ist" and support "implied powers" (as opposed to being an adherent of "strict construction" and "enumeration of powers") to buy the notion that Congress can delegate its explicitly enumerated power to regulate the value of money on to a seperate, INDEPENDENT, authority (ie. The Fed) of which Congress then has NO CONTROL over.

    The 10th Amendment says
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    So either you believe the drafters of the constitution literally meant what they said, and spend much time, energy, and debate formulating ... and which they added an entire Amendment seemingly to enforce ... or you believe, like the loose-constructionists that the Founders (after having watched their rights under British rule gradually erode down the slope of "interpretation" and abuse) for some odd reason left "loop holes" in the one thing which they specifically crafted to guard their liberties (against encroachment from the government they were in the process of forming) and thought that the government they were making should be allowed to decide itself what it ought and ought not be able to do.

    Just think about it for a minute.
    It shouldn't be hard to deduce that the Founders intentions were fairly straightforward and clear.
    It should also be fairly clear that ONLY A POLITICIAN would want to argue that this is not the case -- "wait wait, you mean because the constitution doesn't say we can do this, it means we can't do it? Oh no no no! I think it just means that we have the IMPLIED power to do it."
    :( :roll: :roll: :nono: :fp: :fp: :nono: :roll: :roll: :(

    Does the Constitution give the Federal Government the IMPLIED power to violate the Constitution?

    What are the IMPLIED limits on IMPLIED power?

    Why enumerate ANY powers if you believe in implied power?

    Does "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" not contradict the notion of "implied powers"? Doesn't it EXPLICITLY state that any such powers "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"?

    Just read this sub-section, Judicial Interpretation of the 10th Amendment of the Wikipedia page for 10th Amendment to see just how far your powers of "logic" have to devolve to accept the seemingly currently-accepted notion of "implied powers". (read the first section regarding Madison and the ratification of it as well) Even up to the 1940's the Supreme Court accepted as a TRUISIM ("so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device") that powers must be EXPLICITLY ENUMERATED.

    "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered."
    United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941)
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLE Posts: 1,895
    inlet13 wrote:
    riotgrl wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:
    I would like a real discussion about the role that capitalism has played in our current economic crisis. Capitalism may be the "best" economic system out there but surely the amount of getting ahead, do anything to be wealthy, be a success, mentality has played a role in this situation. However, calling capitalism into question is a big no-no. You're un-American and certainly bordering on being a socialist if you wonder about the effects of a system that only awards "winners" and if you're a "loser" then its because your stupid or lazy or any number of other derogatory adjectives.

    I think this is interesting, but no offense, I'm not sure it really fits in this thread...

    For example, quick question:

    Would you consider a Central Bank to be a capitalist institution?

    No offense taken. No I don't think a central bank of any sort is a capitalist institution but if the government has no hand in the system then would that leave it all to private industry? Private banks for instance? With no regulations imposed on the system by the government? I guess I am assuming that many people to whom I have spoken that want to get rid of the Fed or any central banking system want it to be purely privately run, therefore, a more capitalist system. If that is not your take on it, then I apologize for my assumption.

    You said "with no regulations imposed on the system by the government"... I'd respond - what exactly are the regulations (or better put the checks and balances or constraints) to limit "the Fed's" power? Are there any whatsoever?

    I think most who are for the removal of the Fed want to return to a Gold Standard. This provides a check in the form of the gold's value. I see a lot of positives with this.

    For me, personally, I do think Free Banking is another possibility. I understand why this would concern someone though, but I think one can make a real argument that the market is more of a constraint then the current constraints against the Fed.

    At the end of the day, however, I think most people really want the Fed if it exists to have "regulations" or "checks and balances" regarding what it does. All other aspects of our government does. That seems to be a reasonable compromise. In my opinion, this problem isn't as simple as free-market vs. government. The Fed is a psuedo-government organization with very limited checks against it. Anyone arguing that the Fed provides regulatory safety should ask themselves... who oversees the Fed?[/quote]

    I agree with you that there is no check on the Fed and there should be. Actually, most govt. agencies seem to be able to run as they see fit with no oversight at all which I think is a huge problem but I digress and I've already hijacked your thread. So to address your original question....I don't care about monetary policy becuase it is too complicated. I have a pretty strong understanding of economics and monetary policy and the scope often exceeds my grasp so at the end of the day it takes alot of my brain power to wrap my head around what should be ideas that we can all easily understand. Going back to a gold standard would be my first choice as I think it would simplify matters...to an extent.
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLE Posts: 1,895
    DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
    riotgrl wrote:
    if the government has no hand in the system then would that leave it all to private industry? Private banks for instance? With no regulations imposed on the system by the government? I guess I am assuming that many people to whom I have spoken that want to get rid of the Fed or any central banking system want it to be purely privately run[...]

    If you are talking about the role of the "central bank" (ie. US Federal Reserve Bank) in monetary policy ...
    US Constitution: Article I Section 8 wrote:
    The Congress shall have power [...] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

    The CONGRESS shall have the power.

    You have to be a "loose construction-ist" and support "implied powers" (as opposed to being an adherent of "strict construction" and "enumeration of powers") to buy the notion that Congress can delegate its explicitly enumerated power to regulate the value of money on to a seperate, INDEPENDENT, authority (ie. The Fed) of which Congress then has NO CONTROL over.

    The 10th Amendment says
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    So either you believe the drafters of the constitution literally meant what they said, and spend much time, energy, and debate formulating ... and which they added an entire Amendment seemingly to enforce ... or you believe, like the loose-constructionists that the Founders (after having watched their rights under British rule gradually erode down the slope of "interpretation" and abuse) for some odd reason left "loop holes" in the one thing which they specifically crafted to guard their liberties (against encroachment from the government they were in the process of forming) and thought that the government they were making should be allowed to decide itself what it ought and ought not be able to do.

    Just think about it for a minute.
    It shouldn't be hard to deduce that the Founders intentions were fairly straightforward and clear.
    It should also be fairly clear that ONLY A POLITICIAN would want to argue that this is not the case -- "wait wait, you mean because the constitution doesn't say we can do this, it means we can't do it? Oh no no no! I think it just means that we have the IMPLIED power to do it."
    :( :roll: :roll: :nono: :fp: :fp: :nono: :roll: :roll: :(

    Does the Constitution give the Federal Government the IMPLIED power to violate the Constitution?

    What are the IMPLIED limits on IMPLIED power?

    Why enumerate ANY powers if you believe in implied power?

    Does "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" not contradict the notion of "implied powers"? Doesn't it EXPLICITLY state that any such powers "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"?

    Just read this sub-section, Judicial Interpretation of the 10th Amendment of the Wikipedia page for 10th Amendment to see just how far your powers of "logic" have to devolve to accept the seemingly currently-accepted notion of "implied powers". (read the first section regarding Madison and the ratification of it as well) Even up to the 1940's the Supreme Court accepted as a TRUISIM ("so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device") that powers must be EXPLICITLY ENUMERATED.

    "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered."
    United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941)

    While I agree with your statement about ONLY Congress having the ability to coin money, regulate money, etc. I disagree with your statement about the intentions of the founding fathers. Since you did not specifically name a founding father that you had in mind with your statement, I will only address two of them. First, Alexander Hamilton was a loose constructionist as evidenced by his creation of the First Bank of the US (and his own writings which verify this belief) which was designed to help achieve Hamilton's vision of the US as an industrial power so business could more easily get loans to expand business. On the opposite side is Thomas Jefferson who is widely acknowledged as being a strict constructionist. Jefferson very much opposed the creation of a central bank in part because he saw the US as continuing to evolve as an agrarian society and there would be little need for business loans and the like. However, the founding fathers beliefs evolved over time and even the most vociferous champion of strict constructionism and states rights invoked implied powers as he saw fit. Jefferson used implied powers to justify his purchase of the Louisiana territory and took quite a few hits from other founding fathers (namely Hamilton) for his changing views. While debating the relative merits, of implied versus enumerated powers would be an interesting argument, I don't think the founding fathers would all agree with your statement, if we look at both their words AND their actions.
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • DriftingByTheStormDriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    riotgrl wrote:
    While I agree with your statement about ONLY Congress having the ability to coin money, regulate money, etc. I disagree with your statement about the intentions of the founding fathers. Since you did not specifically name a founding father that you had in mind with your statement, I will only address two of them. First, Alexander Hamilton was a loose constructionist as evidenced by his creation of the First Bank of the US (and his own writings which verify this belief) which was designed to help achieve Hamilton's vision of the US as an industrial power so business could more easily get loans to expand business. On the opposite side is Thomas Jefferson who is widely acknowledged as being a strict constructionist. Jefferson very much opposed the creation of a central bank in part because he saw the US as continuing to evolve as an agrarian society and there would be little need for business loans and the like. However, the founding fathers beliefs evolved over time and even the most vociferous champion of strict constructionism and states rights invoked implied powers as he saw fit. Jefferson used implied powers to justify his purchase of the Louisiana territory and took quite a few hits from other founding fathers (namely Hamilton) for his changing views. While debating the relative merits, of implied versus enumerated powers would be an interesting argument, I don't think the founding fathers would all agree with your statement, if we look at both their words AND their actions.

    Well I will grant you that, from the first Administration of our newly formed country, ALREADY the POLITICIANS were at work weaseling their way past the very constraints that they had just formulated.

    I guess what would have been better stated is that the *compromised intent* or *homogenized wisdom* of our Founding Fathers, put to paper in a formalized legal document indicates that the sum total of their collaborative wisdom seems to indicate that they well understood the dangers of unlimited Federal power ... or rather, virtually unlimited, or IMPLICITLY (har har) unlimited Federal power, and that they deliberately added safe guards to the constitution to express their own sentiment\warning against such formulation of "implied powers".

    That being said, I reckon you are right in the jist of what you say. Generalizations are generally dangerous. :)
    I have real mixed feeling about Hamilton. More so than any of the other high profile founding fathers, to be sure. His over focus on Federalism and Economic Growth seemed to leave him blind to the dangers of the system he was constructing. Also, while it has been a while since I have read them, I recall being put off more than once by both the nature of the language used against the anti-federalists (essentially accusing them of being outright ignorant) in The Federalist Papers (largely authored by Hamilton) and in several cases by what seemed to be to be obviously rhetorical and somewhat-dishonest (or naive) counter-arguments about the sure-fire safety of Federalism.

    On the flip side, I think Jefferson is probably the one who speaks to me the most in terms of what seems from his writings to me to indicate the detailed and explicit understanding he had of human nature, of liberty, and of his skeptical-enthusiasm for organized government, period. TO YOUR\MY POINT though, I think Jefferson probably makes one of the best cases for illustrating the dichotomy between how great a great thinker can be in the abstract or outside of specific instance ... and yet fail miserably to stick to their own conclusions when forced in to the POLITICAL arena. In other words, ONLY POLITICIANS would want to argue for Loose Constructionism, no sane CITIZEN would do so. Here Jefferson was as guilty as the rest.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
Sign In or Register to comment.