what about nationalizing the fed? ... make it part of the treasury department?
As a start, how about the Fed goes back to one mandate - constrain inflation. The dual mandate - economic growth AND constraining inflation is seriously very problematic. They are almost always at odds with one another.
I mean - hasn't anyone heard of the Phillip's Curve?
Where's the discussion on resource depletion, the roll of unsustainable suburbs and over-population and how that all ties in to all this? (Please don't tell me we're going to mine the moon next.)
What does that have to do with The Fed? No offense, but this doesn't make sense at all in the context of this discussion, Brian.
I'd actually prefer if the Fed stuck with buying MBS (or some similar private-sector instrument, from a sector in distress) rather than fruitlessly meddling in the US Bond market (something it already does to great extent anyhow) to dubious conclusion...
[good article on differences between the 3 QEs: QE1vs2vs3]
The swapping of "good money" for bad "money" (i'm assuming the MBS they are buying are at least somewhat distressed, ie. ownership of these "assets" is encumbering the bank, er sorry - institution - that currently owns them) is at least a valid tactic of "bail out" disguised as monetary policy.
If the central banks around the world would just focus on these type of activities that relieve REAL pressure from REAL economic activities that affect the average person (rather than just handing cash carte blanche to "the street" via government bonds), then perhaps "the system" can stay afloat for long enough for "them" to reach consensus on how to do the same thing for the central banks themselves (ie. come to agreement on a process for global public debt restructuring \ forgiveness).
Its not that I think its a great thing (in-and-of-itself) to hand owners of bad investment decisions money for those choices ... but it is at least a more productive use of money-power than pissing it to the wind for temporary blips of price in the public bond markets. At least in this process, money is selectively doled out to institutions with encumbered asset sheets, and - to the point of doing REAL good - REMOVING those encumbrances from the books.
Again, all of this will be for naught if the global powers can not agree on how to globally reduce all public debt by massive amounts. The world, in total, is currently encumbered by levels of debt it can NEVER hope to "repay" (the term itself is a joke anyhow, it would be like handing all of the money in players' hands in monopoly over to "the bank", and thinking your problems were solved, "the bank" can't distribute money in monopoly, only players actions can, except not without money to use in transaction first).
Post edited by DriftingByTheStorm on
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
As a start, how about the Fed goes back to one mandate - constrain inflation. The dual mandate - economic growth AND constraining inflation is seriously very problematic. They are almost always at odds with one another.
I mean - hasn't anyone heard of the Phillip's Curve?
so, you don't think the fact the fed is run by private corporations has anything to do with it?
As a start, how about the Fed goes back to one mandate - constrain inflation. The dual mandate - economic growth AND constraining inflation is seriously very problematic. They are almost always at odds with one another.
I mean - hasn't anyone heard of the Phillip's Curve?
so, you don't think the fact the fed is run by private corporations has anything to do with it?
I think you're kinda misconstruing the issue. I certainly am aware you don't like nor trust corporations. But, I don't think that's the issue here. The Fed would have no (or certainly less) power if it was private.
The Fed is not owned by anyone. It is not a private, for-profit institution. It received it's authority from Congress. I'd argue that although board members certainly do many times have private market affiliations outside the Fed, but the Fed - in and of itself - is an entity within government - yet with zero (or very limited) checks against it. I'd say it's pretty much a public body and a government body. The nature is without a doubt different than other governmental institutions, however. Much of that has to do with it's independence, which I'd say one of the major real issues.
They can do what they want and we, the people, sit back and deal. Now if you're claiming their private market affiliations and linkages affect their governance, I wouldn't argue that... but, that kinda takes us back to checks.
I think you're kinda misconstruing the issue. I certainly am aware you don't like nor trust corporations. But, I don't think that's the issue here. The Fed would have no (or certainly less) power if it was private.
The Fed is not owned by anyone. It is not a private, for-profit institution. It received it's authority from Congress. I'd argue that although board members certainly do many times have private market affiliations outside the Fed, but the Fed - in and of itself - is an entity within government - yet with zero (or very limited) checks against it. I'd say it's pretty much a public body and a government body. The nature is without a doubt different than other governmental institutions, however. Much of that has to do with it's independence, which I'd say one of the major real issues.
They can do what they want and we, the people, sit back and deal. Now if you're claiming their private market affiliations and linkages affect their governance, I wouldn't argue that... but, that kinda takes us back to checks.
i would say then our difference is semantics ... the result is the same whether you consider the fed a public or private institution ... either way - i don't see it operating in the interests of the people ... nor do i necessarily think that if it was nationalized it would run any better ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,417
Where's the discussion on resource depletion, the roll of unsustainable suburbs and over-population and how that all ties in to all this? (Please don't tell me we're going to mine the moon next.)
What does that have to do with The Fed? No offense, but this doesn't make sense at all in the context of this discussion, Brian.
I seriously do think it ties in because resources and environment are directly tied to everything we do in general and the shaky economy the feds are trying to prop up in particular. War is also related to resources- that and religion are what most of them are about- and war and economy are strongly related. And trumping all of that is population. When populations exceed carrying capacity, resources become a source of contention which affects the shaky economy the feds are trying to shore up and that most often leads to war. War creates a temporary false sense of a strong economy but when the bills come due the truth is plain to see. It's all related.
That's my holistic view on almost everything.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Where's the discussion on resource depletion, the roll of unsustainable suburbs and over-population and how that all ties in to all this? (Please don't tell me we're going to mine the moon next.)
What does that have to do with The Fed? No offense, but this doesn't make sense at all in the context of this discussion, Brian.
I seriously do think it ties in because resources and environment are directly tied to everything we do in general and the shaky economy the feds are trying to prop up in particular. War is also related to resources- that and religion are what most of them are about- and war and economy are strongly related. And trumping all of that is population. When populations exceed carrying capacity, resources become a source of contention which affects the shaky economy the feds are trying to shore up and that most often leads to war. War creates a temporary false sense of a strong economy but when the bills come due the truth is plain to see. It's all related.
That's my holistic view on almost everything.
Maybe you should make a thread about that then and not hi-jack this one.
Before you create that thread though look up Thomas Malthus. He said that because our resources are scarce and populations expand when economies grow - economics should be called the dismal science - because economic growth would cause populations to expand and due to limited scarce resources (like food)... that economic growth would end up causing starvation and death. Bottom line - economic growth does nothing good. He was wrong. He didn't account for technology. No one ever does. We can get more from limited resources with technology. As a result - the economic growth did result in population increases, yet everyone's better off then they were 200 years ago.
Anyway, back to the subject. The money supply has nothing to do with "scare" resources. In fact, if it were actually tied to a scare resource - like gold - we probably would be better off.
Comments
As a start, how about the Fed goes back to one mandate - constrain inflation. The dual mandate - economic growth AND constraining inflation is seriously very problematic. They are almost always at odds with one another.
I mean - hasn't anyone heard of the Phillip's Curve?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <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" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
What does that have to do with The Fed? No offense, but this doesn't make sense at all in the context of this discussion, Brian.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <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" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
[good article on differences between the 3 QEs: QE1vs2vs3]
The swapping of "good money" for bad "money" (i'm assuming the MBS they are buying are at least somewhat distressed, ie. ownership of these "assets" is encumbering the bank, er sorry - institution - that currently owns them) is at least a valid tactic of "bail out" disguised as monetary policy.
If the central banks around the world would just focus on these type of activities that relieve REAL pressure from REAL economic activities that affect the average person (rather than just handing cash carte blanche to "the street" via government bonds), then perhaps "the system" can stay afloat for long enough for "them" to reach consensus on how to do the same thing for the central banks themselves (ie. come to agreement on a process for global public debt restructuring \ forgiveness).
Its not that I think its a great thing (in-and-of-itself) to hand owners of bad investment decisions money for those choices ... but it is at least a more productive use of money-power than pissing it to the wind for temporary blips of price in the public bond markets. At least in this process, money is selectively doled out to institutions with encumbered asset sheets, and - to the point of doing REAL good - REMOVING those encumbrances from the books.
Again, all of this will be for naught if the global powers can not agree on how to globally reduce all public debt by massive amounts. The world, in total, is currently encumbered by levels of debt it can NEVER hope to "repay" (the term itself is a joke anyhow, it would be like handing all of the money in players' hands in monopoly over to "the bank", and thinking your problems were solved, "the bank" can't distribute money in monopoly, only players actions can, except not without money to use in transaction first).
If I opened it now would you not understand?
so, you don't think the fact the fed is run by private corporations has anything to do with it?
so you don't think the government and the largest private corporations are run by the same people?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think you're kinda misconstruing the issue. I certainly am aware you don't like nor trust corporations. But, I don't think that's the issue here. The Fed would have no (or certainly less) power if it was private.
The Fed is not owned by anyone. It is not a private, for-profit institution. It received it's authority from Congress. I'd argue that although board members certainly do many times have private market affiliations outside the Fed, but the Fed - in and of itself - is an entity within government - yet with zero (or very limited) checks against it. I'd say it's pretty much a public body and a government body. The nature is without a doubt different than other governmental institutions, however. Much of that has to do with it's independence, which I'd say one of the major real issues.
They can do what they want and we, the people, sit back and deal. Now if you're claiming their private market affiliations and linkages affect their governance, I wouldn't argue that... but, that kinda takes us back to checks.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <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" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
no ... i definitely believe that ...
i would say then our difference is semantics ... the result is the same whether you consider the fed a public or private institution ... either way - i don't see it operating in the interests of the people ... nor do i necessarily think that if it was nationalized it would run any better ...
I seriously do think it ties in because resources and environment are directly tied to everything we do in general and the shaky economy the feds are trying to prop up in particular. War is also related to resources- that and religion are what most of them are about- and war and economy are strongly related. And trumping all of that is population. When populations exceed carrying capacity, resources become a source of contention which affects the shaky economy the feds are trying to shore up and that most often leads to war. War creates a temporary false sense of a strong economy but when the bills come due the truth is plain to see. It's all related.
That's my holistic view on almost everything.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Maybe you should make a thread about that then and not hi-jack this one.
Before you create that thread though look up Thomas Malthus. He said that because our resources are scarce and populations expand when economies grow - economics should be called the dismal science - because economic growth would cause populations to expand and due to limited scarce resources (like food)... that economic growth would end up causing starvation and death. Bottom line - economic growth does nothing good. He was wrong. He didn't account for technology. No one ever does. We can get more from limited resources with technology. As a result - the economic growth did result in population increases, yet everyone's better off then they were 200 years ago.
Anyway, back to the subject. The money supply has nothing to do with "scare" resources. In fact, if it were actually tied to a scare resource - like gold - we probably would be better off.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <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" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49037337
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <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" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="