WongBo
WongBo
Joined: Feb 3, 2012
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 2126
June 17th, 2012 at 11:53:20 AM permalink
sorry if i offended you.
i deleted the post.
if you delete the quote,
it will be gone from the thread.
In a bet, there is a fool and a thief. - Proverb.
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1572
June 17th, 2012 at 1:36:46 PM permalink
I do appreciate the apology. I am not offended per say, I just feel like you are more interested in needling me than in debating. I am sure you can see why this would be frustrating.
Vote for Nobody 2016!
98Clubs
98Clubs
Joined: Jun 3, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1728
June 17th, 2012 at 3:26:31 PM permalink
Don't make me laugh, R. P. is a guy that ran a 3-man business negligently, and tries to silence that history.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1572
June 17th, 2012 at 5:48:33 PM permalink
Quote: 98Clubs

Don't make me laugh, R. P. is a guy that ran a 3-man business negligently, and tries to silence that history.



I don't know what you are referring to.
Vote for Nobody 2016!
vert1276
vert1276
Joined: Apr 25, 2011
  • Threads: 70
  • Posts: 446
June 18th, 2012 at 2:43:42 AM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

OK you claimed that the Fed does not control interest rates, I agreed that you were technically correct but that the fed has a very strong influence on rates. You debated that point as well so I made this statement:

The federal reserve and member banks through open market Activities as well as fractional reserve banking causes the money Supply to expand and contract. These fluctuations affect the Interest rate in a way that changes in savings would in a 100% reserve banking system using a commodity based money.

You jumped immediately to the fact that fractional reserve banking is next to impossible to abolish. I agree. But set aside policy for a minute man, I am trying to understand your point about the Fed. In what way is my analysis incorrect, or what am I missing here?



Who's savings? The banks? or depositors? Because depositors saving would only have an effect on a interest rates in a 100% reserve system if their savings accounts were not "on demand" accounts(meaning funds are no instantly available for withdrawal)....If a bank cant fractional loan more money then it has on hand based on deposits(which would be the case in a 100% reserve bank) then the amount of "savings" of its depositors is irrelevant....unless of course like I said before they were unable to withdrawal it once it was deposited....Kinda like buying a CD or a money market account or and annuity where you don't have access to your funds for a time period certain...In that case then yes savings would effect interest rates because more savings would mean increase liquidity which in most cases lowers interest rates...

But like I said before....a 100% reserve banking system is not realistic. Who wants to deposit their pay check on Friday and not have access to it for 6 months? Because that would be the only way a banking system like that could work....
bigfoot66
bigfoot66
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1572
June 18th, 2012 at 5:13:21 PM permalink
Quote: vert1276

Quote: bigfoot66

OK you claimed that the Fed does not control interest rates, I agreed that you were technically correct but that the fed has a very strong influence on rates. You debated that point as well so I made this statement:

The federal reserve and member banks through open market Activities as well as fractional reserve banking causes the money Supply to expand and contract. These fluctuations affect the Interest rate in a way that changes in savings would in a 100% reserve banking system using a commodity based money.

You jumped immediately to the fact that fractional reserve banking is next to impossible to abolish. I agree. But set aside policy for a minute man, I am trying to understand your point about the Fed. In what way is my analysis incorrect, or what am I missing here?



Who's savings? The banks? or depositors? Because depositors saving would only have an effect on a interest rates in a 100% reserve system if their savings accounts were not "on demand" accounts(meaning funds are no instantly available for withdrawal)....If a bank cant fractional loan more money then it has on hand based on deposits(which would be the case in a 100% reserve bank) then the amount of "savings" of its depositors is irrelevant....unless of course like I said before they were unable to withdrawal it once it was deposited....Kinda like buying a CD or a money market account or and annuity where you don't have access to your funds for a time period certain...In that case then yes savings would effect interest rates because more savings would mean increase liquidity which in most cases lowers interest rates...

But like I said before....a 100% reserve banking system is not realistic. Who wants to deposit their pay check on Friday and not have access to it for 6 months? Because that would be the only way a banking system like that could work....



Well it would be more likely in a world without government deposit insurance. Regardless, Savings is supposed to drive the interest rate rather than the whims of the bureauracrat who runs the federal reserve, BTW you still have not adequately explained why the conventional wisdom that the fed heavily influences the interest rate is wrong.

As consumers save, they consume less today and indicate that they wish to consume more in the future. Thus some resources that could be used to create consumer goods can instead be used to create producer goods like machinery that will allow more goods to be produced in the future. Higher savings means more money is available to be loaned out to finance the creation of these things. When the fed monkeys with the interest rate we get the signals that tell entreprenuers to borrow and finance production goods but the savings is not there to support it. Ultimately it becomes clear that the resources to finish the product are just not there and we see abandoned projects like the many in Vegas....This is the Bust portion of the cycle.
Vote for Nobody 2016!
richbailey86
richbailey86
Joined: May 8, 2014
  • Threads: 38
  • Posts: 325
August 24th, 2014 at 8:20:00 PM permalink
ron paul is good

see sig
An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government. Ė Ron Paul
Buzzard
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
August 29th, 2014 at 8:25:57 PM permalink
Quote: richbailey86

ron paul is good

see sig



Ron Paul is a nut job : ďThe Kennedy assassination probe and commission, we donít know the truth about that, and probably 80 percent of the American people donít even believe that [Lee Harvey] Oswald was the only one involved,Ē Paul said. ďAlso we donít know all we should know about Martin Luther King assassination, either.Ē
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
August 30th, 2014 at 6:05:00 AM permalink
Quote: Buzzard

Ron Paul is a nut job : ďThe Kennedy assassination probe and commission, we donít know the truth about that,



"It is possible that new evidence in the Kennedy assassination will never materialize......Thus far, public documents not originally released in or part of the Warren Commission's report from 1964 have not demonstrated that there was any kind of conspiracy, yet clearly most Americans disagree with the official findings. Speculating about who was really responsible for Kennedy's death will likely remain a topic of fascination for the American public for many years to come."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx

Everything has not been released, so there will always be skepticism over the truth.

Quote: Buzzard

and probably 80 percent of the American people donít even believe that [Lee Harvey] Oswald was the only one involved,Ē Paul said.



He's a bit off on his percentages, but a clear majority still believe Oswald did not act alone; though more do believe
he did so now than before:

Americans were skeptical about the "lone gunman" theory almost immediately after Kennedy was killed. In a poll conducted Nov. 22-27, 1963, Gallup found that 29% of Americans believed one man was responsible for the shooting and 52% believed others were involved in a conspiracy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx

"A reported 61 percent of people still maintain the belief that others were involved, a release on the pollís findings shows."

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/11/15/poll-61-percent-of-americans-believe-oswald-did-not-act-alone-in-jfks-death/

Quote: Buzzard

ďAlso we donít know all we should know about Martin Luther King assassination, either.Ē



There as always been some talk of this also.

It is hard to call Ron Paul a "nut job" on these particular issues...he isn't very far from the mainstream on them.
Gandler
Gandler
Joined: Jan 27, 2014
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 1413
September 1st, 2014 at 12:18:58 PM permalink
I used to big a huge Ron Paul fan. I voted for him last Republican Primary.

And on some issues he has great views, such as gold standard, and preventing inflation.

But I now disagree with him severly on foreign policy. I used to love his foriegn policy views until I learned more about the world. Sometimes direct interefence is nesecary to prevent Fascist Dictatoriships (Iraq) and to prevent the spread of religous extremeists. I don't think stopping all foreign miitary involvlments would be good, in fact it could be horrible. There are a lot of messed up people in the world and a lot of hatred and anti-semetism. A force of rightous global forces is needed to contain the evil.

  • Jump to: