| Political Talk |
| Return to Board • Menu • Bottom |  Page 2 of 13  |
| Message |
| re: Greece--all the more reason Paul is right about competing currency As I understand it...*money*, in whatever form, is a kind of mini-contract, with a promise to uphold a particular deemed value which can then be traded for real production of goods and services. The inherent value of new money must be based on a REAL and current production of goods and services. Else wise, such money would have no true value as an exchange instrument for an equal value of goods and services from another source. Just 'creating' money, which is not based on any real production of goods and services, and expecting that it will not cause hard feelings in those who truly create money with real value - based on the production of goods and services - would be a foolish assumption. A lot of people want to lay up, without producing; and they elect governments which create money regardless of any (production of goods and services) value, in order to fund their laziness and irresponsibility. So, sooner or later, the farce crashes. Greece will bail, they're spoiled. Spain and France too...Socialist states whomever. Europe's going down, and it'll take us with them, probably. And there will be a big move for a One World currency; which could never work, for the same reason that individual nation currencies usually don't. Because a lot of individuals and nations are SLACKERS. In local pockets, it'll be barter first, then the creation of some form of *money*, to enable the local economy. Did yall watch Dick Morris talking about his new book, "Screwed", on Hannity. Wow! If Hillary/Obama is pulling what Morris says that they are with this International Treaty thing...there is going to be BIG TROUBLE from the Tea Party. Sounds like TREASON to me...pure and simple. Somebody needs to check into this Treaty thing, and start a thread to inform us all just how binding such might be. Does it have to be ratified? Better be.  Reply • Back to Top |
Posted by I B Freeman on 5/8 at 9:11 am to LSURussian quote: But it is absolutely relevant to your statement. Go back and read it. You seem to think that by simply issuing a new currency all is ok in Greece and that everyone's assets are protected which is complete and utter BS. quote: That is BS. Go to the bank and get a Euro based mortgage. Why the socialist and you want Greece to issue a new currency is so they can manipulate it. They can't manipulate the Euro--the EU may be ready too now that Sarkozy is gone but Greece can not by itself manipulate the Euro. The danger in monopoly currencies controlled by politicians is that they can manipulate them. There is nothing today keeping the FED and the Treasury from doubling the supply of US dollars.  Reply • Back to Top |
Posted by I B Freeman on 5/8 at 9:14 am to RCDfan1950 quote: Exactly. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:I have. quote:So when tight oil supplies are expected the price for oil goes up.....WHY?? When there are major crop failures somewhere in the world, the price for that product does not go up, right? quote:Wrong. The money supply expanded in 2008/2009 at the fastest rate we've seen in decades but there was DEFLATION in some asset values, not inflation. I agree there is generally a correlation between increasing money supply and inflation over long periods of time, but to say money supply is the sole determinant of inflation or deflation is absolutely incorrect. This post was edited on 5/8 at 9:27 am Reply • Back to Top |
quote:If you drew that conclusion from reading my comments, then there is nothing more we can discuss. You're corrupting my comments greatly. If fact, it is YOU who claims a new competing currency is the answer to Greece's problems. quote:I want Greece to issue a new currency?? WTF?? Where have I even hinted that I want that? You're not making comprehensible statements...just like your thread's title. I'm out. Stay uninformed. You'll be happier that way... Reply • Back to Top |
Posted by I B Freeman on 5/8 at 9:28 am to LSURussian quote: Price changes resulting from shortages or gluts are not inflation. Those are simply short term changes. A change in price of cotton does not mean corn changes too. However when essentially all the commodities go up in price it is a result of the supply of money and it is inflation. quote: You are wrong. Look at the chart I posted earlier. In spite of a huge infusion of money from the treasury and from the fed in 2007-2008 the money supply remained flat. That was because money was disappearing as fast as they were creating it because dollar based assets on the books of banks and in the hands of Americans were collapsing in price. This post was edited on 5/8 at 9:30 am Reply • Back to Top |
quote:  Reply • Back to Top |
| Russian, I have a serious question to which I don't know the answer: I understand that most economists define inflation as a rise in prices. I also understand your example that, in spite of increased money supply, some asset classes fell in price. However, as someone who defines inflation as an increase in the money supply, my immediate inclination when you say that prices fell is to retort "they would have fallen further, thus inflation from what the market price otherwise would have been." What is wrong with this logic? This post was edited on 5/8 at 9:37 am Reply • Back to Top |
Posted by I B Freeman on 5/8 at 9:38 am to LSURussian quote: Enlighten me. Just what is your objection to multiple competing currencies as legal tender in a country then? Do you not believe that by abandoning the Euro and establishing it's own currency people holding Euro denominated assets in Greece will get screwed? You even said their will be state established conversion rate---a state established. Don't you think they are going to make that conversion rate advantageous to the government? You have no objection that I see in any of your posts to Greece printing a new monopoly currency that the socialist can manipulate. You seem to see no danger in such power of state. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:I did. It proved to me you don't know anything about money supply. The chart is for M1 only. You obviously don't know what M1 represents or why it is not used as a comprehensive measure of money supply. If you did you would not have posted that graph. quote:  The prices of assets are NOT included in the calculation of money supply. Sorry, but you're just ignorant on the topic of money supply and currency manipulation. Frankly, I've come to expect that from most Ron Paul supporters. Reply • Back to Top |
Posted by I B Freeman on 5/8 at 9:43 am to Joshjrn quote: Russian was wrong. The money supply did not increase in 2007 and 2008. Prices would have fallen further but for the FED and the Treasury's intervention in 2007 and 2008 BUT the dollar would not have fallen as much either. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Where did I write that? I wrote there would be a conversion rate. I said nothing about it being state established. The market will establish a conversion rate. You're reading comprehension skills are lacking. Reply • Back to Top |
Posted by I B Freeman on 5/8 at 9:49 am to LSURussian quote: Oh great one please post a chart showing the increase in money supply in 2007 and 2008 you say occurred. Are you trying to say that banks were able to increase their cash holdings and deposit accounts (both components of M1) while their assets were collapsing? The whole friggin collapse was because of liquidity in the banking system. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:Again, your reading comprehension skills suck. I wrote the money supply (M1, M2, M3 and Monetary Base) expanded in 2008/2009 (which they did), NOT 2007 and 2008. quote:  The Fed didn't start increasing the money supply in response to the financial crisis until 2008, NOT 2007. And the Treasury has almost ZERO to do with the money supply. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:I didn't. Learn to read English, please. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: quote: That is the only way I know how to answer your question. Money supply increased but deflation was the worry, not inflation. As I posted earlier, money supply does have an impact on inflation but it is not the only determinant of inflation based on empirical data available. I think it is a vast oversimplification to define inflation as simply an increase in money supply. Reply • Back to Top |
Posted by I B Freeman on 5/8 at 10:01 am to LSURussian quote: You mean like the Chinese conversion rate? or perhaps the Argentine conversion rate? maybe even the Cuban? Reply • Back to Top |
| Address your untruthful comments about 2007 and 2008 and I'll answer your subsequent questions. Until then, I'll ignore you. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:NO! Most Paulites do. But not economists. quote:Not much. But you have to understand the Fed has been fighting deflation, not inflation, as the greatest macro-economic risk to our economy. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:100% correct statement. Reply • Back to Top • Refresh |
| Return to Board | ||
 Page 2 of 13  | ||
on 5/8 at 9:10 am to 
on 5/8 at 9:30 am to