- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Will Trump Try to end the Federal Reserve?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:23 am to TigersHuskers
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:23 am to TigersHuskers
I see you have very little knowledge on the fed.
1
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:23 am to Abadeebadaba
quote:
No, it is dependent on the idea of "money". What is the value of that worthless piece of paper and what is backing it? Take away the construct of the Fed and this house of cards crumbles.
I agree with you. But shouldn't we want something less prone to manipulation to be the reference point for the value of our currency?
Fiat currency is why the American republic is now an American empire. It's why we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on military adventures all over the world.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:26 am to AUCE05
keep on eating that govt propaganda you fricken sheep
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:28 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:The "recessions" in the 19th century before the Fed were called "panics" because they were so extreme in their economic decline. And they occurred almost every decade in the second half of that century when the Industrial Age began shifting the economy away for agriculture to manufacturing.
but the severity assertion is dubious.
The Panic of 1907, the first panic of the 20th century, is what got the Fed created in 1913.
In 1907 without a "lender of last resort," which is what the Fed is, banker J.P. Morgan pledged his personal wealth to provide liquidity to the markets, which had completely frozen up, and he convinced other bankers to do the same.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:28 am to Peazey
quote:
Abolishing the FED would be an absolute disaster and celebration of ignorance.
Serious question, do you believe the American/world economy would have completely collapsed without Fed intervention during the 2008/2009 financial crisis? If so who would have gotten the blame for the calamity?
See, I don't think the US economy would have fallen into some huge abyss never to be seen again, what I think would have happened is 6-12 months of watching the Banksters who foolishly participated in CDO's/CDS's paying the price for their greed and the US would still be here today and probably in better economic shape.
But when the Fed is comprised of many members who have worked for these "too big to fail banks" you get a do over.
This post was edited on 4/28/17 at 11:40 am
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:30 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
I should have said frequency and duration. I misstated it. Apologies.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:31 am to TigersHuskers
quote:
keep on eating that govt propaganda you fricken sheep
Are you really gonna attack someone for "eating" propaganda in the same threat that you posted three Alex Jones videos because you can't think for yourself?
Wow.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:50 am to TigersHuskers
quote:
Why do we need a central bank in the first place?
Liquidity. Really, that's what central banks do well.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:54 am to GumboPot
quote:
Liquidity. Really, that's what central banks do well.
Yeah, liquidity based on........, faith/debt.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 11:56 am to Bass Tiger
A lot more people would have lost everything with out the Fed. Yes, things would have been much worse.
You can argue against "too big to fail." That's fine, and there has been a lot of discussion about how the concept encourages risky behavior. There had been discussion about contingencies to try to lessen the impact of individual institutions failing so that they could allow an individual institution to fail without decimating the economy.
That's a completely different discussion than trying to say that there is no use for the basic protections that a central bank provides.
You can argue against "too big to fail." That's fine, and there has been a lot of discussion about how the concept encourages risky behavior. There had been discussion about contingencies to try to lessen the impact of individual institutions failing so that they could allow an individual institution to fail without decimating the economy.
That's a completely different discussion than trying to say that there is no use for the basic protections that a central bank provides.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:23 pm to TigersHuskers
Do you guys think you and your immediate family will be better off if we got rid of the fed and destroyed our currency?
If yes, how so?
If yes, how so?
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:26 pm to Peazey
quote:
A lot more people would have lost everything with out the Fed. Yes, things would have been much worse.
You can argue against "too big to fail." That's fine, and there has been a lot of discussion about how the concept encourages risky behavior. There had been discussion about contingencies to try to lessen the impact of individual institutions failing so that they could allow an individual institution to fail without decimating the economy.
That's a completely different discussion than trying to say that there is no use for the basic protections that a central bank provides.
Wrong, a lot of folks still lost their homes, businesses etc. Look how much money was lost by retirees in fixed income investments from the monetary policy (ZIRP) that was put in place to save the "too big to fail".
Those folks were told not to risk their retirement savings when they retired prior to 2007, most were told to keep their retirement funds in a 20/80 mix because interest was in a normalized range (3-5) percent. All you have to do is look where most of the wealth increases went from 2008-2016 and you'll find a lot was in the 1-5%'er demographic, although for that matter anyone who caught on to the scam and jumped back into the market made decent money compared to near 0% interest.
Many of these folks had managed accounts and their brokers/money managers knew what was coming down the pike and knew how to position their clients to cash in, a lot of working stiffs did not.
Once TARP/QE/ZIRP kicked into full gear and the investment banks had cheap money to loan they got busy loaning money to real estate investment companies and to some degree flippers to help clear their books of the toxic real estate loans. So the real estate investment companies got distressed properties for fire sale pricing and a bunch of fricking people were out on the street. Hey guess what real estate investment took off after the dust settled in 2010/2011? That's right rental property and multi unit construction. Oh, I forgot, there was also a mini building boom on high end homes starting about that same time.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:30 pm to TigersHuskers
quote:
Will Trump Try to end the Federal Reserve?
there is no universe where trump could get rid of the fed. It just wouldn't fly with congress.
it would also be terrible for our economy. I don't like the fed but a transition from our fiat based currency would SUCK.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:33 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:Hey Hawkeye I just saw that CO dems are trying to revive the single payer bill that CO voters voted against last november.
Hawkeye95
CO is an interesting state to try to implement it. I was surprised to see a huge super-majority of voters vote against it last november.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:36 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
it would also be terrible for our economy
Why does everyone keep on saying this? its like the 2009 bailouts, they were mostly scare tactics with too big to fail. Yea it would have sucked for a while but we would have come out stronger, instead we just bailed out the NY Banks who continue to screw the same people who bailed them out.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:53 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Hey Hawkeye I just saw that CO dems are trying to revive the single payer bill that CO voters voted against last november.
i haven't seen this. It would fail, pretty much no one supported it last fall. They could fix the issues though.
quote:
CO is an interesting state to try to implement it. I was surprised to see a huge super-majority of voters vote against it last november.
I wasn't. It was poorly thought out, and the there was massive spending against it. Most of the liberals I know voted against it, not b.c they were against the idea but the amendment wasn't going to work.
CO is a strage state but still has a libertarian bent to it. We aren't california liberals here.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:54 pm to TigersHuskers
quote:
Why does everyone keep on saying this? its like the 2009 bailouts, they were mostly scare tactics with too big to fail. Yea it would have sucked for a while but we would have come out stronger, instead we just bailed out the NY Banks who continue to screw the same people who bailed them out.
The transition would be awful. And go look at the boom / bust cycle before the fed. The fed was created to slow that cycle down.
We would have an epic bust to start it off, as banks would likely severely reduce lending due to unknown factors.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 12:58 pm to stuntman
I'll settle for full disclosure and forgive any discretions if he does so
Posted on 4/28/17 at 1:01 pm to TigersHuskers
This thread is gold I tell ya.
And no, that's not a dog whistle either.
And no, that's not a dog whistle either.
Posted on 4/28/17 at 1:16 pm to mahdragonz
quote:
You think he's going to put his goldman sachs cronies out of a job?
First response. Nailed it.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News