- 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: The Time Table for the Dollar
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:48 pm to WikiTiger
Posted on 12/3/12 at 4:48 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
Why do you call them lunatics?
I know this is for THF, but anybody that thinks it would be a "good" thing to shut down the Fed truly has no idea what the Federal Reserve does, especially in the past several years.
quote:
Do you think central banking is a good thing?
I don't believe there is such thing as good or bad. You can make an arguement for or against any possible scenario.
Now the question becomes what I think you're trying to ask: Would an economy be stronger and less volatile with or without central banks? The answer to this is without a doubt, with. Monetary authorities are the only people that have made actual proactive decisions since 2006, and saved us from going completely down the tube. If you actually care enough to see my full take its the 13th post on this page. That's specific to the recent occurences, but on a higher level the central bank is the biggest reason the US has been able to grow and raise our standards of living in such a rapid manner since 1950. The problem was that standards were raised higher than the "intrinsic" value of the average American. This was partly to blame on central banks but also partly to blame on fiscal regulation and the majority of blame is saved for society.
quote:
Is it possible to dislike central banking and not be an anti-fed lunatic?
It is possible, but in practice it doesn't happen that often.
2
Posted on 12/3/12 at 5:50 pm to BennyAndTheInkJets
quote:
but anybody that thinks it would be a "good" thing to shut down the Fed truly has no idea what the Federal Reserve does, especially in the past several years.
What do they do that is so good?
quote:
Would an economy be stronger and less volatile with or without central banks? The answer to this is without a doubt, with. Monetary authorities are the only people that have made actual proactive decisions since 2006, and saved us from going completely down the tube.
I read your post in that thread. I disagree with your assessment of Ben, but I readily admit I'm no expert. It seems, though, that you're praising Ben and blaming government. Why not accept the reality that both are related and that thinking in some theoretical central banking model is not realistic, and perhaps a bit utopian?
quote:
on a higher level the central bank is the biggest reason the US has been able to grow and raise our standards of living in such a rapid manner since 1950.
ok...but...
quote:
The problem was that standards were raised higher than the "intrinsic" value of the average American.
I agree...
quote:
This was partly to blame on central banks
finally!
oh wait....
quote:
but also partly to blame on fiscal regulation and the majority of blame is saved for society.
damn.
This post was edited on 12/3/12 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 12/4/12 at 11:25 am to BennyAndTheInkJets
I think the whole basis for being "anti-fed" is the thought that a smooth, increase in wealth is a less admirable goal than a less "manipulated" free market where there are consequences for the players that aren't "smoothed." This is because the goal is purely freedom, not material prosperity and therefore everyone's actions shouldn't be smoothed economically.Also,as others have noted, the authority to control results leads to influence being steered by special interest, which the anti-fed sees as not worth the benefit of stability.
For example, government intervention by the fed and the government through easing and bailouts kept the entire banking industry from collapsing but the debt is racking up. I get what Ron Paul says when he says that our wealth is purely artificial because it is built on debt and monetary policy rather than on pure prosperity. I think if we had the swings in standard deviations cause by a lack of monetary control, it would definitely limit our expansion of standard of living. It would cause uncertainty and instability in employment, etc but on the bright side it would prevent the government from digging us in a hole that we may never be able to get out of. We may not be as rich as we are but government wouldn't have the tools to dig the long-term grave we are digging, IMHO. Definitely a great discussion. I understand both sides' points.
For example, government intervention by the fed and the government through easing and bailouts kept the entire banking industry from collapsing but the debt is racking up. I get what Ron Paul says when he says that our wealth is purely artificial because it is built on debt and monetary policy rather than on pure prosperity. I think if we had the swings in standard deviations cause by a lack of monetary control, it would definitely limit our expansion of standard of living. It would cause uncertainty and instability in employment, etc but on the bright side it would prevent the government from digging us in a hole that we may never be able to get out of. We may not be as rich as we are but government wouldn't have the tools to dig the long-term grave we are digging, IMHO. Definitely a great discussion. I understand both sides' points.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News