- 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: Someone Please Explain How Jerome Powell Is Any Different Than Previous Fed Chairmen?
Posted on 10/8/18 at 2:49 pm to Trump_Gump
Posted on 10/8/18 at 2:49 pm to Trump_Gump
quote:Are you saying the four examples I gave you are wrong? If so, let's hear you refute them.
You posted conjecture without citations, but that’s par for the course with lazy statists.
All of your responses to posts you disagree with can be summed up by: "Nuh-uh!"
Stay ignorant, Gump, it suits you.
1
Posted on 10/8/18 at 2:51 pm to Trump_Gump
quote:
You posted conjecture without citations, but that’s par for the course with lazy statists.
Simple way of looking at the Fed Reserve: $1 in 1916 was wprth obviously $1, that same dollar in 2016 is worth $0.01. Like a vacuum cleaner the Fed has sucked the value from our money. Every dollar printed is a tax we have to pay.
Posted on 10/8/18 at 2:54 pm to Pdubntrub
quote:Your numbers would be meaningful only if wages had remained at 1916 levels. Obviously, they haven't.
Simple way of looking at the Fed Reserve: $1 in 1916 was wprth obviously $1, that same dollar in 2016 is worth $0.01. Like a vacuum cleaner the Fed has sucked the value from our money.
In every comparison real wages have grown faster than costs. Americans have a much better standard of living today than they did in 1916 even making allowances for technology improvements.
And, FYI, the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, not 1916.
Posted on 10/8/18 at 3:05 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Are you saying the four examples I gave you are wrong?
The fed created all of those problems; it has nothing to do with rate setting. Inflation exists whether they raise rates or not.
quote:
Stay ignorant, Gump, it suits you.
When asked to provide credible sources, you resort to ad hominem schoolyard name-calling. The last resort of the desperate and angry.
Posted on 10/8/18 at 3:14 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Your numbers would be meaningful only if wages had remained at 1916 levels. Obviously, they haven't.
Real wage growth has been pretty stagnant for decades. This inflation that the fed has created all these years has been hurting American workers.
LINK
quote:
In every comparison real wages have grown faster than costs. Americans have a much better standard of living today than they did in 1916 even making allowances for technology improvements.
The federal reserve has nothing to do with the high standard of living we enjoy today as much as you want that to fit your statist narrartive.
Posted on 10/8/18 at 3:20 pm to Trump_Gump
quote:
The fed created all of those problems; it has nothing to do with rate setting. Inflation exists whether they raise rates or not.
You're not making any sense. Once again your entire response is "Nuh-uh!" Are you so ignorant of our history that you believe inflation, recessions and depressions only started in the U.S. after the Federal Reserve was created?
The Federal Reserve was created BECAUSE of depressions accompanied by financial panics taking place in the U.S. on the average of every 10 years in the second half of the 19th century. The most recent one before the Federal Reserve Act was passed was the Panic of 1907 following the Panic of 1901 which followed the Panic of 1896 which followed the Panic of 1893. See the trend here? Link because you obviously don't know how to use Google
quote:But you didn't call me a lazy statist first?? Grow up, snowflake.
you resort to ad hominem schoolyard name-calling.
quote:You want sources for the four examples I gave? All four of those examples are everyday common sense examples. I didn't include any example that requires a source. They just require someone using their brain to understand them. Maybe that's why you need a source.
When asked to provide credible sources,
If you disagree with any of the examples I gave, let's hear your reasoning why you think it's wrong.
Have you never taken even a basic, entry level course in economics? It appears you haven't.
Maybe you need a safe place to crawl into. It's obvious adult topics such as macro economics scare you.
Posted on 10/8/18 at 3:24 pm to Trump_Gump
quote:Where did I say it did?
The federal reserve has nothing to do with the high standard of living we enjoy today
What I said, and the logic clearly went over your head, is that just expressing the value of the dollar, i.e., price inflation, over time is meaningless unless wages are also compared.
Does that confuse you?
Posted on 10/8/18 at 3:29 pm to LSURussian
quote:
The Federal Reserve was created BECAUSE of depressions accompanied by financial panics taking place in the U.S. on the average of every 10 years in the second half of the 19th century. The most recent one before the Federal Reserve Act was passed was the Panic of 1907 following the Panic of 1901 which followed the Panic of 1896 which followed the Panic of 1893. See the trend here? Link because you obviously don't know how to use Google
Interesting that you only cite sources when it’s convenient (ie. Stating the obvious), but refuse to back up your previous conjecture.
quote:
You want sources for the four examples I gave? All four of those examples are everyday common sense examples.
I just asked for a citation. A simple “no” would suffice.
Posted on 10/8/18 at 3:37 pm to LSURussian
quote:
In every comparison real wages have grown faster than costs.
Even if this were true they still shouldn't have the authority to manipulate our money, which is exactly what they've done.
Posted on 10/8/18 at 3:44 pm to Pdubntrub
I already posted the BLS data to prove lsu russian wrong. He still thinks the fed has control over inflation 
He’s typing out long winded pretentious paragraphs as we speak to make himself feel superior at this point.
He’s typing out long winded pretentious paragraphs as we speak to make himself feel superior at this point.
Posted on 10/8/18 at 4:04 pm to Trump_Gump
quote:Hey now, ease up on Mr. Potter; it's past his bedtime and he gets confused.
He’s typing out long winded pretentious paragraphs as we speak to make himself feel superior at this point.
But seriously, that old curmudgeon apparently made a lot of money playing ball with the statists in his lifetime. He will defend them till his last breath.
Posted on 10/8/18 at 4:05 pm to Trump_Gump
quote:The Fed argues their policies have a lag, and the BLS data show an increase in the years preceding his 08/79 appointment and peaking in 1980 (13.5%) and rapidly deceasing after Reagan took office down to 3.2% in 1983. Your data corresponds reinforces Russian’s point and extremely well at that.
I already posted the BLS data to prove lsu russian wrong. He still thinks the fed has control over inflation
But your all over the map in this thread. I’m admittedly a novice on the topic, but your arguments don’t even make sense at that basic level. I still don’t know what your Keynesian nonsense was about, let alone why you’re arguing for lower rates from the fed while also arguing against the fed altogether.
This post was edited on 10/8/18 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 10/8/18 at 4:18 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Your data corresponds reinforces Russian’s point and extremely well at that.
No it doesn’t. There’s still 3.2% inflation, hence the reason why it is uncontrollable. A recession resulted from the reckless policies and they ended up with stagflation. You could argue that they are mitigating inflation but they aren’t controlling it by any means. They continue to devalue the dollar every year.
quote:
But your all over the map in this thread. I’m admittedly a novice on the topic, but your arguments don’t even make sense at that basic level. I still don’t know what your Keynesian nonsense was about, let alone why you’re arguing for lower rates from the fed while also arguing against the fed altogether.
It should be abolished all together but the lower rates would facilitate economic expansion. Many countries have stayed in an expansionionary period for decades with this strategy. The Us fed is just obstinate.With the yield curve flattening, it is a signal that we are about to head into a recession. So with all of the treasury bond indicators LINKpointing towards recession and inflation at 2%, why are they continuing to raise rates? If history is any indicator, we will be in a recession in the next few years and you can thank the federal reserve once again for exacerbating it.
This post was edited on 10/8/18 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 10/8/18 at 4:35 pm to Trump_Gump
quote:
Interesting that you only cite sources when it’s convenient (ie. Stating the obvious), but refuse to back up your previous conjecture.
The fact we had >30 Recessions/Depressions ( LINK) prior to the Fed forming is conjecture???
Posted on 10/8/18 at 4:37 pm to Trump_Gump
quote:I gave you a link because I referred to historical events that are not commonly known about. Based on your previous ignorant posts I knew you wouldn't know about them so I tried to teach you something.
Interesting that you only cite sources when it’s convenient
And yet, you refuse to acknowledge the information I provided other than to say I gave you a link. Why is that?
One more time: Do you believe that recessions, depressions and financial panics only started happening in the U.S. after the Federal Reserve was created? Yes or no. If you answer no, then you realize you earlier comment about the Fed being the reason those types of events happen is really, really dumb.
quote:One more time, do you disagree with the four examples I gave, yes or no. And if you do disagree, please tell me why you disagree.
I just asked for a citation. A simple “no” would suffice.
You see, I'll provide you links only if you disagree and explain why you disagree. There's no need for me to provide links if you agree. So, disagree, tell me why you disagree and then I'll provide you links to support my examples.
Posted on 10/8/18 at 4:43 pm to Trump_Gump
quote:You're either willfully obtuse or you're functionally illiterate. I never said we have not had ANY inflation since Volcker crushed the hyper inflation of the late '70's & early '80's.
No it doesn’t. There’s still 3.2% inflation
What I wrote was: (read the following statement slowly, out loud to yourself:
quote:
we have not seen inflation like that since.
We went from double digit annualized inflation to low single digits. Just as your own link shows....
Posted on 10/8/18 at 4:46 pm to Pdubntrub
quote:What do you mean by "manipulate our money"?
Even if this were true they still shouldn't have the authority to manipulate our money
This ought to be good.....
Posted on 10/8/18 at 4:48 pm to NC_Tigah
Not that part, that’s just common knowledge and stating the obvious.
We had recessions and depressions before the fed and have had the greatest depression of all time after the federal reserve act, so it's ostensibly not very effective.
We had recessions and depressions before the fed and have had the greatest depression of all time after the federal reserve act, so it's ostensibly not very effective.
This post was edited on 10/8/18 at 4:49 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News