Ur banks are belong to us

[Correction]

Excellent, successful troll of Maxx. Post Count +1 MY GOD I RULE SO MUCH WITHOUT POSTING ANYTHING

[guartz]

Is it really so much to expect someone to be able to incorporate a relevant reading into their argument (and provide sources if they wish/are asked) instead of just repeating "<insert vague or general point>, look it up if you don't understand"?

fuck

yes, I have to assume most of you don't have questia accounts. So I'd be forced to see if similar articles are available for free. Why go through all that trouble if your not gonna read it?

[Beckwin]

I'm talking about you actually incorporating the content/ideas of the article into your own argument.

Instead of "hmm, this article is saying bad things about the Fed. My argument is that the Fed is bad. So I'll post this:"

The fed is bad. I read an article saying so.

Why don't you actually talk in some kind of depth about the negative effects of liquidity? Make a coherent argument about why it is bad, examples of it, and why X alternative is better. Even if your source articles are lengthy, you can give appropriate synopsis (if you read an understand it, this isn't hard) and provide a link (or even just title/author/publication) if you want/are requested to.

[guartz]

I can do that, I have tomorrow off.

But I wanna see Evilbau defend his position first.

[evilbau]

Why would I recant my earlier statement, you asked me to explain what i meant by liquidity and I did.

alright then, pray explain how guaranteed liquidity protects currency stability?

when did i ever say that? i mentioned distinct functions of a national bank, i didn't say they all protect currency stability. I listed 3 functions and you wanted clarification on one of them.

[guartz]

Why would I recant my earlier statement, you asked me to explain what i meant by liquidity and I did.

alright then, pray explain how guaranteed liquidity protects currency stability?

when did i ever say that? i mentioned distinct functions of a national bank, i didn't say they all protect currency stability. I listed 3 functions and you wanted clarification on one of them.

"it was created to provide stability to the national currency, to give some control to money supply, making the banking system more liquid."

?

What I'm asking you now is, how does "more liquidity" translate into stability to the national currency?

[evilbau]

And I said I listed 3 distinct functions. I forgot an 'and'. sue me.

[guartz]

I'm not asking you to clarify those functions, I'm asking you to give me your line of reasoning that lead you to say that more liquidity equals currency stability.

Unless of course, you didn't mean to say that?

[evilbau]

And I said I listed 3 distinct functions. I forgot an 'and'. sue me.

it was created to provide stability to the national currency, to give some control to money supply, and making the banking system more liquid.

[guartz]

And I said I listed 3 distinct functions. I forgot an 'and'. sue me.

it was created to provide stability to the national currency, to give some control to money supply, and making the banking system more liquid.

Very good. Now that you made that clear, do you agree that liquidity has provided extremely unstable national currency, but at the same time has made banking the most profitable industry in the world?

There is no particular problem with banks leanding/spending new demands deposits,(fractional reserve banking) per say, but guaranteed liquidity means that cash flow is guaranteed at the expense of inflation. (printing money)

So you would have to make a stretch and invoke productivity growth arguments that this somehow benefits the consumers. Which of course, is an entirely different discussion.

[Beckwin]

You're gonna be driving a hard bargain to say the US dollar hasn't been very secure over the past 70 years.

[evilbau]

Very good. Now that you made that clear, do you agree that liquidity has provided extremely unstable national currency, but at the same time has made banking the most profitable industry in the world?

There is no particular problem with banks leanding/spending new demands deposits,(fractional reserve banking) per say, but guaranteed liquidity means that cash flow is guaranteed at the expense of inflation. (printing money)

So you would have to make a stretch and invoke productivity growth arguments that this somehow benefits the consumers. Which of course, is an entirely different discussion.

No, I don't agree. I think the national currency has been relatively stable. I don't see how the profitability of the banking industry has anything to do with it. Banks also carry some substantial risks. Look at all the ones in trouble now. Cash flow is not guaranteed. They are still susceptible to making bad investments and going bankrupt. And I don't see generating money as a negative, although certainly inflation is a negative side effect. 'Creating money' means making loans, which is a huge contributor to our growth as a nation. It isn't a stretch, look at Grameen bank making micro loans: funding business and individuals works. You can't so easily discount the positive effects if you are going to pursue the negative ones (inflation).

[guartz]

because leanding/spending new demands deposits is a very risky business model... and very, very profitable.


It's like going to gamble at the casino with the taxpayers money, but you get to keep all your winnings. Awesome, right?

and I don't know how you can say with a straight face, that in an era of credit money, currency is "relatively" stable.

define relatively? lol

[evilbau]

define relatively? lol

compared to the rest of the world

[Kyreth]

yes, I have to assume most of you don't have questia accounts. So I'd be forced to see if similar articles are available for free. Why go through all that trouble if your not gonna read it?

Excerpts from the relevant articles would be a good start.

Another reason Andy Jackson (who I also respect for being a son-of-a-bitch who got things done) is worthy of study: He's the only president who managed to not only balance the budget, but actually got rid of the national debt in 1835...as opposed to the debtor nation we're in now.

Getting back to the subject- the Federal Reserve serves as a buffer against bank failure, since it insures deposits and cushions collapses.

The problem is that banks engage in high-risk investments and know that the damage is minimal, since if things really go south the government is obliged to help them for the sake of the people- via the national bank.

When you see the Fed doing things like direct intervention to save Bear Sterns, you know that when the market is screwed, the Fed (and by extension, the taxpayer) is the one to bend over and present it's naked ass to the market to receive it's buggering.

[evilbau]

The problem is that banks engage in high-risk investments and know that the damage is minimal, since if things really go south the government is obliged to help them for the sake of the people- via the national bank.

When you see the Fed doing things like direct intervention to save Bear Sterns, you know that when the market is screwed, the Fed (and by extension, the taxpayer) is the one to bend over and present it's naked ass to the market to receive it's buggering.

I completely agree with this and this is a legitimate gripe about the Federal Reserve. The 200$ billion worth of bonds the Fed recently picked up along with the Tax Rebate/Stimulus Package are nothing more than Banking Bailouts. Stimulus package is particularly brilliant because it plays well politically (everybody gets $$$ yay). The problem is that the Fed has very little choice: if these companies start dropping like dominoes the whole economy suffers. These companies simply got too big to let die, kind of like Countrywide. I'm sure there were governmental influences to get BofA to buy them. This is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed.

[Beckwin]

So you could say that irresponsibility in the private sector is a chief cause for concern rather than what would normally be last-resort saves provided by the Fed?

[evilbau]

So you could say that irresponsibility in the private sector is a chief cause for concern rather than what would normally be last-resort saves provided by the Fed?

I always believed that but then what would the youtube documentarians do?

Would someone please think about the conspiracy theorists?

[guartz]

Did anybody stop to think that if there wasn't protection offered for highly risky business model, people wouldn't deposit money with banks that practiced it.

[Beckwin]

Did you stop to think that a large number of people currently don't know about the protections the Fed provides and that wouldn't really change much if they weren't in place? Also, you'd have to consider where the lowest rates/biggest loans would come from; people want the "product" in that sense.