Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
investorzzo's picture
investorzzo
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2008
Posts: 1182
Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

 

Ron: Chairman Bernanke, you consider yourself an expert on the Great Depression, is that true?

Ben: Yes, I have devoted a substantial part of my career to the study of the Great Depression.

Ron:
I too have spent some time studying the Great Depression. Please, as
succinctly as you can, tell me what you think caused the Depression.

Ben:
It was Federal Reserve policy mistakes that caused the Great
Depression, ones that I intend not to repeat. First, they precipitated
the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent recession by tightening
monetary policy in 1928. Then, they helped turn a recession into a
depression with yet two more mistakes. First, they let the money supply
contract very sharply. Prices fell. Deflation. So monetary policy was,
in fact, very contractionary. Very tight during that period. And then
the second mistake they made was they let the banks fail. They didn't
make any strong effort to prevent the failure of thousands of banks.
And that failure had terrible effects on credit and on the ability of
the economy to right itself. The answer was to stabilize the financial
system by providing liquidity to the system via low interest rates,
loans to the banks and generally easy monetary policies. They did not,
and the result was the Great Depression.

Ron:
Thank you Chairman. How familiar are you with the Austrian theory of
the boom bust cycle, specifically the work of Mises and Hayek?

Ben: I am familiar with their position, yes. But it is not a viable theory.

Ron:
Chairman, in all candor, I couldn’t disagree more. According to Mises
and Hayek, the Depression was caused by the low interest rate and loose
monetary policies of the Federal Reserve in the 1920’s. These policies
created the1920’s boom which NECCESITATED the stock market crash of
1929 and economic bust of the early 1930’s. You see, by lowering
interest rates and increasing the money supply, the Federal Reserve
creates economic and financial distortions - malinvestments, which
eventually must be liquidated. The mistake was the Federal Reserve’s
easy monetary policy of the 1920’s. The bust was the economy cleansing
itself of these mistakes. Sooner or later, the Federal Reserve induced
boom REQUIRED a bust. Chairman, the Federal Reserve did indeed cause
the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent Depression, but
through EASY money policies, the same policies that caused today’s
economic mess and the same policies you still continue to advocate.

Chairman, did you know that Mises and Hayek predicted the 1929 stock market crash and 1930’s bust?

Ben: I don’t recall.

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2009/0409.html

that1guy's picture
that1guy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 11 2009
Posts: 333
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

darn, I wast to read the rest....I can't get to it from my computer system...Ill have to check it out tonight...

investorzzo's picture
investorzzo
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 7 2008
Posts: 1182
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

 Ron Paul tries to explain why we need to rid ourselfs of the Fed and go back to the gold standard.

http://blogofbile.com/2008/03/21/austrian-vs-keynesian/

RubberRims's picture
RubberRims
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 22 2008
Posts: 145
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

So where do we go from here?

http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/29075#comment-29075

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 537
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

 

Be sure to read the bit at the top

"Listen in on my mock Congressional Joint Economic Committee Q&A
session, between fellow “nut” Congressman Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke:"

.............. :-(

 

Cheers Hamish

JackG's picture
JackG
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 10 2009
Posts: 4
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

Interesting Interview although I'm still curious what the future brings with the current situation.

DavidC's picture
DavidC
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 243
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

Thanks gyrogearloose,

I was just about to point out the same. Entertaining reading and I agree with it, but it's not a genuine QUOTATION.

DavidC

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 845
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
RubberRims wrote:

So where do we go from here?

http://www.peakprosperity.com/comment/29075#comment-29075

Good clip.  Every time I watch Bernanke, or any of "the others", respond to real questions, I realize we are being lied to on the highest order.

yoshhash's picture
yoshhash
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 20 2008
Posts: 271
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
gyrogearloose wrote:

 

Be sure to read the bit at the top

"Listen in on my mock Congressional Joint Economic Committee Q&A
session, between fellow “nut” Congressman Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke:"

.............. :-(

 

Cheers Hamish

Oh..................so disappointing.  I gleefully went off in search of a video, thinking that this was some new development, before finally realizing that it wasn't real...........this conversation SO needs to happen.....why hasn't it?  Surely Ron has tried to; I've seen enough video clips where Ron makes a general statement to the house on "what if...", etc, but none where he is directly confrontational, like Peter Schiff.   Does anyone know of any such an event/conversation/interview?

Ron Paul is brilliant, but seems like he is too "nice" for such directness.  Am I wrong?

Malden's picture
Malden
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 31 2009
Posts: 27
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

I wonder how can gold resolve anything, when it`s scarce and will only deepen a shortage of money.

Money is just a register or receipt that a certain work has been done or goods delivered. Creating money by government through lending and/or spending it into an economy is one thing or stage in the process necessary to obtain acceptance of everybody and latter use of that kind of permanent money by society is what is follow. Amount of new, fresh money should be consistent with GDP growth. That way, there is no inflation, no public debt, no unemploiment, little or no taxation. Money keeps its value over time like it should. Btw, GDP doesn`t include stock trading or any speculative activities. No money should be created for that kind of purposes. If you want to gamble, use your saving.

What causes problems today, including inflation of prices, is a lack of real or permanent government issued money and consequently flooding an economy with so-call "funny" or bankers money which is essentially a never-ending debt. More debt needs more such kind of privately created money to cover the interest charges and taxation. Add huge amounts of imported goods which prices rise along with exchange rate of dollar and you`ll see why most of prices goes up even in the time of recession.

Inflation of prices is a straw man argument of private bankers plutocracy to preserve their current position and to continue robbing the society. Ron Paul seem to have good intentions, but unfortunately don`t understand that and only creates confusion with his austrian-school "arguments".

 

pleaseremoveme's picture
pleaseremoveme
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 24 2009
Posts: 115
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

Both the neoclassical and the Austrian economists blame the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression. There is only disagreement as to precisely how the federal reserve did it. And this is why they are both wrong. The free market has a mind of it's own, and the central banks simply cannot control it.

For example: Bernanke believes he can re-inflate the housing bubble by low interest rates and quantitative easing, but it doesn't work. The most important factor -- aggressive lending -- is missing, and the government control over that practise has only diminished over time, thanks to the lobby of the same aggressive lenders and their money trust. This disproves both the statement that the central bank caused the inflation of house prices, and has any control over the deflation.

In this mock interview Bernanke claims that the free market needs the intervention of the central bank to keep the economy stable. I doubt whether he would ever say this, because it goes against the deepest held believe of neoclassical economists: the justice of the free market.

Mass hysteria and superstition among bankers and investors form an ongoing threat to the economy, a constant source of both over- and underinvestment. On the other hand, blaming the government or governmental institutions is just common laziness.

 

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 845
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
woupiestek wrote:

Both the neoclassical and the Austrian economists blame the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression. There is only disagreement as to precisely how the federal reserve did it. And this is why they are both wrong. The free market has a mind of it's own, and the central banks simply cannot control it.

For example: Bernanke believes he can re-inflate the housing bubble by low interest rates and quantitative easing, but it doesn't work. The most important factor -- aggressive lending -- is missing, and the government control over that practise has only diminished over time, thanks to the lobby of the same aggressive lenders and their money trust. This disproves both the statement that the central bank caused the inflation of house prices, and has any control over the deflation.

In this mock interview Bernanke claims that the free market needs the intervention of the central bank to keep the economy stable. I doubt whether he would ever say this, because it goes against the deepest held believe of neoclassical economists: the justice of the free market.

Mass hysteria and superstition among bankers and investors form an ongoing threat to the economy, a constant source of both over- and underinvestment. On the other hand, blaming the government or governmental institutions is just common laziness.

 

My argument would be that as long as the Federal Reserve is involved, there is NO free market.  How can a market be free when the price and availability of "money" is manipulated?  Can the central bank CONTROL the market?  No.  Can the central bank INFLUENCE the market?  Absolutely.  Control is when your buddy is driving and you grab the steering wheel and put the car in the ditch.  Influence is when you point out the naked woman on the side of the road and he drives into the ditch.

Did the Fed CAUSE the inflation of home prices?  I would say that they certainly contributed greatly to the environment that allowed prices to rise so dramatically.  True, poor lending practices created a greater pool of borrowers.  However, if there had not been cheap money to borrow, prices would have remained more stable.  I believe the fault lies with all involved in the mortgage mess; unscrupulous lenders, hyperemotional ignorant borrowers, and the folks in charge of the price and availability of money.

DavidC's picture
DavidC
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 243
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

With all the discussion about the Fed, Austrian versus Keynesian economics etc. to my mind there is only one overriding factor at the moment.

 

Chris's latest piece (No Raise, Fewer Jobs, Less Dividends , Less Credit = No Economic Growth) sums it up eloquently. ALL the creation and pumping of currency (I won't use the word money, because it's not) going to organisations or institutions is predicated on one premise - if we get borrowing back into the system we will be 'back on track'. As a consumer led society (i.e. 'the West'), if we are concerned about our homes/houses, our job futures, not being able to pay or repay debts and if we have, by and large, all the material items we need (as opposed to want), we are NOT going to spend, or spend more than we have to, even if the money is being pushed at us. Japan showed this in the 90s, even when interest rates were NEGATIVE!

The only other factor that comes into play, when all the big players (US, UK, China et al) are involved is the relative perception of each of the players. IF all the G20 inflate big time and they're all doing it at the same rate the relative values don't change - which makes the whole game self defeating.

DavidC

that1guy's picture
that1guy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 11 2009
Posts: 333
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
Malden wrote:

I wonder how can gold resolve anything, when it`s scarce and will only deepen a shortage of money.

Money is just a register or receipt that a certain work has been done or goods delivered. Creating money by government through lending and/or spending it into an economy is one thing or stage in the process necessary to obtain acceptance of everybody and latter use of that kind of permanent money by society is what is follow.Amount of new, fresh money should be consistent with GDP growth. That way, there is no inflation, no public debt, no unemploiment, little or no taxation. Money keeps its value over time like it should. Btw, GDP doesn`t include stock trading or any speculative activities. No money should be created for that kind of purposes. If you want to gamble, use your saving.

What causes problems today, including inflation of prices, is a lack of real or permanent government issued money and consequently flooding an economy with so-call "funny" or bankers money which is essentially a never-ending debt. More debt needs more such kind of privately created money to cover the interest charges and taxation. Add huge amounts of imported goods which prices rise along with exchange rate of dollar and you`ll see why most of prices goes up even in the time of recession.

Inflation of prices is a straw man argument of private bankers plutocracy to preserve their current position and to continue robbing the society. Ron Paul seem to have good intentions, but unfortunately don`t understand that and only creates confusion with his austrian-school "arguments".

 

Wow, all I can say is wow. I could not disagree more.  you (and everyone here) are completely entitled to their opinions.

I will say that hopefully for the sake of our economy and way of life that you and Bernake, and Summers, and Giethner are some how right, and all the Austrian (and others like Dr. Martenson) economists out there (that all saw this coming years in advance) and all completely wrong. It would be awesome to see all the flat numbers and statistics that all show big BIG problems looming in the future are all wrong, and the magical adjustments done by those that are acting, as you seem to think they should be, are right.

 

Malden's picture
Malden
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 31 2009
Posts: 27
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
that1guy wrote:

Wow, all I can say is wow. I could not disagree more.  you (and everyone here) are completely entitled to their opinions.

I will say that hopefully for the sake of our economy and way of life that you and Bernake, and Summers, and Giethner are some how right, and all the Austrian (and others like Dr. Martenson) economists out there (that all saw this coming years in advance) and all completely wrong. It would be awesome to see all the flat numbers and statistics that all show big BIG problems looming in the future are all wrong, and the magical adjustments done by those that are acting, as you seem to think they should be, are right.

It`s a misunderstanding. Both Austrian and mainstream economists are wrong. Non of them addresses the real issue, and that is privately created money "out of thin air". That kind of thing should be done only by Government or Congress representing society as a whole. It is important to understand that money is not itself wealth, but only a claim to wealth, i.e. goods and services of all kinds. One has only to pose the question: what would be the value of a dollar
note in three months' time if everyone stopped producing goods or
providing services? The answer is, of course, nothing.

 

So, money issuance should be consistent with a flow of goods and services. If GDP stops rising and simply be at some level or even drops, money volume should also contract keeping its value. It is clear that money is backed by goods and servicies and should be flexible in both direction. Government can issue the money, but it can also withdrow it from circulation if necessary. Plain and simple fact, but purposely misguided by controled media and "educational" system.

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 537
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
Malden wrote:

It`s a misunderstanding. Both Austrian and mainstream economists are wrong. Non of them addresses the real issue, and that is privately created money "out of thin air". That kind of thing should be done only by Government or Congress........

As I see it, the only way to stop private money being created "out of thin air" is to completely ban ALL lending of money.

Money is "created out of thin air when banks re lend deposits.

The result is no different than if I lent a friend $1000.

Well actually, me lending a friend $1000 is worse,  Yell   because I took that money out of a bank where they could had only lent $900 ( if a 10% reserve requirement ), where as I lent the entire $1000. an extra $100 of "money created out of thin air"

 

Cheers Hamish

 

 

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 537
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
Malden wrote:

I wonder how can gold resolve anything, when it`s scarce and will only deepen a shortage of money

 Hmmmmm.....

On one hand you suggest gold is not a solution because of it's scarcity,  

But then you say today's problems are caused by "flooding an economy with so-call "funny" or bankers money"

 

Sounds a bit contradictory to me   

 

 

Malden's picture
Malden
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 31 2009
Posts: 27
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
gyrogearloose wrote:

As I see it, the only way to stop private money being created "out of thin air" is to completely ban ALL lending of money.

Money is "created out of thin air when banks re lend deposits.

The result is no different than if I lent a friend $1000.

Well actually, me lending a friend $1000 is worse,  Yell   because I took that money out of a bank where they could had only lent $900 ( if a 10% reserve requirement ), where as I lent the entire $1000. an extra $100 of "money created out of thin air"

Cheers Hamish

Smile You have a wrong picture, it`s not functioning like that. Demand deposits are not supposed to be loaned. For example, when private bank receive 1000$ bill deposit from a client and latter gives a loan of 900$ in cash to another person, it pretends to the first client that it still has 1000$ of his money like nothing happend, and thus creating (counterfeiting) additional book-entry money that never existed before. Latter on, bank trying to convince the first client to use his money in some other form but cash, if so it would be in trouble. And that fraudulent process multiply several times till reserve requirement is reached or even more.

 

In other words, 10% reserve requirement means that private bank can create up to 10 times more "funny" or bankers money then it has real money (dollar notes and coins). That kind of privately created money is a temporary money in form of debt and literally disappers from existence when loans are paid off. And than we go again with more new debt, interest charges and taxation till whole economy broke like we have today, and bankers got more and more power and riches. They already possess 50% of U.S. resources and wealth.

gyrogearloose wrote:

On one hand you suggest gold is not a solution because of it's scarcity, but then you say today's problems are caused by "flooding an economy with so-call "funny" or bankers money". Sounds a bit contradictory to me

It`s not. You see, privately created book-entry money needs to be "fed" with more and more that kind of money, bringing all kinds of distortions to the society: perpetual debt, inflation, interest charges, harsh taxation, huge undeserving wealth, control and power to the few. 

that1guy's picture
that1guy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 11 2009
Posts: 333
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
Malden wrote:

 Smile You have a wrong picture, it`s not functioning like that. Demand deposits are not supposed to be loaned. For example, when private bank receive 1000$ bill deposit from a client and latter gives a loan of 900$ in cash to another person, it pretends to the first client that it still has 1000$ of his money like nothing happend, and thus creating (counterfeiting) additional book-entry money that never existed before. Latter on, bank trying to convince the first client to use his money in some other form but cash, if so it would be in trouble. And that fraudulent process multiply several times till reserve requirement is reached or even more.

 

In other words, 10% reserve requirement means that private bank can create up to 10 times more "funny" or bankers money then it has real money (dollar notes and coins). That kind of privately created money is a temporary money in form of debt and literally disappers from existence when loans are paid off. And than we go again with more new debt, interest charges and taxation till whole economy broke like we have today, and bankers got more and more power and riches. They already possess 50% of U.S. resources and wealth.

It`s not. You see, privately created book-entry money needs to be "fed" with more and more that kind of money, bringing all kinds of distortions to the society: perpetual debt, inflation, interest charges, harsh taxation, huge undeserving wealth, control and power to the few. 

Malden ,

You just reworded what the gyro said himself. The only difference is you seem to think that when a person deposits said money into their bank account that the money can't be loaned out agian. That's where you have the wrong picture.

A bank requires the 10% reserve to service daily withdraws from the banks clients. At the same time the total amount of deposits are lent out minus the 10% minimum ( $900 can be loaned from $1000, you already seem to understand that part). 10% does not mean they can loan out 10 times their money. It is simply what they are supposed to keep in reserve to service daily withdraws.

You're right where you say that when the loan is paid off the money created disappears (minus interest [profit] the banks made on the deal of coarse). This is where they make their money (generally speaking, this is minus SPV's, Derivatives, and other toxic crap they sell to other investors).

This is also where the problem lies. You see, these banks not only make loans against deposits, they also keep collateral (Mortgages, auto loans, ect...). The major banks are all insolvent now even through they got rid of mark to market rules (which is ridiculous). If a bank's assets (deposits + hard assets). are worth less then their loans they have outstanding then they are dead in the water. To add to this, all the money that they loaned out to the population, that would disappear as it gets paid back, does not disappear because it is not getting paid back. It is still out there. All the banks get is a property they can sell for 1/3 of the amount they  loaned (hence insolvent).

You must remember this is not the depression, money is not disappearing, although I do agree we are in a deflation type environment for now, or I would prefer to call it disinflation. We have had 23 banks fail since Jan, (that I k now about) and no one has lost their money, yet the product base is shrinking (everyone is going out of business). To top it off the fed/treasury are pumping in trillions that we all know about. Based off of the speech's and reports I have read from Bernake, the money is going to keep coming, in-fact based off of a speech he gave in 2003, this is right out of his play book...(horrible).

I am going to end this on a couple points where I agree (well try too)

I agree that government and congress are the only ones that are supposed to create money. The only problem is about 4 trillion+ was allocated by them (I'm being conservative in that number). At this point everything they are doing and advocating is just as bad as the Fed which is unfortunate. Simply moving all powers back to congress and the government would be a great start, but still would have a long way to go....'long' not being a big enough word.

I also agree that currency is a claim to products or services,  even the Austrians know this too. The problem is all the money we have borrowed and spent (11.1 trillion and counting) was not spent productively. I guess one could say simply, we bought a lot of crap that makes no money. Now we don't have the productive capacity to pay it back. Going trillions further into debt to fix an economy up to their eyeballs in debt will not fix anything.

Here are a couple quotes from 'The Dollar Crisis' published in 2005

"Tightening money supply is effective in battling inflation. However, increasing the money supply is no cure for deflation that results when a credit bubble pops, because it is excessive money supply growth that causes economic bubbles in the first place. To think otherwise is like believing that consuming more alcohol is the cure for drunkenness. The consumption of more and more alcohol will eventually lead to death, just as the unlimited expansion of the money supply will end in the death of the currency system involved. As unpleasant as it may be, the hangover is the period during which the body purges the unnatural toxins that over-stimulated the nervous system during the binge. Similarly, the recession is the period during which equilibrium is restored to the economy after a long period of over stimulation due to excessive monetary stimulation through credit expansion."

In other words How are we going to cure the problem of excess credit stimulation, with yet MORE credit stimulation?? Let me say again, this was published in 2005. All stats in this book are from 2003 and prior.

'You can't fight liquidity with liquidity, Monetarism is drowning'

Mike

This was a bit longer thank I was hoping to make it. I hope someone out there gets a small little bit from it =)...

 

that1guy's picture
that1guy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 11 2009
Posts: 333
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

huh, I can go into detail on monetary policies, and yet I still can't figure out the quote function....lol

Malden's picture
Malden
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 31 2009
Posts: 27
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
that1guy wrote:

Malden ,

You just reworded what the gyro said himself. The only difference is you seem to think that when a person deposits said money into their bank account that the money can't be loaned out agian. That's where you have the wrong picture.

A bank requires the 10% reserve to service daily withdraws from the
banks clients. At the same time the total amount of deposits are lent
out minus the 10% minimum
( $900 can be loaned from $1000, you already
seem to understand that part). 10% does not mean they can loan out 10
times their money. It is simply what they are supposed to keep in
reserve to service daily withdraws.

Believe me I didn`t. When bank makes a loan of 900$ out of initially 1000$ demand deposit in cash, it makes book-entry of new 1000$ deposit in form of "funny" or bankers money, just like that (out of thin air) pretending that initial deposit is still there. But first client can now use his money only via credit cards, checks or some other account transfers, because bank loaned his cash and would be in a problem otherwise. Do you realise now why cash is so little used in various payments? It is all propaganda and manipulation coming from banking cartel. Only 3% of all circulating money are dollar bills and coins, everything else is counterfeited private bankers money. It`s a scheme of epic proportions, but it isn`t new. Some 400 years ago in Europe, goldsmiths started to issue banknotes (receipts) for deposited gold from various clients. In time, they noticed that only a fraction of that gold is actually withdrawaled by its depositors. People prefered to use banknotes, because they were more practical. So, goldsmiths came up with an idea to issue far more banknotes than they actually had gold deposits, up to 10 times. Is that sounds familiar to you? Yes, it is so-called "fractional reserve" banking. It sounds so outrageous to most of the people, that many even today can`t comprehend that simple but highly fraudulent process of money creation by private individuals or banks.

You can watch Chris Martenson`s explanation http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse/chapter-7-money-creation or some other, but all of them describing the same thing just from another perspective. Private banks create most of their money, and cash is just a basis in that fraudulent process.

that1guy wrote:

I also agree that currency is a claim to products or services,  even the Austrians know this too. The problem is all the money we have borrowed and spent (11.1 trillion and counting) was not spent productively.

Look at these figures please http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html and you`ll see that U.S. borrowed only 22% from foreign countries  and more than 40% from the FED. The question is, by what "magic" you borrowed money to yourselves, because it seems to a neutral observer that FED is not your bank but some foreign or even alien Central bank. Answer lies in the fact that FED is private central bank totally out of control, which only seeks more wealth and power for its owners enslaving the society.

that1guy wrote:

In other words How are we going to cure the problem of excess credit stimulation, with yet MORE credit stimulation? Let me say again, this was published in 2005. All stats in this book are from 2003 and prior. You can't fight liquidity with liquidity, Monetarism is drowning'

Everyone should realise that money and credit are two different things. Money is a gift or public good created and spent (and/or lent) by the State (it`s a real, permanent medium of exchange), but privately created (temporary) credit or bankers money is a debt which disappers from existence when loans are paid off or when someone withdraw its cash (dollar bills or coins) from bank, because of multiplication or leverage effect involved in whole process. What means "excess liquidity" when big chunk of that "funny" money is used to pay interes charges back to private lenders (counterfeiters), to pay all kinds of unnecessary taxes or even for gambling and speculative purposes (for example, derivatives) which greatly harm society.

 

that1guy's picture
that1guy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 11 2009
Posts: 333
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

Ok, malden, I give up here.... it looks to me like we are so close to the same page yet somehow you seem to twist what I (and other say) to look as though we all just don't get it. Like when I say ALL money borrowed I don't care that 22% came from over seas, and the rest from the fed. The fact is that it was all squandered. It could have ALL come from the Fed, it doesn't change the fact that it was all squandered. We have little to no production left to pay our way out of it. Even if all the money came from congress, it was still SQUANDERED AWAY. Try looking at www.usdebtclock.org it is very close to the other one you mentioned (which I also have in my favorites) but with more detail.

 There is a difference between money and currency (money=gold currency=fiat bills...)  I understand very well how the system works, I have watched CC like all else here, let alone all the books on the topic (topics=the history of money, fiscal policy, Central banks, PM's, Fed reports, speeches from Bernake and other, investing, The dollar[all aspect], recessions in history) not counting all other Internet research I have done.

Let me say to all out there, I agree we are always learning, I learn a lot from others on the site daily....in every area ranging from bonds to water filtration to food storage and then some. In no way do I claim to be an expert, and I apologize since I know this kinda comes out that way. It just bothers me when someone says to everyone that they don't understand and yet says exactly what your trying to say with their twisted understanding and no backing (except for everything you have seen and watched.

 

Malden, I can accept that you feel no one 'gets it' I'm just gonna let this go, and agree to disagree (since I can't fully figure out your standing, and the grounds for it).

Malden's picture
Malden
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 31 2009
Posts: 27
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics
that1guy wrote:

There is a difference between money and currency (money=gold currency=fiat bills...)  I understand very well how the system works, I have watched CC like all else here, let alone all the books on the topic (topics = the history of money, fiscal policy, Central banks, PM's, Fed reports, speeches from Bernake and other, investing, The dollar[all aspect], recessions in history) not counting all other Internet research I have done.

Did you read "The Lost Science of Money"  http://www.monetary.org/lostscienceofmoney.html or "Web of Debt" http://www.webofdebt.com/ , those are highly recommended.

pleaseremoveme's picture
pleaseremoveme
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 24 2009
Posts: 115
Re: Ron Paul and Chairman Bernanke discuss economics

MarkM: You have an already reckless driver, and an accident just waiting to happen. All the Fed does, is saying: "slow down" or "hurry up". Of course they have influence! But on one hand, Wall Street has done anything it can to take control over the Fed, and on the other, whatever the Fed would have done a crisis would have happened sooner or later, because massive bad investments had already been made before the housing bubble started.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments