An interesting question

[ghettopalmetto]

The scrap value of silver at this moment is $18.64 per troy ounce so a dollar worth of 1964 or earlier coins has a scrapyard value of $13.51. That means that had we remained on the gold/silver standard, our diollars would buy 13.51 times more than the federal reserve notes you like so much. Gasoline would cost about 21 cents a gallon instead of $2.83, we could afford health care with out Obama's idiot plan, tuition would still be $300 a semester, etc..

Yes, and the average American would have an income of $3000 a year, too. Don't like inflation? Then convince people that they don't need pay raises.

If you want to feel wealthy by purchasing a bunch of shit at rock-bottom prices, might I suggest a relocation to Thailand? I'm sure they'd be happy to take your money.

I won't even get into the ridiculous self-contradiction you make, where you claim that FDR taking the United States off the gold standard somehow caused rampant inflation.

[oladub]

Yes, and the average American would have an income of $3000 a year, too. Don't like inflation? Then convince people that they don't need pay raises.

If you want to feel wealthy by purchasing a bunch of shit at rock-bottom prices, might I suggest a relocation to Thailand? I'm sure they'd be happy to take your money.

I won't even get into the ridiculous self-contradiction you make, where you claim that FDR taking the United States off the gold standard somehow caused rampant inflation.

This is most of what I wrote for your review. I updated the value of silver.

Currency was removed from the gold standard in two steps. Roosevelt made it illegal for Americans to own gold and tried to confiscate their gold. He followed that action up by devaluing the Dollar by a third as measured in gold to pay off government debt with devalued dollars. Nixon coundn't pay for the Vietnam War without also devaluing the dollar or raising taxes so he totally scrapped the gold standard. Silver cerificates were replaced with Federal Reserve debt notes which are backed by nothing although the US does still own gold to pay off some foreign debts.

Until and through 1964, every dollar worth of silver coins [[dimes, quarters, half-dallars, and dollars) contained .7234 ounces of silver. Silver cerificates could be exchanged for coins containing silver; a simple transaction. Today's coins have no silver. Getting back to "hoohah", let's compare the purchasing power of a dollar worth of today's coins with a dollar worth of 1964 or earlier coins at-
Silver Coin Melt Value Calculation
http://www.coinflation.com/coins/silver_coin_calculator.html

The scrap value of silver at this moment is $17.76 per troy ounce so a dollar worth of 1964 or earlier coins has a scrapyard value of $9.99. That means that had we remained on the gold/silver standard, our diollars would buy 9.99 times more than the federal reserve notes you like so much. Gasoline would cost about 28 cents a gallon instead of $2.83, we could afford health care with out Obama's idiot plan, tuition would still be $350 a semester, etc..

Maintaining the gold/silver standard, would have made it much harder for the federal government and the federal government to make us poor while expanding their own powers. If I haven't convinced you and you would still rather have federal reserve notes, let's make a deal. Send me all the 1964 dimes, quarters, half dollars, and silver dollars you have and I will pay for the shipping and give you 10% over face value because I don't know any better. I'll even send you newly printed federal reserve notes in payment. Deal?

gp, You get an 'F'. Silver and gold have retained their value. $.28 would buy almost one gallon of gasoline in 1964. If the same three 1964 dimes are taken into a coin shop for redemption, the coin dealer would give you almost three federal reserve note dollars for your three 1964 dimes. You would still be able to buy almost one gallon of gasoline with those three dimes. If you don't understand this, I'll make you the same deal I offered rb. You are correct that our pay has to be much higher to keep up with government/fed induced inflation. Retirees, living on savings, are victims without much recourse.

I didn't say that Roosevelt took us off the gold standard. I wrote that Roosevelt devalued the dollar in terms of gold and Nixon did both. However, imports tended to cost about one third more after Roosevelt's move.

I don't know what the nonsense was about being happy in Thailand [[what were you researching?) but, unlike you, I would rather have my dollar purchase 10 times as much as it does here. Please, please, send me your old 1964 coins to trade with my crisp new federal reserve notes so we can both be happier.

[ghettopalmetto]

gp, You get an 'F'. Silver and gold have retained their value. $.28 would buy almost one gallon of gasoline in 1964. If the same three 1964 dimes are taken into a coin shop for redemption, the coin dealer would give you almost three federal reserve note dollars for your three 1964 dimes. You would still be able to buy almost one gallon of gasoline with those three dimes. If you don't understand this, I'll make you the same deal I offered rb. You are correct that our pay has to be much higher to keep up with government/fed induced inflation. Retirees, living on savings, are victims without much recourse.

Wrong. Succinctly:

Your coin dealer is paying you in 2010 dollars. If we're all using 1964 dimes, then our incomes would necessarily be lower, as I stated above. Like always, you only tell half the story.

I thought it was purchasing power that drove inflation, not the Fed [[which seeks to limit inflation to about 2%, if you must know). For example, if wages of the workforce continued to increase, while the price of goods remained constant, inflation would go through the roof. Your batshit insane story, where you keep the income that you do now, but return prices back to 1964 levels, would bring about the very scenario that causes you to shit yourself all over these threads.

I think, what you're not telling us, is that you just want to be able to buy a bunch of junk without having to do the work necessary to earn a larger income. Every damned thread you start crying about impending runaway inflation [[which couldn't be further from the truth), and rising prices and taxes [[despite tax cuts and falling consumer prices), is evidence to that.

You really spend a disporportionate amount of time worrying about this shit, and that you're apparently grounded in some reality diametrically opposed to facts and evidence is what concerns me greatly.

[Retroit]

Inflation, or the devaluing of money, can be either good or bad. It is good if you are a debtor: the money you borrowed in the past is worth less now, so it is less of a hardship for you to pay back. It is bad if you are a creditor or saver, as the money you are owed, or have saved, has decreased in value, so it is less valuable to you in the future when you will ultimately use it.

So the question is: what type of activity do we want to encourage: saving or going into debt? If you want people to save, hold the value of your currency constant like China has done and people will save. If you want people to go into debt, inflate your currency like the U.S. has done and people will go into debt.

Then you either use the money your citizens have saved to provide the capital to build your country and financially enslave other countries [[like China has done to the U.S.), or you are unable to use the money that your citizens have not saved and you must borrow from other countries until you become insolvent.

[oladub]

Wrong. Succinctly:

Your coin dealer is paying you in 2010 dollars. If we're all using 1964 dimes, then our incomes would necessarily be lower, as I stated above. Like always, you only tell half the story..

The value of silver is determined by the world market as is the value of the dollar. One dollar of 1964 dimes contains .7234 troy ounces today just as it did back in 1964. That amount of silver would have bought about one dollar of gasoline back in 1964 just as it still would today. Unfortunately, one of today's dollars only buys about 1/10 gallon of gasoline. How about if we play a new game to validate one or the other of our perspectives? Let's fast forward another 47 years [[2010-1964=47 years) So it is now 2057 and we each come out of our time capsules. I have a dollar worth of 1964 dimes consisting of .7234 troy ounces of silver and you have a one dollar federal reserve note from 2010. I sell my silver and trade it in for the currency of the time while you try to buy something with your federal reserve note. If the future reflects the past, silver will go up in fiat currency while your fiat money will have lost much of it's spending power.

“Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value ---- zero.”
-Voltaire

I thought it was purchasing power that drove inflation, not the Fed [[which seeks to limit inflation to about 2%, if you must know). For example, if wages of the workforce continued to increase, while the price of goods remained constant, inflation would go through the roof. Your batshit insane story, where you keep the income that you do now, but return prices back to 1964 levels, would bring about the very scenario that causes you to shit yourself all over these threads.

Supply/demand largely determines price increases if that is what you mean. Inflation, in the purest sense of the word, means the inflation of the amount of currency. If the fed issues 16% more currency than existed last year, then there are 16% more dollars chasing around and bidding up the price of existing goods and services. You must have slept through the supply/demand section of economics 101 but you probably didn't need the concept when you lived in Washington D.C. anyways. No need to get anal about it though unless it's your nature.

I think, what you're not telling us, is that you just want to be able to buy a bunch of junk without having to do the work necessary to earn a larger income. Every damned thread you start crying about impending runaway inflation [[which couldn't be further from the truth), and rising prices and taxes [[despite tax cuts and falling consumer prices), is evidence to that.

You really spend a disporportionate amount of time worrying about this shit, and that you're apparently grounded in some reality diametrically opposed to facts and evidence is what concerns me greatly.

Being a big government type, you don't have to worry about such things. The Fed can always print up another trillion or two when your previous scheme fails and you can bill it to us. We who have to live in the world of paying our bills do unfortunately want to stretch our dollars instead of lining up at some federal government trough hoping for change.

What tax cuts by the way? Since the federal deficit has climbed 44% during President Obama's first sorry 18 months in office from nine to thirteen trillion dollars, that means that each taxpayer now owes another $24,000 to pay off the deficit. How about rephrasing that to 'the federal government has temporarily postponed huge additional taxes but given the temporary illusion of a tax cut by postponing the bill'.

We do have inflation in day to day purchases. Groceries, health care expenses, and taxes keep going up. There are some deflationary items, notably housing, offsetting the inflation for the time being and Clinton rigged the consumer cost of living index to under represent actual inflation. The mega banks continue to make great profits though as Social SAecurity recipients and retirees wonder why they are having a harder time stretching their Social Security and savings.

I just came across a related article.
Time to shut down the US Federal Reserve?
by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

"Central banks were the ultimate authors of the credit crisis since it is they who set the price of credit too low, throwing the whole incentive structure of the capitalist system out of kilter, and more or less forcing banks to chase yield and engage in destructive behaviour."

[TKshreve]

Your batshit insane story, where you keep the income that you do now, but return prices back to 1964 levels, would bring about the very scenario that causes you to shit yourself all over these threads.

I think dimes before 1965 are made of silver and if melted, they are worth significantly more than dimes made after 1964. So, if you actually did take 3 1964 dimes to a coin dealer and demanded worth for them, you could theoretically get a gallon of gas. Is that your point Ola?

Perhaps a little deeper thinking before you throw the tired "batshit" expression around might not hurt as much as it usually does.

[ghettopalmetto]

Perhaps a little deeper thinking before you throw the tired "batshit" expression around might not hurt as much as it usually does.

No, it is batshit insane. Oladub is arguing for:

1) A return to prices of the 1960s, while he gets to keep his 2010 income.

2) A return to a gold [[or silver) standard, without making any kind of case for it, other than if you melt down some 1964 dimes, they're worth more than face value.

and 3) Whining about inflation [[yet again) while failing to recognize that the two ideas above that he supports would bring about nothing but rampant inflation.

NEVER MIND that the inflation problem that Oladub claims to exist simply isn't occurring, nor are there any indicators that it would become a problem anytime soon. If inflation does start to ratchet up, the Fed has TWO tools at its disposal to curb it--1) buying back currency and 2) raising the overnight funds rate.

I have no patience for anyone parrotting anti-intellectual discourse and fabricating problems that simply don't exist.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "If inflation does start to ratchet up, the Fed has TWO tools at its disposal to curb it--1) buying back currency"

With what? More federal reserve notes? We're 12 Trillion in debt, the world markets are right on the verge of dumping our dollar as the standard.

Let me guess, you're one of these that think your savings are insured full value by the FDIC?

For the record, What Oladub is trying to explain to you, is exactly correct, in disbelief you cannot understand it.

[ghettopalmetto]

Quote: "If inflation does start to ratchet up, the Fed has TWO tools at its disposal to curb it--1) buying back currency"

With what? More federal reserve notes? We're 12 Trillion in debt, the world markets are right on the verge of dumping our dollar as the standard.

You're conflating the Federal Reserve Bank with the federal government. This leads me to believe you don't quite understand how currency markets work. To wit--interest rates on the US Government T-bills are low right now. Creditors would start demanding much higher interest rates before they dump a stable currency. You too are fabricating a problem that has no bearing on reality.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefe...int/fed01.html

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/domes...te/yield.shtml

Let me guess, you're one of these that think your savings are insured full value by the FDIC?

Insured up to $250,000. You have evidence that this is not the case?

http://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/index.html

For the record, What Oladub is trying to explain to you, is exactly correct, in disbelief you cannot understand it.

I'm not arguing that money has less purchasing power today than it did years ago. Nor am I arguing that the value of silver in a 1964 dime isn't worth more than 10 cents. I am arguing that what he proposes would actually exacerbate the problem he purports to address by pursuing such an idea.

[oladub]

I think dimes before 1965 are made of silver and if melted, they are worth significantly more than dimes made after 1964. So, if you actually did take 3 1964 dimes to a coin dealer and demanded worth for them, you could theoretically get a gallon of gas. Is that your point Ola?

My point is that if you were sitting around playing Monopoly and the banker kept handing out $10,000 of monopoly money to his favorite players, then suddenly those players would be able to afford everything they landed on. Those who didn't get such handouts are like people in the real world living on Social Security and their savings who soon find themselves outbid for things like health care services and groceries. The latter group becomes a group of losers.

'Fiat money' definitions:
1) money that the government declares to be legal tender although it cannot be converted into standard specie
2)Money which has no intrinsic value and cannot be redeemed for specie or any commodity, but is made legal tender

When a currency is backed by a commodity such as silver, the government has to raise taxes or cut services if it wants to expand and those moves have political risk. With fiat money like our federal reserve note, the government, or rather it's auxiliary the Fed, can cheat by printing any amount of money it chooses and putting the bill on the taxpayers' tab. If we had to pay for our wars by immediately raising taxes significantly, we might not have as many as when the Fed can just spread some money around and Congress can bill the next generation. Having to maintain a backing for a currency such as silver requires the government to maintain fiscal discipline and choose more wisely.

An ounce of gold will purchase a pretty good suit. A good toga used to cost about an ounce of gold too. It doesn't matter if the gold is in the form of an American gold dollar or an old Roman gold coin weighing the same amount. However, the Roman fiat money of that time is worthless today and our own dollar has lost 96% of it's spending power since 1913 when the Fed was created to, among other things, maintain the value of the dollar. It failed. All non-commodity backed money fails. That is probably why the founders insisted in the Constitution that "No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". They didn't want to see government steal the value of our money.

Fiat currency which is dependent upon the whims of weathy bankers, bureaucrats, and politicians empowers corpratists. Commodities in our own pockets in the form of gold, silver, or currency that can be traded for them empowers citizens.



"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper money." -Daniel Webster

“We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors and a ruined people.” -Daniel Webster
http://www.fame.org/NotableQuotes.asp about funny money

[ghettopalmetto]

When a currency is backed by a commodity such as silver, the government has to raise taxes or cut services if it wants to expand and those moves have political risk. With fiat money like our federal reserve note, the government, or rather it's auxiliary the Fed, can cheat by printing any amount of money it chooses and putting the bill on the taxpayers' tab.

Why do you keep confusing monetary policy with fiscal policy???

The reason we went off the gold standard in the first place was so our currency could float, and provide greater control over monetary policy. During the Great Depression, when the dollar was tied to the price of gold, the Federal Reserve could only raise interest rates to increase the demand for dollars. The higher interest rates, in turn, put deflationary pressure on the dollar, as it made goods and services more expensive, thus prolonging the Depression.

By allowing our currency to float, the Fed is able to enact a monetary policy of buying and selling U.S. currency to increase and decrease the supply of money as economic conditions warrant. What you propose to do, Oladub, would throw the United States right back into an economic depression. Interest rates would have to rise during a period of high unemployment, and any hope of recovery would be pushed years--if not decades--down the road.

For what it's worth, the majority of United States currency is held overseas. But I'll reiterate that none of this has a damned thing to do with balancing budgets or borrowing money, which is essentially the selling of bonds and T-bills, and is independent of the money supply.

[oladub]

gp wrote: "Why do you keep confusing monetary policy with fiscal policy???

The reason we went off the gold standard in the first place was so our currency could float, and provide greater control over monetary policy. During the Great Depression, when the dollar was tied to the price of gold, the Federal Reserve could only raise interest rates to increase the demand for dollars. The higher interest rates, in turn, put deflationary pressure on the dollar, as it made goods and services more expensive, thus prolonging the Depression."

No, the federal reserve's policies are largely responsible for the bubble that led to the 1929 crash...and the 1921 crash, and our recent housing bubble and Nasdaq crashes.

"Central banks were the ultimate authors of the credit crisis since it is they who set the price of credit too low, throwing the whole incentive structure of the capitalist system out of kilter, and more or less forcing banks to chase yield and engage in destructive behaviour."
Time to shut down the US Federal Reserve?
by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Please read the article. He addresses the snotty arrogance found among the banker folks you promote.

The reason Roosevelt confiscated Americans gold and then devalued the dollar was to pay off some government debt with printing press dollars. "Executive Order 6102 required U.S. citizens to deliver on or before May 1, 1933 all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 per troy ounce.""The price of gold from the treasury for international transactions was thereafter raised to $35 an ounce." -wikipedia In other words, Roosevelt used the gold he confiscated from US citizens to pay off international debts at 59 cents on the dollar. He stole from US citizens to short whomever the US owed money overseas.

By allowing our currency to float, the Fed is able to enact a monetary policy of buying and selling U.S. currency to increase and decrease the supply of money as economic conditions warrant. What you propose to do, Oladub, would throw the United States right back into an economic depression. Interest rates would have to rise during a period of high unemployment, and any hope of recovery would be pushed years--if not decades--down the road.

Thanks, but I would rather have the Constitutionally required commodity based money supported by the Constitution. You can have the monopoly money and enjoy the corporatist magicians "floating the value" to their own advantage. President Obam has very little to show for the extra $4t of debt obligations he has given us. It's your guys that put us into this depression with all their high sounding ideas. Play your masochist economic games if you wish but leave the rest of us be. Giving the guys who produced this depression more economic power is by definition either masochistic or stupid. Liquidating debt is what will end the Bush/Obama depression. Your guys are stealing from future taxpayers and Social Security recipients to keep the bonuses up at Goldman Sachs. Keeping interest rates low will devastate retirees and other savers.

For what it's worth, the majority of United States currency is held overseas. But I'll reiterate that none of this has a damned thing to do with balancing budgets or borrowing money, which is essentially the selling of bonds and T-bills, and is independent of the money supply.

I disagree. "As of 1 June 2010, the Treasury Department spent so far this year $248 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt". Let's guess that at least $500B taxpayer dollars will be paid out as interest this year on those bonds. That works out to about $1600 per average American. That amount does make a difference to many Americans as well as with the federal government trying to balance it's own budget.

"The decrease in purchasing power incurred by holders of money due to inflation imparts gains to the issuers of money--." St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, Review, Nov. 1975, p.22

"Emitting bills of credit, or the creation of money by private corporations, is what is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution." -U.S. Supreme Court, Craig v. Missouri, 4 Peters 410.

[ghettopalmetto]

There are so many jumps in logic in Oladub's post above, it's not even funny. It's a fundamentally flawed misunderstanding.

No, the federal reserve's policies are largely responsible for the bubble that led to the 1929 crash...and the 1921 crash, and our recent housing bubble and Nasdaq crashes.

The policies you correctly attribute to the 1929 crash are a policy of cheap credit. The other term for "cheap credit" is "low interest rates". At the time, the Fed did not have any other mechanisms with which to regulate monetary policy. You're taking a quantum leap in logic by trying to say that "The Fed did a stupid thing once, therefore, everything they do henceforth is stupid."

Thanks, but I would rather have the Constitutionally required commodity based money supported by the Constitution. You can have the monopoly money and enjoy the corporatist magicians "floating the value" to their own advantage. President Obam has very little to show for the extra $4t of debt obligations he has given us. It's your guys that put us into this depression with all their high sounding ideas. Play your masochist economic games if you wish but leave the rest of us be. Giving the guys who produced this depression more economic power is by definition either masochistic or stupid. Liquidating debt is what will end the Bush/Obama depression. Your guys are stealing from future taxpayers and Social Security recipients to keep the bonuses up at Goldman Sachs. Keeping interest rates low will devastate retirees and other savers.

The Constitution does not require only coined money, nor does it prohibit paper money. What the Constitution does do is reserve the right to coin money to the Congress. Looks like someone is doing a bit of selective reading here.

The price of floating currency is determined by open markets where currencies are traded. If the currency is of low value to investors [[including banks and foreign governments), they will have a tendency to sell. If the currency is of high value, investors will have a tendency to buy. The demand is what determines the price. The fact that the majority of U.S. currency is held abroad is an indication that our currency is quite stable.

Low interest rates only threaten the purchasing power of investors in the long-term if they are outpaced by the rate of inflation. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. The reason the federal funds rate is able to remain at essentially zero is because the Consumer Price Index is actually falling. If the CPI were to rise [[due to economic recovery), then the Fed would raise interest rates to stanch the rate of inflation and maintain stability in purchasing power.

I disagree. "As of 1 June 2010, the Treasury Department spent so far this year $248 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt". Let's guess that at least $500B taxpayer dollars will be paid out as interest this year on those bonds. That works out to about $1600 per average American. That amount does make a difference to many Americans as well as with the federal government trying to balance it's own budget.

Again, you're talking fiscal policy here, and conflating it with monetary policy. The supply of money that the Federal Reserve puts into, or removes from, circulation has nothing to do with the public debt of the United States.

I know you're trying to make a point, Oladub, but would it be so troublesome to actually LEARN about a topic before you attempt to incite baseless mass panic? You simply provide no evidence for anything you claim, because there is none. Quoting a bunch of blogs and platitudes that echo your pre-ordained conclusions doesn't make you any less incorrect in your assertions.

[rb336]

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard? You have got to be joking. You are taking talking points from the man behind the "The Clintons had Vince Foster Killed" bullshit? The guy has as much credibility as Joe Isuzu

[oladub]

gp:"There are so many jumps in logic in Oladub's post above, it's not even funny. It's a fundamentally flawed misunderstanding."

I understand that overspending and market meddling often doesn't work. You have some sort of belief that printing presses and fiat money are an improvement over commodity based money.

The policies you correctly attribute to the 1929 crash are a policy of cheap credit. The other term for "cheap credit" is "low interest rates". At the time, the Fed did not have any other mechanisms with which to regulate monetary policy. You're taking a quantum leap in logic by trying to say that "The Fed did a stupid thing once, therefore, everything they do henceforth is stupid."

I also mentioned 1921, the Nasdaq crash, and the housing bubble which were also related to the Fed' s cheap money policy. The Fed keeps making the same mistake. Heaven help us if the Fed also has new tools to use on us. Like I said, I'm not an economic masochist and wish the Fed closed. However, getting back on thread, what got this conversation going was that I mentioned that House Republicans had unanimously voted to thoroughly audit the Fed. Since writing that, both you and rb showed up with your pom poms to defend the mega banks and oppose transparancy which is more evidence that your policies allign more closely with Bush/Obama/Dodd and the rest of the corporatist sock puppets while opposing the interests of the middle class and particularly retirees. Either you are for the bankers or against them. Your arguments have been for them.

The Constitution does not require only coined money, nor does it prohibit paper money. What the Constitution does do is reserve the right to coin money to the Congress. Looks like someone is doing a bit of selective reading here.

Repeat: "It is the gold and silver standard as in "No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" as stated in the Constitution. Congress also has the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin." It has done that in the past by establishing trading values between gold and silver [[for instance 1/16 or 1/15) and deciding what coins are made of.

I have to wonder how the fiat federal reserve notes we call dollars are acceptable as payment of debt according to your version of the Constiution. I never wrote anything about prohibiting paper money. That is part of your imagination. Go back and discover that I noted how silver certificate dollars could be exchanged for silver upon demand and that was as simple as going to a local bank and exchanging silver certificates for silver dollars.

Low interest rates only threaten the purchasing power of investors in the long-term if they are outpaced by the rate of inflation. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. The reason the federal funds rate is able to remain at essentially zero is because the Consumer Price Index is actually falling. If the CPI were to rise [[due to economic recovery), then the Fed would raise interest rates to stanch the rate of inflation and maintain stability in purchasing power.

Retirees, and other savers, are making 1% interest at their banks while food prices, health care, and other consumer prices are rising at a faster rate - at least where I live. Thank goodness President Clinton changed the inputs into calculating the cost of living. Otherwise, Social Security recipients would have to be given a benefits increase to keep up with their expenses. The Fed can be expected to keep the bubbles rolling in. It isn't like Paul Volker is still in charge.

Again, you're talking fiscal policy here, and conflating it with monetary policy. The supply of money that the Federal Reserve puts into, or removes from, circulation has nothing to do with the public debt of the United States.

Both are bad. We need a new direction.

I know you're trying to make a point, Oladub, but would it be so troublesome to actually LEARN about a topic before you attempt to incite baseless mass panic? You simply provide no evidence for anything you claim, because there is none. Quoting a bunch of blogs and platitudes that echo your pre-ordained conclusions doesn't make you any less incorrect in your assertions.

Who are you? The government disinfo agent assigned to monitoring this board or just the village idiot who believes the govenment and bankers' agents work together to help us?
“Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value ---- zero.”
-Voltaire

rb, I was actually pretty impressed with Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's investigative reporting of deaths around the Mensa airport in Arkansas at the time. However, I think you mischarachterize his reports of all the coincidental deaths. He was suggesting that the 'Arkansas mafia' or some other Clinton allies or supporters independently played a hand. I don't think he ever claimed that "The Clintons had Vince Foster Killed" as you claim. Of course, you can always did up an Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's article stating that "The Clintons had Vince Foster Killed" to prove me wrong.

[ghettopalmetto]

Who are you? The government disinfo agent assigned to monitoring this board or just the village idiot who believes the govenment and bankers' agents work together to help us?

Hey, I'm not the guy arguing for collapsing the monetary system and economic destabilization of the entire globe.