The Zionist conspiracy wants another US war

.
Saggs you seem to have forgotten to respond to this post *again*,
. an oversight I'm sure you'll hasten to correct.

Or do you *want* people to think that you are running away like your craven heroes did?
 
Seymore Hersh, reporting on US efforts against Iran ...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

"Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership...The Finding was focussed on...trying to undermine the government through regime change...in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s task-force missions (is) the pursuit of 'high-value targets'..." (--"The Bush Administration Steps Up Its Secret Moves Against Iran," The New Yorker, July 7, 2008).
 
Saggy said:
Normally, the govt creates a bond and 'sells' it to the Fed. The Fed creates the money electronically...
Click to expand...


This would all be very interesting were it true.

It isn't.

The Fed has to buy government securities (or any security, for that matter) with pre-existing funds. To do it any other way would result in massive hyperinflation, something that hasn't occurred anytime recently in U.S. history. Furthermore, inflation to a detrimental degree hasn't occurred since the Carter Administration, where it was spiked far more by the Arab Oil Embargo rather than the Fed "creating money."

Also, the reason the Fed buys securities is not to fund the federal government, but rather to either increase or decrease the amount of money in circulation. This is one of three ways that the Fed enacts monetary policy. It's also not the most common way it does that (it raises or lowers the federal funds rate far more often).

The above is all what we call "economics," and you are advised to learn some basics about it before you spout off like an opened fire hydrant.
 
Wroclaw said:
To do it any other way would result in massive hyperinflation, something that hasn't occurred anytime recently in U.S. history. Furthermore, inflation to a detrimental degree hasn't occurred since the Carter Administration,
Click to expand...

... and even then, the US didn't get even anywhere close to a stage where sane people could talk about hyperinflation.
 
Saggy said:
Seymore Hersh, reporting on US efforts against Iran ..
Click to expand...

so, all Zionists are liars when they say things that you don't agree with, but they are honest angels when they confirm your pre-conceived notions of truth?

a little consistency would be appreciated.
 
Wroclaw said:
This would all be very interesting were it true.

It isn't.

The Fed has to buy government securities (or any security, for that matter) with pre-existing funds. To do it any other way would result in massive hyperinflation, something that hasn't occurred anytime recently in U.S. history. Furthermore, inflation to a detrimental degree hasn't occurred since the Carter Administration, where it was spiked far more by the Arab Oil Embargo rather than the Fed "creating money."

Also, the reason the Fed buys securities is not to fund the federal government, but rather to either increase or decrease the amount of money in circulation. This is one of three ways that the Fed enacts monetary policy. It's also not the most common way it does that (it raises or lowers the federal funds rate far more often).

The above is all what we call "economics," and you are advised to learn some basics about it before you spout off like an opened fire hydrant.
Click to expand...

Christ in Heaven, don't the Zs on this board know anything, or is purposeful stupidity a tactic even off topic ?

Look, you don't have to study economics, you could just google for a minute before finding, for example, first hit ....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/3/fed-buy-600-billion-more-treasury-bonds/

Fed buys $900B in bonds to spur growth
Critics warn about inflation

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday made good on its promise to try to spur faster economic growth through a controversial program to purchase about $900 billion in Treasury bonds — nearly half the amount issued to finance this year’s federal deficit.

The program aims to force further reductions in the interest rates on mortgages and other long-term loans that are tied to Treasury bonds, though those already are at record lows, to try to spark a healthier economic expansion and reduce unemployment.

But even before the central bank formally announced that it would print money to buy the federal government’s debt, it already had run into heavy criticism from global investors and conservatives at home for its potential to spark inflation by driving down the value of the dollar — a process that is well under way in global markets.
 
Thunder said:
so, all Zionists are liars when they say things that you don't agree with, but they are honest angels when they confirm your pre-conceived notions of truth?

a little consistency would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

You are well served by your own posts, which are consistently stupid.
 
Saggy said:
Christ in Heaven, don't the Zs on this board know anything, or is purposeful stupidity a tactic even off topic ?
Click to expand...

I suppose a "Z" is a Zionist?

Let me repeat: I'm not a Zionist. But since I don't think there's anything grossly wrong with being one, please be aware that if I were a Zionist, I wouldn't deny it.

So please stop calling me one for your own good, as all it does it highlight your prejudices and ignorance.

Look, you don't have to study economics, you could just google for a minute before finding, for example, first hit ....
Click to expand...

Of course! The Google machine can teach better than sixty credits of college economics!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/3/fed-buy-600-billion-more-treasury-bonds/

Fed buys $900B in bonds to spur growth
Critics warn about inflation

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday made good on its promise to try to spur faster economic growth through a controversial program to purchase about $900 billion in Treasury bonds — nearly half the amount issued to finance this year’s federal deficit.

The program aims to force further reductions in the interest rates on mortgages and other long-term loans that are tied to Treasury bonds, though those already are at record lows, to try to spark a healthier economic expansion and reduce unemployment.

But even before the central bank formally announced that it would print money to buy the federal government’s debt, it already had run into heavy criticism from global investors and conservatives at home for its potential to spark inflation by driving down the value of the dollar — a process that is well under way in global markets.
Click to expand...

Note that I bolded something above to demonstrate a bit of doublespeak: "driving down the value of the dollar" is the SAME THING as inflation.

The question should be, therefore, why would the Fed want to induce inflation?

I suppose I have to explain this to you.

{Sigh}

First of all, be aware that the Washington Times is a very conservative paper. Actions taken under a liberal (or in the case of Obama, centrist) administration are likely to be criticized, therefore, regardless of their actual economic effect.

That being said, any time the money supply increases, inflation is an inevitable consequence. Remember, by the way, that inflation isn't always unhealthy. However, when the money supply grows more quickly as a percentage than economic growth, then you have a problem.

However, when an economy is in recession, as ours is currently and certainly was even more so last year, inflation can have a stimulatory effect, because it gives incentive to banks to lend. This is a paradoxical effect, the genesis of which was the subject of Nobel Prizes in economics in 1981 and 1999.

Tomorrow we'll cover the Laffer curve. Here endeth the lesson.
 
Wroclaw said:
The Fed has to buy government securities (or any security, for that matter) with pre-existing funds.
Click to expand...

This isn't correct. The Fed buys securities precisely to introduce new money into circulation. One of their targets is to maintain low, predictable inflation (2-3% is ideal), one of the ways they do this is by creating money. For instance, if the Fed buys $100,000,000 in Treasury Securities from Goldman Sachs they do not pay for this out of existing funds, they simply credit Goldman Sachs account with them. Then if Goldman Sachs wants that money they can withdraw from their account at the Fed. Most of this never involves any physical currency, it is done electronically.
 
Wroclaw said:
I suppose a "Z" is a Zionist?

Let me repeat: I'm not a Zionist. But since I don't think there's anything grossly wrong with being one, please be aware that if I were a Zionist, I wouldn't deny it.

So please stop calling me one for your own good, as all it does it highlight your prejudices and ignorance.



Of course! The Google machine can teach better than sixty credits of college economics!



Note that I bolded something above to demonstrate a bit of doublespeak: "driving down the value of the dollar" is the SAME THING as inflation.

The question should be, therefore, why would the Fed want to induce inflation?

I suppose I have to explain this to you.

{Sigh}

First of all, be aware that the Washington Times is a very conservative paper. Actions taken under a liberal (or in the case of Obama, centrist) administration are likely to be criticized, therefore, regardless of their actual economic effect.

That being said, any time the money supply increases, inflation is an inevitable consequence. Remember, by the way, that inflation isn't always unhealthy. However, when the money supply grows more quickly as a percentage than economic growth, then you have a problem.

However, when an economy is in recession, as ours is currently and certainly was even more so last year, inflation can have a stimulatory effect, because it gives incentive to banks to lend. This is a paradoxical effect, the genesis of which was the subject of Nobel Prizes in economics in 1981 and 1999.

Tomorrow we'll cover the Laffer curve. Here endeth the lesson.
Click to expand...

They are trying to create inflation because the current problem is that we don't have it. Money velocity is way down. Pumping money into circulation (inflating the dollar) encourages consumption and investment and discourages sidelining money.

The idea stems from Milton Friedman's criticism of monetary policy during the Great Depression which was deflationary and argument that the Fed should have inflated the currency.
 
respect said:
This isn't correct.
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

The Fed buys securities precisely to introduce new money into circulation.
Click to expand...

True.

One of their targets is to maintain low, predictable inflation (2-3% is ideal), one of the ways they do this is by creating money.
Click to expand...

Again, true...

For instance, if the Fed buys $100,000,000 in Treasury Securities from Goldman Sachs they do not pay for this out of existing funds, they simply credit Goldman Sachs account with them. Then if Goldman Sachs wants that money they can withdraw from their account at the Fed. Most of this never involves any physical currency, it is done electronically.
Click to expand...

That the transaction is, um, transacted electronically does not mean that it's "new money."

For one thing, remember that it is the job of the Federal Reserve to reserve cash, among other things. So when it purchases securities, it isn't created currency to buy those securities out of whole cloth. That would cause inflation at an incredibly high rate.

Rather, and this applies probably only in a relative sense, they are taking money that was not in circulation in the previous short term, and re-circulating it.

I guess, on the absolute scale, they are actually creating money, but this is sort of an academic point, since none of our money is backed by anything other than the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, relative terms are the only ones of consequence.

I suppose if the Fed decided to just pour an insane amount of "created" money into the economy, it might make a real difference, but it never does these kinds of things. Rate increases or decreases tend to be done in basis points, and even the securities purchase made in the article cited is modest considering the overall size of the economy.
 
respect said:
They are trying to create inflation because the current problem is that we don't have it. Money velocity is way down. Pumping money into circulation (inflating the dollar) encourages consumption and investment and discourages sidelining money.

The idea stems from Milton Friedman's criticism of monetary policy during the Great Depression which was deflationary and argument that the Fed should have inflated the currency.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Wroclaw said:
I don't think so.



True.



Again, true...



That the transaction is, um, transacted electronically does not mean that it's "new money."

For one thing, remember that it is the job of the Federal Reserve to reserve cash, among other things. So when it purchases securities, it isn't created currency to buy those securities out of whole cloth. That would cause inflation at an incredibly high rate.

Rather, and this applies probably only in a relative sense, they are taking money that was not in circulation in the previous short term, and re-circulating it.

I guess, on the absolute scale, they are actually creating money, but this is sort of an academic point, since none of our money is backed by anything other than the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, relative terms are the only ones of consequence.

I suppose if the Fed decided to just pour an insane amount of "created" money into the economy, it might make a real difference, but it never does these kinds of things. Rate increases or decreases tend to be done in basis points, and even the securities purchase made in the article cited is modest considering the overall size of the economy.
Click to expand...

It is true, and it would be quite pointless for it not to be. The Fed's ability to create money is unlimited for all practical purposes. Why maintain an asset account of infinity dollars? They create it as needed. I assume that you realize that there are more dollars in circulation now than there was twenty or fifty years ago. This is how that happens.

You're right, it would be incredibly inflationary if they ran around buying trillions and trillions of dollars worth of Treasury Securities, but they don't do that.
 
I think the comparison that is often made regarding the Fed's control of the money supply is to Germany in the early Weimar period, but people making that comparison fail to appreciate just how slowly the process unfolds here and now as opposed to there and then. As you point out, there is more money in supply now than a generation ago, but it isn't as if that money was (1) poured into the economy all at once, to (2) to pay off a gigantic debt that was incurred pretty much over night (i.e., the signing of the Versailles treaty).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom