Inflation is a tax. @3:10 this is discussed by Ron Paul and Bernanke.

http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-and-Ben-Bernanke-722-mins

>> ^marinara:

You miss the entire point.
Why would you concentrate on my characterization of the church, and ignore the fact that the elites in charge of this proposed bank would have unlimited money.
And the church is no stranger to power.
Yes, I love Ron Paul, Yes the Church is chasing power, Yes the Church will not care to use the proposed world bank to eliminate poverty.
Tell me how the Church is working to eliminate poverty now?
Tell me when the Church has given away power?
Tell me why I shouldn't love Ron?


Not really missing the point, just focusing on the part of your comment I find interesting.

Basically my read on all right-wing thought is that it's almost entirely motivated by fear. The modern, highly distilled version we have here in the American right is a particularly insane bunch who believe that every institution with any kind of power is evil. Not just too wrapped up in its own self-serving goals to meet the needs of ordinary people, but actually out to maliciously do harm to everyone else because they're all apparently inhuman monsters bent on our destruction.

That's what Ron Paul is a spokesman for.

The Catholic church is a lot of things, and it's made up of a lot of people. It's had a particularly awful history, but I do believe that in large part the modern Catholic Church believes what it preaches when it comes to social justice. I don't really see how or why they'd bother teaching social justice if their true goal was to abolish social justice. Take a look at right-wing churches in America for an example of how they could be twisting the teachings of Christ into some grand justification for Ayn Rand-style market fundamentalism, as well as hate and intolerance.

I also find the whole "fear the Fed" thing to be tiresome and quite misguided. If you think it's physically impossible for Central Banks to ever do any good, you simply need to go out and educate yourself on modern monetary theory. Read Milton Friedman if you think Keynes was some demon summoned straight from the bowels of hell. If you just think the institution is just being run by corrupt people, then presumably you're in the "fire Bernanke, and put a liberal conservative in his place" club. Or maybe you're like me and just want to modify the Fed's charter so there's more democratic accountability, and a clearer mandate.

Or we should just put the Pope in charge.

Mostly though I just find the very idea of a conspiracy amusing. The Pope isn't saying "the Catholic Church should be the Global Central Bank", he's saying "there should be a Global Central Bank whose mandate is to cure poverty". I like that idea! But, I think a) it's obviously politically impossible, and b) a global monetary union would be harder to pull off than the euro monetary union, and the euro is headed for collapse as it is...

But like I said originally, this seems tailor-made to get Ron Paul-style conspiracy theorists all in a tizzy, and apparently I was right!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

" Sure Hitler was awful. But to be fair, that was already growing antisemitism for several decades before he came to power"
Had Bernanke and Geithner been decent people, the crisis/meltdown would have been much less than it is right now. No two ways about it.

The right Hitler analogy to describe what you're talking about would be:

"Sure Hitler was awful. But to be fair, Neville Chamberlain could've done more to stop him, so isn't the Holocaust really all his fault?"

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Bernanke and Geithner did nothing but make the problems larger than they had to be [for the average american] so that their banker friends could shovel more money into their private accounts before more shit hit the fan.
Why give either of them any slack at all?


Because Bernanke has actually done a lot to try to make the situation better. He could've done more, but not a tremendous amount more. Geithner fits your description a lot more closely, but again, I dispute that Geithner made the problems worse, and I definitely dispute that he intentionally made things worse for his own gain.

I sorta don't get what your point is in arguing all this. Do you really think single individuals in any position anywhere deserve all the blame for the economic crisis? Do you really think the people most culpable are all government employees?

I think I may not have been clear about what I meant in my statement. I believe we're talking about two different segments of the same problem.

I absolutely agree with you that there has been very poor management of the U.S. debt over the past few years, especially in over the financial bail out/sub-prime mortgage/housing bubble fiasco. And yes, some (many?) of those individuals culpable are working with the current cabinet.

However, my thoughts were more to the fact that 1/2 the American national debt (some $5+ Trillion) is interest. I see this as a crime no single individual could commit over night. Yes, the last few years have had fuck-ups and thefts of the common purse on a colossal scale, but the majority of the (compound) interest on the the U.S. debt was accumulated before the bank bail out. I see those responsible as being the people who permitted the system with a privatized central bank. Money is now created by private companies through debt which the taxpayer is charged compound interest on.

NEW YORK -- Here's a new way to think about the U.S. government's epic borrowing: More than half of the $9 trillion in debt that Uncle Sam is expected to build up over the next decade will be interest.

More than half. In fact, $4.8 trillion.

If that's hard to grasp, here's another way to look at why that's a problem.

In 2015 alone, the estimated interest due - $533 billion - is equal to a third of the federal income taxes expected to be paid that year. /CNN, 2009.

@NetRunner

" Sure Hitler was awful. But to be fair, that was already growing antisemitism for several decades before he came to power"

Had Bernanke and Geithner been decent people, the crisis/meltdown would have been much less than it is right now. No two ways about it.


Bubbles burst all the time and there's a formula to deal with the damage from them.

Bernanke and Geithner did nothing but make the problems larger than they had to be [for the average american] so that their banker friends could shovel more money into their private accounts before more shit hit the fan.

Why give either of them any slack at all?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^Yogi:
The people at fault are very much alive because they could've done something to prevent it years ago. They're in Obamas cabinet now.

@NetRunner
One word. Geithner.


I have less kind things to say about Geithner than I do Bernanke, but let me use my comment above as a template for Geithner:

Geithner became Treasury Secretary in 2009. The housing bubble had already burst, and the bank collapses had already begun.

To say he "created" the 9% unemployment rate is flat out delusional.

I'd accept "He could've done more" or even "I think he's done the wrong thing in response", but accusing him of intentionally initiating the whole thing? Wholesale insanity.

>> ^Yogi:

The people at fault are very much alive because they could've done something to prevent it years ago. They're in Obamas cabinet now.


@NetRunner

One word. Geithner.

>> ^notarobot:

@NetRunner, @GenjiKilpatrick, It is unfair to blame any single person in recent memory. Not Bernake, not Greenspan. They were making the best choices they knew to make given the system they have inherited.
The people at fault are no longer alive today. I'm sure I don't know American history as well as Americans, but I know that similar issues are being faced by pretty much every country that has left the management of the nation's money supply in the hands of private interests. For myself, in Canada, I'm pretty worried.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
“Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of Parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”
-William Lyon Mackenzie King, former Prime Minister of Canada.


The people at fault are very much alive because they could've done something to prevent it years ago. They're in Obamas cabinet now.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

So you're sayin' Bernanke had nothing [less to do] with this whole mess?


Bernanke became Fed chairman in 2006. The housing bubble was already in full effect, and about to burst.

To say he "created" the 9% unemployment rate is flat out delusional.

I'd accept "He could've done more" or even "I think he's done the wrong thing in response", but accusing him of intentionally initiating the whole thing? Wholesale insanity.

@NetRunner

So you're sayin' Bernanke had nothing [less to do] with this whole mess?

>> ^NetRunner:
Well, prices are set by market forces. You know, supply and demand. It's not necessarily the case that the Fed expanding the monetary base will lead to inflation.

Again, look at the last few years. Bernanke expanded the monetary base radically, but inflation has stayed low, and is on a declining trend.

And price changes from an increased "supply" of currency is called inflation.

Bernanke expanded the monetary base of the US dollar (ie world reserve currency) and people all over the world are in the streets rioting over the increased cost of living. PPI in the US has gone up 7.2% the last 12 months. And if you're referring to QE, most of that money is either parked at a bank or was used to buy toxic debt (to counter deflation). But when those TRILLIONS do reach the marketplace, inflation will be realized. That's why precious metal prices have blown up. The US dollar has lost 98% of it's purchasing power against gold the last 40 years.
>> ^NetRunner:
Oy. Okay, so here's how a bank works. People like you and me have some money. The bank offers to "hold" that money for us in an account, and at least used to pay us some small amount of interest on that money as incentive for us to keep our money with them.

But the bank doesn't just take our money and stick it in some vault for safekeeping, they lend that money out to other people, at a higher rate of interest than they offered us.

Problem is, we're allowed to withdraw our money from the bank whenever we want, so the bank has to keep some cash on hand (aka in reserve). However it will only keep a fraction of the total deposits in reserve, because otherwise it wouldn't be able to loan out money. That's what fractional reserve banking means.

That's what one would presume fractional reserve banking means, but it's not.




>> ^NetRunner:
I agree. Provided by "our system" you mean laissez-faire capitalism.

The banks take our savings and gamble them on risky, potentially profitable investments. That's sorta key to the functioning of capitalism though. Without that, the whole system crashes almost instantly.
LOL. The state stepping in to reward and cover up fraud is not laissez-faire capitalism. I don't get it. You defend the system, then you try to shift blame on free market capitalism?

>> ^NetRunner:
Artificially. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Prices are set by market forces, and according to free market advocates this is perfect/moral/only way they can or could ever be set, or else we'll go to hell be socialists.

There are plenty of unnatural "market forces" in our current system. Even inflation itself. Hence, prices are artificially set.


>> ^NetRunner:
Different economic models hypothesize different answers. I tend to think the Keynesian story is right -- it's aggregate supply and aggregate demand. When you have a shift in either one that would lead to a higher equilibrium price, then you see "aggregate price" (aka the CPI) rise.
Which is to say, you can get both inflation and deflation without the Fed doing anything. To stabilize inflation, you actually need the Fed constantly adjusting the monetary base so neither inflation or deflation get out of kilter. Look at pre-1913 interest rates if you don't believe me.

John Maynard Keynes on inflation: "By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft."

What you're talking about makes no sense. Prices in a market with sound money still go up and down. That's the way a market works. Calling it inflation and deflation doesn't make it so.

>> ^NetRunner:
I agree, if by "the ones that...extract value from that actually worked and earned their wealth" you mean any and all business owners, investors, and so on who have done nothing but collect interest on wealth they already own.

Maybe before you start going after people who are collecting interest on the wealth they presumably earned honestly, you will stop defending those who collect interest on money they created from nothing. Deal?

>> ^marbles:

So... where does this increase in price level (i.e. inflation) come from...? Oh yeah, from expanding (or inflating) the fiat monetary base!

Well, prices are set by market forces. You know, supply and demand. It's not necessarily the case that the Fed expanding the monetary base will lead to inflation.

Again, look at the last few years. Bernanke expanded the monetary base radically, but inflation has stayed low, and is on a declining trend.

>> ^marbles:
>> ^NetRunner:
Also, "Without a system built on fractional reserve" means a world without banks.

LOL Says who? It may be a world without corrupt banks. If you or I can't loan money we don't have, why should a bank be able to?

Oy. Okay, so here's how a bank works. People like you and me have some money. The bank offers to "hold" that money for us in an account, and at least used to pay us some small amount of interest on that money as incentive for us to keep our money with them.

But the bank doesn't just take our money and stick it in some vault for safekeeping, they lend that money out to other people, at a higher rate of interest than they offered us.

Problem is, we're allowed to withdraw our money from the bank whenever we want, so the bank has to keep some cash on hand (aka in reserve). However it will only keep a fraction of the total deposits in reserve, because otherwise it wouldn't be able to loan out money. That's what fractional reserve banking means.

>> ^marbles:
Meanwhile, our system uses the power of the state to reward fraud and gambling of the largest banks and biggest corporations while extracting wealth from the poor and middle-class.


I agree. Provided by "our system" you mean laissez-faire capitalism.

The banks take our savings and gamble them on risky, potentially profitable investments. That's sorta key to the functioning of capitalism though. Without that, the whole system crashes almost instantly.

The US's debt is only about 80% of GDP, I say only because Japan's is 200%. The fact of the matter is, even if the US does nothing, being the reserve currency and the most widely used currency for transactions means that yields on bonds are unlikely to spike so much as gradually creep up if nothing is done. It is going to cause an apocalypse tomorrow or even in 2 years time, but it will continue to hurt the economy more and more until something is done about it.

What's needed is a commitment now to moderate reduction in discrentionary/compulsory spending and moderate increases in taxes that will kick in 3 maybe 6 years down the track. It undoubtedly should be reduced in the long term but in the short term what the economy needs is fiscal stimulus.

The spending needed particularly right now is investment in retraining of workers to needed roles or subsidising apprenticeships/on the job training, because fact is the GFC created masses amounts of structural unemployment, people who with their skills, do not have the capacity to enter available employment. Infrastructure and R&D would also help to prop up a bearish economy.

The economy may return to growth with continued austerity but the cost would be an increase in the permanently unemployed as it has been clearly shown that substantial portions of people who stay unemployed for prolonged periods of time essentially become unemployable.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/29/ben-bernanke-embraces-obamas-reality-based-presidency/

This isn't a particularly good article but read the lines that he quotes from Bernanke. This is a concise, frank and objective opinion by an individual not bound to populist dogma or partisan slogans.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Previous comments notwithstanding, I actually believe that Ron Paul is a stand-up guy who says what he sees as the truth--and won't change what he says because of a poll. I could really get behind him if he would just embrace a rational, twenty-first century fiscal policy.

Problem Boise, who has had a sound fiscal policy?
We have how much in debt, 20 trillion? 30? 50? I don't know because they have hidden debt so well that it scares the fuck out of me. The fed could borrow and loan unlimited amounts, which is part of what we would owe...not to mention liabilities and such... Plus rotten infrastructure, half-assed programs that accomplish little, and so much more...
Is RP's policies worse than what has happened? I doubt it... But we will elect the same guys, just with different faces, who do this every time; because we vote on platform, not on actual people.
Here is a saying I made the other day while daydreaming about becoming a tyrant, I mean Congressman. "If you vote for an honest man you won't get everything you want. But if you vote for a liar you get what you deserve."

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.

Who else would be paranoid enough to think it's something anyone would actually try, and not just a silly, nerdy way to make a point?

No one thinks Krugman is entertaining this idea seriously. It's that he thinks it would be a good idea to manufacture a catastrophe with potentially huge life-loss that makes us wonder why people like you think he's the best thing since sliced bread.

Why would an entirely hypothetical, fake alien invasion lead to life-loss?
Like I said, it's a silly, nerdy way to make a point. Why are you pretending it's something worth getting even slightly upset about?
Is it any worse than Perry talking about Texans roughing up Ben Bernanke or accusing him of treason for doing the job the previous Governor of Texas appointed him to do?


Krugman thinks wars are excellent ways to stimulate the economy (even jovially alludes to it with his comment about WWII). The bigger the war, the bigger the stimulus. He's kidding about aliens invading, but follow his logic here. What's bigger than a war against another nation? Answer: a war against another planet.

Krugman doesn't care about the casualties, it's about the numbers. To him war is good because it creates jobs and stimulates the economy. Peace is bad.

This is why Keynesian economics is such bullshit.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Oh, I get it. Krugman says something Orwellian and now we're all the wingnuts.

Who else would be paranoid enough to think it's something anyone would actually try, and not just a silly, nerdy way to make a point?

No one thinks Krugman is entertaining this idea seriously. It's that he thinks it would be a good idea to manufacture a catastrophe with potentially huge life-loss that makes us wonder why people like you think he's the best thing since sliced bread.


Why would an entirely hypothetical, fake alien invasion lead to life-loss?

Like I said, it's a silly, nerdy way to make a point. Why are you pretending it's something worth getting even slightly upset about?

Is it any worse than Perry talking about Texans roughing up Ben Bernanke or accusing him of treason for doing the job the previous Governor of Texas appointed him to do?