1) The Federal Reserve have no control over tax policy, period. To mention them in a tax discussion is the most crimson of red herrings.
2) If you think the Fed are principally responsible for the current price instability, you've cleared failed Econ 101, probably several times. Markets are working properly just now, seeking their clearing levels, although we probably don't much like the rapidity with which they're doing so. The Fed are players in this game only to the extent that they expand the money supply faster than commodities can be produced.
Far greater villains in the instability are the Regress and Mr. Bush, for their meddling in mkts. Ethanol as a mass-mkt motor fuel (subsidised, of course)? What a joke. Dairy price compacts with which to buy votes (mostly in blue states, what a shock). Universal tagging of livestock. Changes in long-standing mining law. Increasing restrictions on energy production. Compared to these and other idiocies, the Fed's role is comparatively benign.
3) I should look up ''ceteris paribus'', eh? Quo usque tandem abutere, InVenoVeritas, patientia nostra?
4) 'Irregardless' is a substandard form. Perhaps you meant 'irrespective'.
5) BTW, the phrase is 'In vino, veritas', from Horace.
6) To assert that, if one does not like your pet scheme, one must therefore 'like' the current tax regime. This is defined in logic as a pure non sequitur (look it up). One can easily despise the current tax structure AND find your scheme worse still.
7) All in all, just about the type of bilge I've come to expect from 'fair' taxers.
Name calling doesn't get you anywhere. But, it's a theory of mine, and other economists, that Greenspan kept the monetary policy too loose during a period of significant productivity growth. This in turn leads to lax lending practices because money is "cheap." The FED should have kept money tight, but we are paranoid in this country that deflation leads to depression, although deflation can occur with growth as shown in Friedman and Schwartz "A Monetary History of the United States." The productivity boom ended around 2000, which had it's small effect then, and now some other markets are clearing, like housing. To say that the FED doesn't have an effect on prices is true when looking in the long run with monetary neutrality, but it definitely has short term effects. Bush's meddling hasn't helped much either, and there has been some more meddling which hasn't even began to take effect yet. But overall, many of the commodity markets are increasing because people are fleeing to them with investment, suspecting a recession ahead, although there are a host of other issues there.
Ceteris paribus is important, not abusing your patience, because we are trying to examine the effects of a specific policy. Making a comment about the current price fluctuations, which is due to other issues, has no place in the debate unless you can link the two logically.
Sure, I'll admit I'm not good at English or spelling. But again, name calling won't get you anywhere.
It does follow unless you have another solution. By you very statement "One can easily despise the current tax structure AND find your scheme worse still." Means you'd rather have our current income tax system than the fair tax.
Actually, SAJ, if the interest charged on a loan is a taxable service fee, which I have read it would be if the item purchased is new, then the Fed's rate setting would amount to setting the rate of interest on the loan indirectly, and would affect the amount of tax paid on any purchase made on credit.
Needless to say, the big ticket item market would be bit twice, once on the principle and once on the interest, which the Fed controls by controlling the prime rate.
Near as I can figure, anyway. Tough to tell from the smoke and mirrors.
Ouch! I still remember a little of my 2 years of H.S. Latin.