Posted on 11/16/2005 9:38:57 AM PST by Sonny M
Last month, President Bush nominated Dr. Ben S. Bernanke, currently chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, as chairman of Federal Reserve Board to replace the retiring Alan Greenspan. Alan Greenspan's replacement comes at a time of heightened fears of inflation resulting from the recent spike in oil prices.
First, let's decide what is and what is not inflation. One price or several prices rising is not inflation. When there's a general increase in prices, or alternatively, a reduction in the purchasing power of money, there's inflation. But just as in the case of diseases, describing a symptom doesn't necessarily give us a clue to a cause. Nobel Laureate and professor Milton Friedman says, "[I]nflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it cannot occur without a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output." Increases in money supply are what constitute inflation, and a general rise in prices is the symptom.
Let's look at that with a simple example. Pretend several of us gather to play a standard Monopoly game that contains $15,140 worth of money. The player who owns Boardwalk or any other property is free to sell it for any price he wishes. Given the money supply in the game, a general price level will emerge for all trades. If some property prices rise, others will fall, thereby maintaining that level.
Suppose unbeknownst to other players, I counterfeit $5,000 and introduce it into the game. Initially, that gives me tremendous purchasing power, whereby I can bid up property prices. After my $5,000 has circulated through the game, there will be a general rise in the prices -- something that would have been impossible before I slipped money into the game. My example is a highly simplistic example of a real economy, but it permits us to make some basic assessments of inflation.
First, let's not let politicians deceive us, and escape culpability, by defining inflation as rising prices, which would allow them to make the pretense that inflation is caused by greedy businessmen, rapacious unions or Arab sheiks. Increases in money supply are what constitute inflation, and the general rise in the price level is the result. Who's in charge of the money supply? It's the government operating through the Federal Reserve.
There's another inflation result that bears acknowledgment. Printing new money to introduce into the game makes me a thief. I've obtained objects of value for nothing in return. My actions also lower the purchasing power of every dollar in the game. I've often suggested that if a person is ever charged with counterfeiting, he should tell the judge he was engaging in monetary policy.
When inflation is unanticipated, as it so often is, there's a redistribution of wealth from creditors to debtors. If you lend me $100, and over the term of the loan the Federal Reserve increases the money supply in a way that causes inflation, I pay you back with dollars with reduced purchasing power. Since inflation redistributes (steals) wealth from creditors to debtors, it helps us identify inflation's primary beneficiary. That identification is easy if you ask: Who is the nation's largest debtor? If you said, "It's the U.S. government," go to the head of the class.
So what about the president's nomination of Ben S. Bernanke as Alan Greenspan's replacement? I know little or nothing about the man. What I do know is that it's not wise for one person, or group of persons, to have so much power over our economy. Here's my recommendation for reducing that power: Repeal legal tender laws and eliminate all taxes on gold, silver and platinum transactions. That way, Americans could write contracts in precious metals and thereby reduce the ability of government to steal from us.
Ever wonder why the federal government owns so much land? I think that it is part of having 'something' to back the dollar.>>>>>>>>>
Bingo, this is the key to the argument I often get into when I disagree with the idea that the average person is better off than ever before in this country. I often point out that people fifty years ago who might be considered poor by today's standards often owned fifty or one hundred or more acres of land while the average person today will never own more than a building lot, if that. One man actually responded to this by saying, "yes, but a lot of land is not really worth anything anymore because we earn our living in other ways". In other words, land is unaffordable now because it is worthless?
That renown linguist; Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
I should have put that phrase in the very first post.
I never considered it that way, but it's true. Everything that people have now will decay in 50 years unless it's a firearm, weapon or a well made book. Land on the other hand, is forever.
Oh so right. When inflation comes around I always go to my employer and demand lower wages that way I don't have to be stuck where I am.
"Under the new Bankruptcy Act, lenders win and debtors lose. Thank your corrupt Congress who accepted bribes from lenders to change the law."
What exactly is wrong with making people pay back money they eagerly borrowed?
Since 1970, prices have gone up ten times. >>>>>>>>
The commonly used figures that the government likes say that $4.74 in 2003 was equal to $1.00 in 1970. I don't agree with those figures and apparently you don't either. I say ten to one is about right.
Please explain why United States Notes are superior to Federal Reserve Notes.
True, but that occurs whether the rate hikes lead to a flat yield curve or not.
The yield curve gets flattened by the Fed raising short term interest rates.
Usually, as the Fed raises rates while the economy improves, the long rates rise too.
It makes sense to me and I've seen several articles on it over the years.
Haven't found any yet.
Read The Creature From Jekyl Island to learn the truth.
The last two times the Fed has gone on a rate raising binge the yield curve has flattened (now and in 1999/2000 when the yield curve was stupidly inverted). Before that I was paying too much attention to women to notice.
In 1989, when the yield curve inverted, the dollar weakened moderately, but in 2000, when the curve also inverted, the dollar rallied for over a year.
"It is not the yield curve that the dollar responds to -- but the Fed's response to the yield curve," Lara Rhame and Umberto Alvisi,vice presidents for Credit Suisse First Boston said in a research note.
"We continue to see the trend of higher U.S. interest rates and their attendant effect on relative U.S. yields as the driving support for the greenback," they said, even if the yield curve inverts.
Read The Creature From Jekyl Island to learn the truth.
Your joking right?
Edward Griffin is a nut, no one with any grasp on reality or not needing medication listens to him.
The idea of "inflation being this hidden tax" is straight out of his warped (and unhinged) mind.
I'm hoping your joking, Edward Griffin either needs help or he should be ashamed of himself for making money off of the easily conned and easily fooled kook conspiracy crowd.
Does he still talk about all the secret societies that he thinks are running the world?
LOL.
The article also mentioned Greenspan's "conundrum" pontification. Of course, since Greenspan views himself as master of the Universe, the yield curve should obey his every command. Instead, I view the yield curve as a market indicator (as did Greenspan in 1994 when his head was much smaller) that is telling Greenspan to sit on his hands. There is no conundrum.
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/mchugh/2005/1114.html
Nothing like a little comic relief.
Why? It’s simple, really. So that the Plunge Protection Team can hide its market manipulative, equity buying activities. You see, one of the key differences between M-2 (which it appears they will report) and M-3, is repurchase agreements. This is perhaps the most obvious reporting item where PPT market buying transactions show up. If they no longer report this item, folks like us who monitor the growth of M-3 for clues as to when the PPT is likely to buy the market, will have a harder time reporting that fact before, or even as, the PPT buys.
Please explain to those of us who aren't wearing tinfoil hats, how would a repurchase agreement help support the stock market?
Investors will be left more in the dark as to any secret rigging of the stock market. Why now? Apparently the Federal Reserve (a key member of the Working Group, a.k.a. Plunge Protection Team) sees a coming need to buy — or facilitate the buying — of markets, including the equity market, incognito.
Don't you hate it when the secret riggers of the stock market keep their actions secret? ROFLOL!!!
Um, I didn't know it was any big secret. Now, to the extent it occurs in the future, that will be hard to determine.
The part of interest: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates"
United States Notes were interest free and debt free meaning they were backed by silver already in the treasury. The holder of the note effectively had title to the silver the note represented. They represented money not, repeat: not borrowed from the Federal Reserve, therefore money that did not have to be paid back with interest. Because this money was not borrowed, it was not part of the deficit, nor part of the national debt. And it was not generating profits for the stockholders of the Federal Reserve, which is why banking executives didn't like this executive order. The bankers did not like the US government bypassing the bank for money and providing for itself and the people. They bank is serious about having all people dependent on it for money, so it can profit.
Compare them to Federal Reserve Notes which are of the Federal Reserve. Federal Reserve Notes are redeemable for nothing. They are instantiated into existence by operation of law (some would insist under color of law). They are not government money, but are private money. They are lent to commercial banks and our government, to We The People. We take the bait and suffer the consequences, perpetual indebtedness, debt slavery. They contribute to inflation. They are not considered honest money by those who give a damn about honest money or know anything about the matter. They generate huge interest profits for the Federal Reserve which is why those whose livelihoods depend on the Federal Reserve like Federal Reserve Notes. Need I go on?
Which is superior? It depends. If your business is to keep an entire nation indebted, paying interest in perpetuity, FRNs are superior.
If your character is to be debt free, then the United States Notes would be superior. I think a debt free United States would be a better condition.
I don't know, which do you think is superior?
Well you can believe what you want. I cross referenced a lot of his work and he is on the money in my opinion much of the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.