Abolish the Fed

[Deuce]

Who were the perpetrators of the last irrational exuberance of the 1990s?

Wall Street

And what on earth did the Fed have to do with it? Of the money system in general? Absolutely nothing.

When you double the M-3 money supply in 12 years, the price of something is going up. It depends who you distribute it to. If to the poor, the price of bread and butter goes up; if to the middle class, the price of eating out goes up; if to the rich, the price of yachts go up; if to financial wheelers and dealers the price of stocks go up.

[TopQuark]

Nick, thank you again for the wonderful posts on this thread. You have given more replies than those remaining on the thread had deserved: smirks and references to various religions do not constitute an intellectually honest discussion.

Thank you for adhering to the standards of a true scholar. Regards, TQ.

[Deuce]

If you place Friedman below Kudlow you should take a break from television, my friend.

Your blowing through these posts much too quickly. I place Friedman way above Kudlow. Did you think from reading my posts that I viewed establishment as a higher designation than semi-establishment. If so, slow down.

[TopQuark]

Q: Who were the perpetrators of the last irrational exuberance of the 1990s?

A: Wall Street Oh, I recognize it now: you use the same kind of precision in your debate with Nick, too. Yaaaahn.

Q: And what on earth did the Fed have to do with it? Of the money system in general? Absolutely nothing.

A: When you double the M-3 money supply in 12 years, the price of something is going up. It depends who you distribute it to. If to the poor, the price of bread and butter goes up; if to the middle class, the price of eating out goes up; if to the rich, the price of yachts go up; if to financial wheelers and dealers the price of stocks go up. And if stock certificates are painted orange, the spring will be warm.

Your thoughts sound as if they are taken from a diary of an intitutionalized schoolteacher: the words are kind of relevant to the subject, but the sentences... you know --- not much concern for causality.

Ask someone about stock- and, more broadly, asset-valuation models. Your answers are at the level I had expected tehm to be. It's good to lead troops from an armchair, isn't it? It's good to feel being an intellectual without becoming one: all you need is to put some fancy word together.

Thanks for your reply. Good night.

[TopQuark]

And what is the prerequisite for being an Intellectual? The ability to simply ignore historical fact with haughty arrogance? No, intellectual honesty is the first prerequisite (although formal education usually cultivates it, it is not required). Which translates into actions by, in particular, not pushing onto others that which one himself knows to be only half-baked. And, when a deficiency in the argument is discovered stepping back to fix it, rahter than running forard at the same speed.

When it comes to economics and the nature of social welfare, in contrast to mathematics and theroetical physics, none of us knows "the truth." All of us, including the experts, are merely trying to approach it. None of us is riding in that sense a high horse. But all of us are entitle to expect intellectual honesty with which the discussant pursue the subject.

Look at the post which was the object of my reply. I had asked, who the alleged perpetrators of exuberance were. Reply: Wall Street. This person did not even bothered to think as to what that means. If you were to look at Wall Street, you would immediately know that this is not even an institution. Each of the elements of that industry is so complex, it is hard to describe Morgan Stanley, for instance. A person who answers "Wall Street," Has never really rolled up his sleeves to look. Intellectual honesty in such cases requiers one to (i) acknolwedge that the answer is probalby compex and cannot be given by any two words, (ii) ask a lot of questions, (iii) repeat the preceding in several itereations. Anyone who has done research and advised others in theor persuits will tell you that. Lack of knowledge is forgivable, and scholars are quick to forgive that. But intellectual dishonesty amounts to robbery. As such, it is unforgivable.

[Deuce]

Maybe this will explain it to you.The following analysis, while clearly false has more substance than what Nick offers as valid commentary.

The 5th Plank of Communist Manifesto states: Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly;

Nick favors the centralized Federal Reserve credit monopoly;

Therefore, Nick is a Marxist.

See, that's not discussion or analysis or synthesis but stupidity. It certainly bears no relationship to Aristotle or Socrates

[Deuce]

Yes, that's one way to look at it. Also think about it this way: If an institution is allowed to create money by merely creating a liability against itself, such privilege will always be abused and other privileges will be created to cover up the inherent unsoundness of the system....until it finally collapses.

[Nick Danger]

Are you saying that the public debt has reduced by two trillion?

Don't ask me. All I did was post a link to the Bureau of the Public Debt. If they don't know how much the debt is, I sure don't.

There are, of course, numerous definitions of the "public debt." I think that site is counting the pile of Treasury securities that are out there. We could add to that the actuarial obligations of the Social Security system; that would certainly add a few bucks. Hell, we could throw in the Accounts Payable of the DOD and the GSA... there are undoubtedly a few more billion in there. The point is, there is no one number that is "the public debt." If there was, no one would know how much it is. It probably wobbles around by tens of billions every second.

As for the growth in the debt, I think we all know why that happens. We allow our politicians to spend money that we are unwilling to pay in taxes. Let's not blame the poor schmucks at the Treasury who have to carry out this mission. They're just raising the money that Congress has voted to spend. I think we have met the enemy here, and it's us. We keep voting for these people. They must think we like what they're doing.

[Deuce]

Did ya notice how Nick skipped right over President Andy Jackson in his little history lesson? I guess he would have had to call ol' Hickory an anit-semitic Marxist for taking on the bankers.

Not only Andy Jackson; Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, William Randolph, Roger Taney, Martin Van Buren, James Knox Polk to name a few others

[Bill Rice]

What is all this crazy talk about "abolishing the Ford"? Henry Ford is probably spinning in his grave! The Ford has always been a part of all of our lives. The Ford went to war with us. The Ford plowed our fields and pulled our combines. Many of us learned to work on cars by keeping our Fords running.

I know there's been some displeasure expressed about Ford being in bed with Nazi Germany, but that was many years ago. Ford employs and supports thousands and thousands of people world wide. Where are they supposed to go if we abolish the Ford?

What?? Huh? Oh, it's the FED?

Nevermind ...

[Deuce]

You indicated you were going to bed. Rest up. It'll do you good.

Quark Asks: Who were the perpetrators of the last irrational exuberance of the 1990s?

Deuce gives a two word answer. The best two word answer and using two more words than Quark has offered so far in answer to his own question. Yet Quark characterizes the answer as insufficient without offering an ounce of intellectual content of his own.

Quark then asks: And what on earth did the Fed have to do with it? Of the money system in general?

Quarks answer to his own question: Absolutely nothing. (This two word answer is the most content he has added in half a dozen posts. It's dead wrong, but he actually took a position. No wait. He also concluded that Friedman was superior to Kudlow. Brilliant.

Deuce's answer to the same question: Everything (including an explanation).

Now, if either you or Nick are actually interested in an intellectual debate of the issues, rather than taking pot shots (which I then feel compelled to counter with equal or greater force), let's do it. I

[Deuce]

Facecriminal Asked: And what is the prerequisite for being an Intellectual? The ability to simply ignore historical fact with haughty arrogance?

TopQuark answered: No, intellectual honesty is the first prerequisite

Well, my friend you have amply demonstrated in about an hour of commentary here that you don't measure up, yourself to the first prerequisite.

Offer of proof:

To a complex set of ideas requiring 4500 words to spell out, Nick answers with a single word: Marxism. Not only do you not criticize this, but use Aristotle and Socrates in your attempt to praise it.

Then, I answer a simple one line question (Who created the irrational exuberance of the 1990s) with the best two word answer (Wall St.) and you characterize it as vague.

Your intellectual DISHONESTY is transparent, my friend!!!!!

[Deuce]

What actually causes the collapse?

I know why. I don't know how or when. One can talk scenarios, however.Assume, for example, that a stock market meltdown of gigantic magnitude is set off for some reason---it doesn’t really matter what the reason is. Selling panics have a habit of feeding upon themselves and becoming uncontrollable. Hedge funds that have made highly leveraged bets will become hopelessly insolvent as well as any banks that are exposed to these hedge funds as lenders or counter-parties. Uncertainty and panic abounds. As people sell, more and more of them decide to put their money in gold “until the dust settles.” Seeing this process unfold, other people also look to get out of currencies and into gold, thereby exacerbating a stampede out of paper and electronic money. When the dust does settle, people will again become starkly aware of the folly of storing one’s value in paper currency and electronic money that someone else can print or create in unlimited supplies by whim. Real bank reform ensues.

It could happen tomorrow with trillions of dollars, or 40 years from now when we're keeping score in quadrillions.

[Deuce]

No, we are polishing the ford. see how shiny it looks.