|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This question about the rate of increase of fiat money relative to the GDP. Come on, think about it.
Is the question here really how much actual money and credit are available?
What does anyone care if the quantity of USD is 1 to the 75th power or 1 to the 24th power PROVIDED
that each dollar still holds its value relatively well. It has been occurring for some decades, in fact for more
than a century, that the old USD has been relatively stable with few serious threats to its demise.
The rapidly increasing quantity of USD have been absorbed at a rate that exceeds our published
growth of GDP BECAUSE the USD is a store of value that is highly liquid in world markets and highly
stable. This relative stability is bolstered by an above average management of the central bank,
a highly liquid and most transparent capital market system, the desire to enjoy many of the things
unique to the US such as great professional sports teams and Hollywood, (yes even if we do not
necessarily like the content, they are not always a bad advertisement.) Last and far from the least
the dollar is well defended by an arsenal of ATOMIC BOMBS and the democratic government that
sponsors it is often in grid lock. All of this leads to relative stability and great desirability of the
currency.
You guys are all hung up on the fundamentals. Consider the following:
When we found Sadam, he was with his stash of USD.
Further if you sell short the price of a gravel pile and someone comes along and buys them
as "Pet Rocks" your account (marked to market) looses value.
Another thing, see if you can find any currency that has weathered so much for so long with such
relative stability. Just name one, and then study its history.
Try running a banking and credit system where money continually becomes "more dear" and is
constantly INCREASING in value. You will find you would much rather operate in an environment of
gradual depreciation or erosion of value.
I would suggest that you study the "History of Money" (also a recent book by that name). Therein you
will find that the system that we have has worked much better than the next best thing.
Think it over a little bit.
You guys need to decide whether you want to make money and enjoy the good life or spend your
time keeping count of the increasing quantity of US money.
If you want to keep on pointing at this "boogie man" then you will be less able to be objective to
harvest profits from the markets and are destined to more often be the bait fish that feed the
traders who wake up each day to do none other than MAKE MONEY. Those people are
realist who do not care how much the rate of increase in the money supply is, just so long as
their personal portion of the entire money supply increases at a greater rate!!!
What do you guys really want to do?
Thank You
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: Jose Silva
To: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:33 PM
Subject: [EquisMetaStock Group] Re: the Federal Reserve Bank is not owned nor controlled by the US government
> We have already established that the government appoints Fed board
> officers which take strategic decisions, and that the economic net
> profits of the Fed system belongs to the US Treasury.
Pastor, there is a major fundamental difference between "appointing"
someone to do a job, and having control of the situation.
American citizens "appointed" Mr George W. Bush to make strategic
decisions on their behalf. It now seems that only 30% or so of voters are
happy with their appointed leadership, but there is nothing that the other
70% can do about the unpopular strategic decisions currently being made by
the White House. In other words, American people in general do not have
control of their current situation - their "appointed" leader(s)
apparently do.
Regardless of who was appointed to do the job, American people are not in
control of their own currency either. If they were, I doubt very much
that they would willingly debase the USD at a rate of 10%pa.
> Please otherwise tell me precisely what specific, substantive
> benefits of share ownership, according to customary use of language,
Pastor, with all due respect, I'm not interested into being dragged into
any intellectual debate on semantics. You either understand the basics of
the USD problem, or you don't.
If one continually prints fiat money in excess of GDP rates, then that is
a sure recipe for currency debasement. Ownership or no ownership of the
Fed Reserve, it makes no difference - the USD is being debased at a rapid
rate, and if this is allowed to continue we will see the fall and collapse
of the greenback within our lifetime.
jose '-)
http://www.metastocktools.com/#USindex
--- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pastor_barr <no_reply@xxx> wrote:
>
> > "War Is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
> >
> > We live in an age where the word has become an instrument of liars,
> where
> > though constant repetition, lies are eventually perceived as truth
> by the
> > general public.
> > The powers that be may play around with words as much as they like,
but
> > the fact remains that the Fed Reserve is neither owned nor
> controlled by
> > the publicly-elected US government.
>
> There's only one side of this discussion engaging in Newspeak, Jose,
> and that is unfortunately yours.
>
> We have already established that the government appoints Fed board
> officers which take strategic decisions, and that the economic net
> profits of the Fed system belongs to the US Treasury.
>
> If these two elements don't represent the defining characteristics of
> corporate ownership and control, I don't know what does.
>
> Please otherwise tell me precisely what specific, substantive
> benefits of share ownership, according to customary use of language,
> you believe accrues to Feb member banks' that justify your repeated
> assertions of private ownership?
>
>
>
>
> --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jose Silva" <josesilva22@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Straight from the horse's mouth:
> > ( http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5 )
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Who owns the Federal Reserve?
> >
> > The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a
> private,
> > profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity
> within the
> > government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
> >
> > As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its
authority
> > from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank
> > because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or
> > anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it
> does
> > not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the
> members
> > of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional
> > terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by
> Congress,
> > which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its
> > responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work
within
> > the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial
> policy
> > established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be
> more
> > accurately described as "independent within the government."
> >
> > The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by
> > Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking
> system, are
> > organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some
> > confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue
> shares
> > of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite
> > different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks
are
> > not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock
> is, by
> > law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be
> sold,
> > traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6
> > percent per year.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Let's see:
> >
> >
> > "...having both public purposes and private aspects."
> >
> > A major utility company, say one that supplies energy to a whole
region
> > (Enron Corporation comes to mind), also has "both public purposes and
> > private aspects" - it provides a public service, and is privately
owned
> > and controlled, and the two purposes may not necessarily be mutually
> > agreeable.
> >
> >
> > "The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by
> > Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking
> system, are
> > organized much like private corporations"
> >
> > The following 12 entities are also organized much like private
> > corporations:
> >
> > American Express Co.
> > Boeing Co.
> > Citigroup Inc.
> > Coca-Cola Co.
> > Exxon Mobil Corp.
> > General Electric Co.
> > General Motors Corp.
> > IBM Corp.
> > McDonald's Corp.
> > Merck & Co. Inc.
> > Microsoft Corp.
> > Walt Disney Co.
> >
> > Now, imagine these 12 corporations running the Federal Reserve Bank
> > appearing on Fox News tonight to state that, although they act
> completely
> > independent of the US government and are controlled by privately-owned
> > entities, the Fed Res is neither publicly nor privately owned.
> > Hogwash.
> >
> >
> > "War Is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
> >
> > We live in an age where the word has become an instrument of liars,
> where
> > though constant repetition, lies are eventually perceived as truth
> by the
> > general public.
> > The powers that be may play around with words as much as they like,
but
> > the fact remains that the Fed Reserve is neither owned nor
> controlled by
> > the publicly-elected US government.
> >
> >
> > jose '-)
> > http://www.metastocktools.com/#USindex
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Lionel Issen" <lissen@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pastor:
> > >
> > > Thanks for confirming my suspicions that the USD printing press is
not
> > > privately owned. It doesn't really matter much since so much of our
> > > "money" is electronically generated by the more irrational elements
of
> > > the private sector.
> > >
> > > About 10 +/- years ago there were a spate of postings on the internet
> > > claiming that the IRS was a private company incorporated outside
> of the
> > > US, and thus we didn't have to pay any income taxes. These stopped
> after
> > > the IRS publicized several Supreme court rulings enabling the IRS to
> > > forcibly collect income taxes, and I think the Feds went after these
> > > fanatics and discouraged them from further spreading these misleading
> > > falsehoods (aka lies).
> > >
> > > Lionel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > On Behalf Of pastor_barr
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:01 PM
> > > To: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [EquisMetaStock Group] Re: Day of Week Function?
> performance for
> > > the specified day of the week.
> > >
> > >
> > > "The USD printing press is privately owned."
> > >
> > >> It's amazing the number of sites that try and point the above
> fact, and
> > >> disappear in the process...
> > >
> > > Hmmm.
> > >
> > > To use an - in this case unrepresentative - corporate analogy the
> > > executive branch appoints the Fed board that takes all strategic
> > > decisions.
> > >
> > > The US treasury owns the net profits of the Fed system and can at its
> > > sole discretion transfer said profits to the treasury or leave them
in
> > > reserves.
> > >
> > > The "dividend" mentioned in the Fed's accounts are at a 5% fixed
rate
> > > on capital committed in cash to the reserve system (like a preferred
> > > dividend), that for the vast majority of history has not come close
to
> > > covering member bank's cost of capital. In accounting this equates to
> > > interest expense, not an economic share of profits generated as
> > > accrues to shareholders in the ordinary sense; this is a distinction
> > > not lost on the Fed's auditors in their statement of departures from
> > > accounting convention, last time I checked.
> > >
> > > Further, member banks can not sell any shares if they wish to retain
a
> > > banking license. On the contrary, member banks are obliged to
> > > unconditionally subscribe for new issues as determined at the sole
> > > discretion of the politically appointed board of governors from time
> > > to time.
> > >
> > > So, while the Fed member banks are for archaic reasons known as
> > > "shareholders" they are not private owners of the Fed in any
> > > meaningful sense.
> > >
> > > Maybe that is why the sites you refer to disappeared; perhaps people
> > > realized they were peddling misrepresentations so egregious that they
> > > can only be accurately described as a pack of lies.
> > >
> > > Nice indicator though ;-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:equismetastock-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:equismetastock-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|