Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[twostrokenut]

I must say I am growing weary of paying the premium for the GI coinage....when the Generics are becoming just as recognizable worldwide.....the 4 9's I remember being mentioned earlier, that is a nice touch.

 

[tokeprep]

Waffles!

Monkeys!

Gold teeth!

This is the response tokenperv writes everytime, well, it has the equivalent intelligence level at least.

You're the one who can't articulate any response. Your silence is far more damning than your empty words.

 

[tokeprep]

The example you used of cashing in a gold certificates would be exchanging the certificates for notes that are already borrowed into existence and thus created from debt....your other example of borrowing fractionally created funds, starting a business then turning a profit and repaying the interest is neglecting the fact that interest was paid back with others notes they also earned, which were also borrowed with interest. Like I said, if I shuffle notes from this account to that account, no debt is incurred....if I send credits to your PayPal I have incurred no debt, I am not arguing that. The credits I use to send to your PayPal were created from debt, but not by me or you.

I provided three explanations of how currency can be created and circulated without any debt obligation being incurred. In order to maintain your claim that all notes "are already borrowed into existence," you've chosen to just ignore them. Indeed, every party to this discussion has totally ignored them. If it's so easy to demonstrate that every paper note in existence was borrowed with interest at its creation, someone ought to do it.

Let's go with what should be the easiest one to understand. The Fed credits a bank's reserve account with 100; the bank already had enough reserves, so it can draw 100 in notes out of its reserve account and lend them out. The Fed just created 100 in additional notes that can enter circulation. Where is the debt?

You are obviously reading this http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

The fed is supposedly a compromise between public and private interests...for the greater good of all......the people running it are appointed not elected you can say we elected them that appointed, but literally half of us didn't, considering half of us don't pay taxes it's not hard to figure out which half voted which way.....

in fact the very purpose of the Fed is to balance private interests of banks and centralized responsibility of government....you are simply implying this balance is in perfect harmony and without error

I think you misunderstood my response. My answer meant no, nothing I said contradicted that banks own stock in the federal reserve banks. The second sentence explains that bank ownership is irrelevant to making a defamation case because all of the banks are public figures, just as the Federal Reserve and its key employees are all public figures.

It's not an assumption that increased production at a cheaper rate lowers prices in the presence of competition...it is law. In a free market this happens very quickly resulting in ridiculously low prices while maintaining income, wages and buying power.......even in a central planning environment that is anything but free it happens........I can only compete by offering similar quality at lower prices or better quality for the same price...

I wonder how many people lost their jobs due to the invention of the combine harvester......but you cannot deny it made prices cheaper on the retail level for that which was harvested.......this fact is simply left out of your calculations and rationalized as the Fed doing its job when it is the Market that is doing the work.

Your math leaves out crucial details like agriculture being waaaay more than 10 times more productive than it was.....

When you only consider the supply side and don't consider the demand side, it's an assumption. According to you, if supply increases 100 times, prices must go down. But what if demand increases by 150 times? Then prices go up, not down, despite that huge supply increase.

By all means, correct my details. How efficient is agriculture today compared to 100 years ago? 20 times as efficient? Alright, there's your supply increase. Now how much food does the average American eat today versus 100 years ago? Twice as much? If that's the case, you would expect prices to be exactly the same (adjusting for inflation) because demand and supply were matched. I'm not saying these numbers are correct ones, only that you must consider everything before making a conclusion. How much food do we export versus 1913? How much does it cost to get food to the consumer versus 1913 (which adds to the retail price of food)?

have you any clue that food prices are subsidized to keep prices high so that the farmers wages don't decrease? Have you any clue of why Sugar is not imported into this country??? These factors simply cannot be ignored because they don't fit your simplistic scenario of how you think people lived back then because they are heavy factors.

You realize that supports my case and not yours, don't you? If the federal government causes farmers to plant 100 million acres of corn where they otherwise would have planted another crop, in order to get a subsidy, that reduces the supply of other crops and should increase their prices. If the government mandates that some quantity of corn must be turned into ethanol every year, that reduces the availability of corn for food and increases the prices. Likewise, if the government sponsors inefficient American sugar production with subsidies and blocks other sources of sugar, that increases sugar prices.

The data you give for 1913 vs now is a guess at best.....the 1955 example of hourly wage vs hourly wage today at least can be measured with certainty.

Why do you say it's a guess? 1913 was the first year of the income tax and the first year of CPI, so we have a lot of data beginning in 1913 that we never had before that time. The data from before 1913, in the gold and silver days, is much more of a guess!

Yes depending on when you measure and what you measure against. Indeed if I measure a length of board to cut, I have measured a tape measure vs a length of board.....

Give me a time period and I'll measure whatever you want me to measure. I'm certainly not afraid of truth, I embrace it.

 

[tokeprep]

I have no clue what you are saying here and how it shows that intervention in the economy other than what worked in the past....which was doing nothing....fixes it or makes it better.

Maybe I should say it graphically. The gray bars indicate recession (ignore the S&P line, it's not relevant):



As you can see, after the Great Depression economic recessions became less frequent and less shallow than historically.

1871-1900: The US economy was in recession 48% of the time.
1900-1950: The US economy was in recession 37% of the time.
1950-2009: The US economy was in recession 13% of the time.

 

[twostrokenut]

I provided three explanations of how currency can be created and circulated without any debt obligation being incurred. In order to maintain your claim that all notes "are already borrowed into existence," you've chosen to just ignore them. Indeed, every party to this discussion has totally ignored them. If it's so easy to demonstrate that every paper note in existence was borrowed with interest at its creation, someone ought to do it.

Let's go with what should be the easiest one to understand. The Fed credits a bank's reserve account with 100; the bank already had enough reserves, so it can draw 100 in notes out of its reserve account and lend them out. The Fed just created 100 in additional notes that can enter circulation. Where is the debt?

Given the absolute fact that a FRN is indeed a banknote and is comprised of the EXACT same components as any other note that was borrowed into existence such as your house or someone's else's car note (I have a good memory), you should see that it does "functionally matter" and the reason they comply isn't simply "irrelevant" as you so eloquently put it earlier....BTW that is the philosophical equivalent of na nan a boo boo........

Demonstration commencement:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banknote

banknote =promissory note.....

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=note&type=1

demand note=promissory note=banknote

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debtinstrument.asp

mortgages = notes = bonds = certificates = banknote = promissory note = debt instrument; enables the issuing party to raise funds.....but you said it's all good because it goes back to the tax payer remember?

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/debt-instrument.html

bills of exchange = debt instrument = mortgages = notes = bonds = certificates = banknote = promissory note.........and also...

"debt instrument serves as a legally enforceable evidence of a debt"

This is just the first places that pop up....go find some more...... I prefer a Black's Dictionary from whatever exact year we are talking about but I lost my pdf's long ago.

 

[twostrokenut]

Maybe I should say it graphically. The gray bars indicate recession (ignore the S&P line, it's not relevant):

View attachment 2670845

As you can see, after the Great Depression economic recessions became less frequent and less shallow than historically.

1871-1900: The US economy was in recession 48% of the time.
1900-1950: The US economy was in recession 37% of the time.
1950-2009: The US economy was in recession 13% of the time.

They became less frequent because the Fed gained new powers to simply inject money in the system to deal with the recessions...if a crackhead lives from 1871 until 2009 and he has to go get his own crack the first 1/3 of his life he will have crack attacks frequently, say 48% of the time .....

over the years as I am granted more power and authority to give crack out more freely I can reduce crack attacks to 37% and 13% respectively.....and my graph would look the same.....It's getting time to OD soon though cause crack and "free money" are killers.

 

[tokeprep]

Given the absolute fact that a FRN is indeed a banknote and is comprised of the EXACT same components as any other note that was borrowed into existence such as your house or someone's else's car note (I have a good memory), you should see that it does "functionally matter" and the reason they comply isn't simply "irrelevant" as you so eloquently put it earlier....BTW that is the philosophical equivalent of na nan a boo boo........

Demonstration commencement:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banknote

banknote =promissory note.....

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?typed=note&type=1

demand note=promissory note=banknote

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debtinstrument.asp

mortgages = notes = bonds = certificates = banknote = promissory note = debt instrument; enables the issuing party to raise funds.....but you said it's all good because it goes back to the tax payer remember?

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/debt-instrument.html

bills of exchange = debt instrument = mortgages = notes = bonds = certificates = banknote = promissory note.........and also...

"debt instrument serves as a legally enforceable evidence of a debt"

This is just the first places that pop up....go find some more...... I prefer a Black's Dictionary from whatever exact year we are talking about but I lost my pdf's long ago.

Thanks for the definitions. Now explain to me where the debt that you're claiming must exist, by definition, is in the following example: The central buys a $100 bond from the treasury with new money that the central bank printed; the treasury pays the debt off with the notes it received; and then the central bank pays its profit on the bond to the treasury.

The treasury now has $100 with no debt obligation offsetting it. Where is the debt?

 

[twostrokenut]

I think you misunderstood my response. My answer meant no, nothing I said contradicted that banks own stock in the federal reserve banks. The second sentence explains that bank ownership is irrelevant to making a defamation case because all of the banks are public figures, just as the Federal Reserve and its key employees are all public figures.

Since when are shareholders not in the profit game and not wanting to correct lies about their product? Would 6 of the 9 directors elected by the private stock holders to the Regional Boards of Directors be public then? So what are the other 3, private directors?

 

[twostrokenut]

lmao geez can I interest (pun intended) you in a bold italic?

Thanks for the definitions. Now explain to me where the debt that you're claiming must exist, by definition, is in the following example: The central buys a $100 bond from the treasury with new money that the central bank printed; the treasury pays the debt off with the notes it received; and then the central bank pays its profit on the bond to the treasury.

The treasury now has $100 with no debt obligation offsetting it. Where is the debt?

Treasury bonds do not mature and pay interest?

The bond is not representative of future taxes?

Where did the profit on the bond come from?

 

[tokeprep]

They became less frequent because the Fed gained new powers to simply inject money in the system to deal with the recessions...if a crackhead lives from 1871 until 2009 and he has to go get his own crack the first 1/3 of his life he will have crack attacks frequently, say 48% of the time .....

over the years as I am granted more power and authority to give crack out more freely I can reduce crack attacks to 37% and 13% respectively.....and my graph would look the same.....It's getting time to OD soon though cause crack and "free money" are killers.

So the 100 years of progress since the Fed was created is all financial trickery--just the addition of the dollars to the system--and none of it is real? No recession was ever actually cured, just temporarily papered over until the inevitable collapse comes?

 

[tokeprep]

Since when are shareholders not in the profit game and not wanting to correct lies about their product? Would 6 of the 9 directors elected by the private stock holders to the Regional Boards of Directors be public then? So what are the other 3, private directors?

Why does it matter if the directors are public or private figures?

 

[twostrokenut]

You realize that supports my case and not yours, don't you? If the federal government causes farmers to plant 100 million acres of corn where they otherwise would have planted another crop, in order to get a subsidy, that reduces the supply of other crops and should increase their prices. If the government mandates that some quantity of corn must be turned into ethanol every year, that reduces the availability of corn for food and increases the prices. Likewise, if the government sponsors inefficient American sugar production with subsidies and blocks other sources of sugar, that increases sugar prices.

It increases all food prices because the ethanol gas is only 90% efficient meaning prices are now 110% for fuel to deliver and make everything. Corn is the top agricultural subsidy....how does it support your side you actually think if corn was allowed to fall like it should, unhindered by central planners that it would be a result of the central bank working better than markets??

If we let sugar in from other countries like Cuba, and our prices for everything related to sugar fall as a result, how is fractional reserve lending the hero and not the market that is keeping and improving purchasing power??

Oh yeah I forgot we are not operating at a deficit right now and inflation is non existent and basic free market principals are still not driving prices down on unsubsidized things......despite fractional reserve lending......have fun writing the rest of the tax code here.....

see my post about the GSXR for your future posts.....going to see some weed related shit....but it doesn't matter for I have chosen to apply Keynesian principals to my grow...where I don't take care of it properly, abuse it and try to grow with a deficit of nutrients and knowledge.....hell the worse it looks the more it will surely yield.

 

[tokeprep]

lmao geez can I interest (pun intended) you in a bold italic?

Treasury bonds do not mature and pay interest?

The bond is not representative of future taxes?

It's called monetizing debt. The bond did mature (and paid interest if you like). The matured amount was profit to the central bank, which is then paid to the treasury. The treasury now has $100 that didn't previously exist, offset by no obligation.

 

[tokeprep]

It increases all food prices because the ethanol gas is only 90% efficient meaning prices are now 110% for fuel to deliver and make everything. Corn is the top agricultural subsidy....how does it support your side you actually think if corn was allowed to fall like it should, unhindered by central planners that it would be a result of the central bank working better than markets??

I don't think corn should be subsidized. Ethanol is silly, and corn is laughable as food. Corn subsidies drive up the prices on all other food by creating incentives to plant corn instead of other crops. Accordingly, corn is very cheap, and other crops are artificially expensive. That was my point.

We seem to both agree that subsidies increase prices. If subsidies make things more expensive, that furthers my case about the cost of food (it reflects bad government policy and isn't strictly the result of inflation).

If we let sugar in from other countries like Cuba, and our prices for everything related to sugar fall as a result, how is fractional reserve lending the hero and not the market that is keeping and improving purchasing power??

Fractional reserve lending has nothing to do with subsidies on sugar. That's a political choice made by the federal government.

Oh yeah I forgot we are not operating at a deficit right now and inflation is non existent and basic free market principals are still not driving prices down on unsubsidized things......despite fractional reserve lending......have fun writing the rest of the tax code here.....

see my post about the GSXR for your future posts.....going to see some weed related shit....but it doesn't matter for I have chosen to apply Keynesian principals to my grow...where I don't take care of it properly, abuse it and try to grow with a deficit of nutrients and knowledge.....hell the worse it looks the more it will surely yield.

That probably wouldn't help me since I don't anything about growing weed...

 

[twostrokenut]

Go grow some, smoke it, then realize the first year of income taxes is not a proper way to measure average income.....as if everyone filed the first year and did not fudge if they did file. Then realize sugar prices falling rock bottom where they belong cannot happen in a central planner aka fractional reserve system and if they did wages would have more power due to free trade not the even or slightly higher power that is claimed as a means to live up to a mission statement.....food stamps mission statement is to bring healthy food to children and the poor.....many are fat from doughnuts and teeth are missing from mt.dew but hell there the mission statement still is right on the page.....and they must be successful because the funding is increasing......success seems to be measured by fat subsidized families at the first of the month and this must be healthy....but they will need additional funds for food counselors and on and on it goes till your kids don't have Social Security..............

 

[tokeprep]

Go grow some, smoke it, then realize the first year of income taxes is not a proper way to measure average income.....as if everyone filed the first year and did not fudge if they did file.

You don't have to rely on income tax data to conclude that the average income in 1913 was $750. If you can find another figure that looks more reliable, I will wholeheartedly embrace it.

 

[Harrekin]

Go grow some, smoke it, then realize the first year of income taxes is not a proper way to measure average income.....as if everyone filed the first year and did not fudge if they did file.

He just mentioned the monitization of debt... Like two pages after I mentioned it first.

Lol.

 

[tokeprep]

He just mentioned the monitization of debt... Like two pages after I mentioned it first.

Lol.

You actually didn't mention it first, since I described the process before you mentioned it. And your mention revealed that you had no understanding of the process, so I'm not sure why you're congratulating yourself.

 

[twostrokenut]

Lmfao I know you are but what am I??

 

[twostrokenut]

Poor Chesus, reckon he left on account of this thread? I like his Darius Rucker "Alright" attitude though, I find it's a good way to be.