Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, May 28, 2021.
mchammer, I agree with your last sentence, 100%. It's just that oversight and spending overlap with Fed policy. The US government doesn't receive enough taxes to do everything they want to do so they fund it through Fed increasing the money supply.
It is a hidden tax. They basically take money away from us through devaluation. Kings have been doing this for thousands of years. It's just that central banking is more secretive, subtle, and technological.
The trusts in the 1900s didn't control the market. That was a myth created by the Progressives. Looking at the data, competition increased through the 19th century into the 1900s until the Sherman Antitrust Act was signed. The Antitrust Act actually was used by big corporations to reduce competition. It is 180 degrees from what it was supposed to do. But there is a thing called Rent Seeking or cronyism which shows that large corporations tailor laws to benefit themselves not competition.
As far as access to capital, more reserves means the interest goes up which incentivizes lending to endeavors which have the greatest chance of success. But the interest rate with float as a signal to allow more or less investment. The benefit is no bank runs, no recessions, no busts. The cost is slower growth compared to boom times. However, the boom times do not reflect reality. They are an illusion. Frederick Hayek won the Nobel prize in economics in 1974 for explaining this phenomenon. Go with Hayek. Forget Keynes. He was a closet socialist.
Panics of various types were pretty common. You might get more problems in general, but it's usually not because of the Fed. They might be part of the problem, but the force driving it is usually coming from Capitol Hill and the White House. They don't typically just say, "it has been awhile since we've had some inflation. Now seems like a good time." They're usually reacting to something stupid that Congress has done.
That sounds nice and ideologically pure, but somebody has to actually facilitate this and sometimes do so quickly.
I agree that banks act irresponsibly, but again this is usually because of stupid decisions by the political branches. We tell them to make risky loans at low interest rates, and we bail them out with taxpayer money when things go badly. That's because the politicians want those things. If the economy is riding a bubble on election day, incumbents usually do well. Furthermore, their constituents are happy when they can easily buy homes, so they want that facilitated. However, they also don't want freakouts and panic when banks fail from this sort of bad policy, so they hand out bailouts. The politicians like this, and ultimately we like it.
Deez. I agree. Politicians set up the Fed to carry out their plans. Getting rid of the Fed doesn't get rid of corrupt policy. But it does take away the means to their end.
I don't know how to change politicians, but I do know how to castrate their plans. If there is a more logical first step than abolishing the Fed I am for it. But ending the Fed makes it much harder to cause problems. That and going away from fiat currency or using a fiat currency that has a supply limit.
But does it really take away the means? To me, it's a bit like the people who bash the IRS and would take great joy in its elimination. The IRS is largely a bunch of civil servants enforcing a tax code written by sleazy politicians. Getting rid of them wouldn't fix anything if the underlying code didn't go away. Congress would just create a new agency with a nicer-sounding name that did basically the same thing. The biggest impact is that we'd have to spend a bunch of money on new stationary and changing the signs outside the IRS buildings.
If the Fed went away but Congress stayed the same, they would simply create another mechanism to do the same thing, and it would probably be worse than the Fed. Hell, they might even set the money supply themselves. They have that power.
I agree. The political philosophy would need to change or you would end up with something similar. Where I am coming from is that the political philosophy change would have to occur in order to get rid of the Fed anyway. So it is inherent in the issue. You get the political will to end the Fed, then you have a government that sees its problems and wants to get back to a free market of money and capital. If that happens you don't keep central banking just because some day in the future political will may change again. That would be nonsensical.
Read this article from the St Louis Fed. Central Banks are private corporations and not just in the US. There is a lot of privatized corporations doing business on behalf of the Government that are known as part of the Government. The Media does not impart any of this nor public school systems.
Woodrow Wilson 1913:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
Wilson is the reason for all the problems he laments. What an idiot.
Kind of sounds like Bill Maher and most other libidiots these days.
It's sorta like if George W. Bush lamented the Iraq War and just completely ignored that he led the nation into that war. I truly believe Wilson was the worst president we've ever had. I know some make the case for LBJ, and that has merit, but what makes LBJ so bad is that he was a lot like Wilson.
I would say Woody, then FDR, then LBJ. They both followed in each other's foot steps. LBJ did many FDR-like things too.
When Leftists are honest they see that Leftism is a problem. But usually they are too in awe of their Leftist utopian vision of the moment. They go from jihad to jihad of perceived injustice without thinking about the end goal.
At least we've found a few Longhorns who support the 2015 removal of the Woodrow Wilson statue from campus.
LBJ declared his "War on poverty." How many trillions of dollars have gone into the programs he created? And the poverty rate has barely budged.
Uh-oh - Poll: Biden Approval Rating Slips 6 Points Since April | Newsmax.com. Apparently the honeymoon is over.
Say 2022 is a disaster for Dems. Further say the polls show desantis beating Biden in 2023. Guess what happens before dem primary season? Media discovers Hunter Biden, the big guy gets 10%, etc.
Wilson's main complaint against it all was just that he wasn't part of those dominant men, not that a small group of people was making decisions for the whole country.
Wilson was a strange president - one who constantly chaffed at the Constitution that was expressly designed to prevent concentrations of power, like he wished for himself. Obama was similar, however at least Wilson loved his country, while King Barry thought the first good thing the USA had ever done was to elect him as president.
It's like arguing over whether Hitler or Mao was worse.
Presidential election will be in 24.
Slow Joe can't stay up past 3 pm now, and he's 79 - he'll be 82 next campaign season for President. No way that senile diaper soiler runs for a second term.
The plan was to put the Joker and manically giggler Harris into the White House, after the 2022 election, allowing for 2 plus years of media / big tech / entertainment complex suck-assestry to fluff her up into being considered the best leader in the history of the the world. But she's so horrible as a politician and a person, I'm not sure how that's going to play out. There's a reason why she looked so good on paper going into the 2020 primary races, and had to drop out even before Iowa with about 2 percent in the polls. She's terrible.
As for President Depends accomplishments, he has:
Purposely lost control of the border, allowing anyone in the world who wants to run across and get registered to vote do so.
Surrendered to Russia by allowing for their gas pipeline to go through, and ceded the Black Sea to them as Russia's own body of water, US ships to not sail in.
Surrendered to the free-loading Euros and allowed them to cheat on their obligations to fund NATO - remember of all the things that the Euros were mad at President Trump about, them actually having to meet their own legal obligations to pay for their defense was the most galling to them.
Spent money like a crack ***** who filed out a credit card in her kids name. The term "drunker sailor" isn't even correct - they at least spend their own money. The US is stealing money from the future to buy votes now.
Place the expected anti-American and anti-white people into various government positions, where they fit in nicely with the totally non-partisan and dedicated career bureaucrats.
Depends is like a modern version of Jimmy Cater - bankruptcy at home, impotence abroad!
But at least Jimmy was a good man. Joe Biden got his big political break when his wife ran a stop sign and crushed herself and her kids under a truck. He gravy trained off that for years, spreading a lie that the truck driver was drunk, which was a complete fabrication.
He also finger raped his own staff worker, thankfully for him she didn't go to the right school so she's a kook!
There were dolts who actually approved of Biden before now?
Except that on most college campuses now, you can't. As Mao was Chinese, it's evil and certainly racialist to even consider him being bad. Plus his Cultural Revolution is the exact thing that occurs on campus each day.
Maybe when they start doing the Pol Pot thing and murdering anyone who wears glasses the pendulum will begin to turn. Till then - wear contacts!
There is absolutely no reason to have a statue of him on the 40 Acres. Didn't know there was one anyway.
My understanding is that the Wilson statue was placed on campus at the same time as the Jefferson Davis statue (also removed, of course) to signify national rights vs states' rights. Littlefield paid for the Davis statue plus other Texan / Confederate statues (likely all removed but unsure which came from Littlefield vs other folks). The end of the debate must be that both states' rights and national rights are bad!
Joe getting heat from Progressives who scream about Democracy but they don't like it when their minority status in the Legislature prevents them from ramming it home.
Democracy is pretty fluid.
"Top Democrats said they won’t support a Senate bipartisan infrastructure deal unless there is a guarantee they can pass a massive spending package alongside it that would pay for free college, universal preschool, new healthcare subsidies, green energy initiatives, and other liberal wish list proposals.
Democrats are banking on a “two-step” approach that would pair a narrow infrastructure measure costing roughly $1 trillion with a bill that could cost up to six times as much and would cover what the party describes as “human infrastructure.” The second bill would pass using a budgetary tactic called reconciliation, which allows some legislation to pass the Senate with only 51 votes rather than the usual 60."
Bystander says: They're just sick. Their initiatives and demands are so over the top that I wish Trump were President.
“Human Infrastructure”, now that’s a good one. I have always admired whomever creates the names for the congressional bills. Rarely do they mean what they are called but darn creative.
Bi-partisan infrastructure deal reached. Great. Screw the extremes.
"Back in 2009, former President Barack Obama made some lofty promises about the infrastructure overhaul that his $800 billion economic stimulus plan would provide. Obama used the phrase “shovel-ready projects” in reference to construction projects that could begin right away.
In the end, however, only $98.3 billion of the $800 billion stimulus was dedicated to transportation and infrastructure. Of that $98.3 billion, only about $27.5 billion was actually spent on transportation infrastructure projects. Why?
“The problem is that spending it out takes a long time, because there’s really nothing – there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects,” Obama said in a 2010 interview with the New York Times.
When it comes to economic stimulus, local governments may take years to begin actual construction even once they receive funding. The reason why such a small portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ended up spent on infrastructure is that the projects are simply too slow to get off the ground to provide meaningful near-term stimulus.
“If you are talking about stimulating the economy, ‘shovel ready’ doesn’t mean get the money on Monday and start on Tuesday,” former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell said.
“When [Obama] says there’s no such thing as ‘shovel ready,’ he’s right...When we said ‘shovel ready’ we meant ‘shovel ready’ in the way we do things.”
It's just sickening how Liberals lie and lie...