What can be done to realistically make the FED vanish?

What would make it "legal tender"?

What would have made it any more a fraud than the legal tender Federal Reserve Note?

 

You just made that up, lol

 

The government could reallocate spending from other sources. Instead we have a President who would rather spend the money on military endeavors in the Middle East while threatening to withhold SS checks.

Go ahead and do it then.

Why would union membership decline if the unions are good for workers?

No they don't, they only respresent their members.

Some folks would rather hold a job that pays less than what the union dictates than have no job at all.

Because we did have 14% inflation despite the fact that nobody wanted inflation.

The point was about raising unemployment benefits, not the MW. So please address it in that context.

Government agencies like the Fed cannot create wealth, they can only shift it around. Unless you'd care to prove how the Fed can create wealth by manipulating the money supply and interest rates.

The Fed's actions and subsequent domino effect it has on crippling the economy can be demonstrated.
It has nothing to do with partisanship, it has to do with the fact that the Fed doesn't create any wealth, it just shifts it around.

Where did I do that?

 

Then why would any one voluntarily pay into the SS system?

Don't feel like taking the time on a tangental point.

Becuase they are not good for management and owners.

Depends on whether employees have to be members.

Sure. That is how management drives labor cost to the lowest possible denominator instead of its value as a whole.

So what?

Address what?

Agencies like the Fed can help prevent destruction of wealth and can help create wealth .

The Fed helps create wealth by lowering the cost of capital which businesses use to create wealth.

I haven't seen it. I've just seen unsupported and dubious claims.

It doesn't appear that way to me.

Comparing the wealth index and the GDP per capita after 1970 with all time periods before.

 

They probably wouldn't. It's broke, an attestment to the failure of central economic planning.

That's because they run them out of business by driving up the cost of employment.
What does that have to do with whether or not unions are good for workers?

That's true. So much for "workers rights".

The job is only worth what folks are willing to be paid for it. Artificially raising the cost of employment not only drives unemployment up, but it denys the workers the right to compete.

When you have a 14+% annual inflation rate like we did in the early 80s, there's not a whole lot you can do about it when you're trying to support a family. You'll just have to rough it out for a year until your employer is forced to raise your payrate. Or maybe he will just fire you because he can't afford to pay you more.

Raising the minimum wage once a year or even every 6 months is not a viable solution. The problem runs deeper than that - with the agency that has historically proven itself incapable of controlling inflation.

The fact that most who are receiving unemployment benefits don't see them rise to keep up with inflation.

How can the Fed prevent wealth from being "destroyed"?

And we've seen what happened as a result of the Fed artificially keeping interest rates too low too long during times of high velocity of money.

Do you deny that a moral hazard generates an environment in which shoddy lending practices occur?

You have also admitted above that the Fed keeping the Fed funds rate down lowers the cost of capital. Do you deny that the Fed keeping rates down during times of high velocity of money artificially encourages more loans to be made than otherwise would have, by driving down the cost of capital?

Your own source cited the Fed keeping rates too low too long as a catalyst for the recession.

All you've done is explain how the Fed artificially lowers the cost of capital. That does not "create wealth". The cost of capital is lower than it's ever been right now, and yet we aren't seeing any "wealth creation".

What does that have to do with interchanging a receipt gold standard with a fractional reserve gold standard?

 

what needs to vanish is all the ignorance and misinformation about the fed

 

Redundant. Nobody is disputing this.

 

so go away

 

you are one of the people posting misinformation about the fed

if i went away there would be more misinformation and propaganda posted

my assertions about the fed are backed up with reliable info sources

 

It can do so only with full and complete transparency of all economic transactions. As long as transactions can be conducted in secrecy, the market will not work as you think.

 

Oh, .......well thanks for letting me know.

 

All most illuminating but with the Chinese already in the process of making it redundant , it is all rather academic .

 

Absolute nonsense. The only thing you've done is dismiss one of my sources by attacking the individual himself.

That's an argument of dismissal and ad hominem. Two logical fallacies at once.

 

Feel free to explain why.

 

g edward griffin is known to be a poor source of information

his works have been thoroughly debunked, especially 'the creature from jekyll island'

but of course the people he panders to won't accept the facts and cling to his propaganda

 

I disagree with your opinion for reasons already stated.

The "debunking" you listed was proven to be not credible. The debunker used an out of date edition and misquoted the book. Given that it was from a progressive website that was in its best interest to defame a book that slams leftwing progressives for being in bed with corrupt wealthy international bankers, it's no surprise that your source resorted to dishonest tactics to smear Griffin in order to push its radical agenda.

I don't accept your say-so on faith as a good enough of a reason to believe that the information presented in his book is non-factual.

 

of course you ignore the truth, just like i said you would

 

Your baseless say-so does not equate to "truth".

Of course you ignored the rest of my post because it proved you wrong, just like i said you would.

 

Thus the reason to mandate payment.

I don't know, what.

LOL, what "rights"?

That is simply your opinion. There are other measures as to what a job is worth, including what an owner would be willing to pay for it.

Depends on whether your raise was greater than 14% the year before.

Of course it is a vialbe solution. Then MW income keeps up with inflation.

What is your evidence of that "fact"?

I don't know, how?

What? We haven't had a problem with inflation for 30 years.

I don't think it makes a heck of a lot of difference to those who seek to maximize their short term bonuses and fees.

Again, repeating your same assertions does not make them more persuasive. The Wiki article listed all the arguments for the Great Recession. I agree there are some misguided folks out there who blame the Great Recession largley on the Fed.

Sure it does. Wealth is created when individuals and businesses have the capacity to borrow money to engage in wealth creating behavior. Remove that access to capital and you diminish the opportunity to create wealth.

You tell me. You lumped them together. That is my point in the fallacy of your causal argument.

 

if you're going to keep throwing the word 'proved' around, you should learn what it really means

 

Payment has already been mandated for decades and the system is broke.

Not a viable solution.

That's what I'm asking you. You made the claim.

Union supporters typically cite the "worker's right" to collective bargaining as the reason for requiring union membership as a condition of employment. The irony is that the individual is being denied the "worker's right" to choose whether he wants to be a member of the union.

Which is exactly why leftwing proclamations of supporting "workers' rights" is union propaganda.

The owner has to be willing to pay greater than or equal to the minimum amount that folks are willing to be paid for it. Which means that it's only worth at minimum what folks are willing to be paid for it.

Didn't happen with minimum wage. Too bad for them, I guess.

What makes you think that the government will be able to accurately predict what the inflation rate is going to be 6 months to a year in advance?

In the meantime, folks who are working MW will have to wait a half year or even more for their incomes to increase to keep up with inflation.

Not a viable solution.

Unemployment benefits are not locked to inflation.

That's what I'm asking you. You made the claim.

Non-sequitor.

The prospect of failure certainly does make a difference on the behavior of individuals running a corporation. Econ 101

Your baseless say-so does not disprove your own source.

And you dodged my question. Do you deny that the Fed keeping rates down during times of high velocity of money artificially encourages more loans to be made than otherwise would have, by driving down the cost of capital?

Inflation also reduces the purchasing power of savings, which diminishes private capital formation and forces individuals to rely more heavily on borrowing in order to engage in wealth creating behavior. Artificially driving down the cost of capital doesn't create any wealth, it only transfers it.

I did no such thing. You can feel free to show me otherwise in order to prove you're not mischaracterizing my position.

 

Just because you baselessly claim I don't know what the word "proved" means, doesn't mean that I don't know what the word "proved" means.

Your argument of dismissial is yet another in the many logical fallacies your posts are riddled with.

 

your posts show that you don't know what it means

 

Just because you baselessly claim I don't know what the word "proved" means, doesn't mean that I don't know what the word "proved" means.

Your argument of dismissial is yet another in the many logical fallacies your posts are riddled with.

 

Not at all. They just need to expand the tax base. Eliminate the cap. Viable solution.

Becasue it answers your question: "Why would union membership decline if the unions are good for workers?" Because it is not good for management and owners. A union means they have to pay more for workers than the rock bottom piecemeal rates they can get away with. A union forces them to pay for labor as a single item. That means middle class workers earn more, management and owners get less.

Reduce unions, and owners and management get more of the pie. Pretty basic stuff. And thus we get:



Or at least that is part of the equation.

No more than they are being denied benefits and a fair salary. No one requires anyone to work at a union company.

Could be, but there is no doubt that unions increase worker's incomes.

You are confusing the relative worth of an input (ie what a producer will pay for it) with the market rate of the supply. The market only determines market worth.

Well, we had conservatives in power. Their goal is not to enrich the middle class workers.

Where did I say that? It doesn't need to any more than it needs to to make SS adjustments.

Marginal effect.

Of course it is viable. They've been doing it with SS and tax rates and all sorts of other things for years.

I'm not familiar with it. Easy to fix. Index them to inflation.

Answered below.

Dodge. Answer the question.

Often management and other players are more focused on short term rewards than long term goals. Management 101.

It's not baseless and nothing I never denied my source listed the various arguments.

Depends on lots of factors. We have the lowest rates ever now and we are not seeing lending activity. From the loaners perspective, it doesn't make much different. From the borrower's perspective, a lower cost of captial makes business opportunities or debt based purchases more attractive.

If we had a problem with adquate capital in the country that would be a valid concern. We don't. We have trillions sitting in cash. The problem is demand, not capital.

You compared GDP prior to 1971 to after 1971, lumping the different money systems prior to 1971 together. I haven't mischaracterized your position at all.