What can be done to realistically make the FED vanish?

That's relative. Our growth per capita prior to fiat currency was high about normal growth and was only possible due the massive increases in population that we saw with the baby boom.

If you want growth like that again, then we need increases in economic capacity that we saw when the WWII vets started pumping out kids.

 

And, as well, bank lending decreased, thus reducing the fractional expansion of the effective money supply.

 

That's relative. Our growth per capita prior to fiat currency was high about normal growth and was only possible due the massive increases in population that we saw with the baby boom.

If you want growth like that again, then we need increases in economic capacity that we saw when the WWII vets started pumping out kids.

 

Thanks for that neo-conservative piece of wisdom. I'm sure many folks that are unemployed wish they had thought of that before.

Thanks for that neo-conservative piece of wisdom. I'm sure many folks making minimum wage wish they had thought of that before.

I have no idea what you're asking here.

 

My contention is that yes output will decrease. Decreased demand usually -->> decreased supply. The reverse is not usually true.

 

No idea where you're getting this from.



If aggregate demand decreases, then output and prices must decrease as well.

 

It's what he advocated, given that the Fed exists. His opinion on the Fed was that it should be abolished.

 

How can the government "own" something that exists independent of their labor inputs? Ever hear of collusion and favoritism?

 

When you are talking about Aggregate supply and demand found in Macroeconomics, it is true. Aggregate supply is made up of two parts: Prices and output. If aggregate demand decreases then, aggregate supply must decrease to match it.

However, that decrease can come from either variable. If you decrease prices, then there is no loss to anyone save some bankers, but if you decrease output, you hurt everyone.

 

I have. They are a very important part of a free market. Capitalists love both collusion and favoritism, whether governmental or between themselves.

 

1) Prove that the gap between the rich and the poor was not increasing from 1914 to the Reagan Revolution.
2) I'm making no such thing. You asked for evidence and I gave it to you.

Are you suggesting that MW should be locked to inflation so that it continuously increases by the penny?

That does not disprove anything I said.

 

You know, as much as I think poor people are peasants, they are the ones hurt the most by the same (monetary) policies that *******s who claim to love them so much, want.

 

That depends; are these decreases in prices due to manipulative, forceful liberal policies, or they the result of the free market?

 

They are anathema to free markets.

Then they are not real capitalists.

 

Aggregate supply is equal to Q X P, where Q is Output and P is Prices.

Aggregate demand is equal to MS X V, where MS is Money Supply and V is Velocity.

So in Marcoeconomics, the economy looks like this MS X V = Q X P. If there is a decrease or increase in the variables of one side, there must be a corresponding decrease or increase in the variables from the other side, but it can come from either variable.

So if MS stays the same and V decreases (meaning people are buying and investing less), AD decreases, but the corresponding decrease in AS only has to come from one variable. If P decreases, then nothing overall is lost and long term damage that results in a loss of capital stock required for output won't happen.

Really, this is basic Macro stuff. I take it you've never actually been educated in economics?

 

I was wondering when No True Scotsman would show is face.

 

On a side note, I'd like to add that there is NOTHING WRONG with the gap between the haves and the have nots increasing. "Rich" people, in my experience, are smarter, more wholesome, better, more deserving people than the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing poor. Just making that clear.

 

I don't know. Can you clarify your strawman a little better? I think it could use more offensive rhetoric and few less facts.

 

He has not, he's a philosopher

 

And since you were poor, you know how dumb, worthless, and undeserving you are right?

 

I'm speaking of rough averages. But really, most rich people are indeed better than me. I fully admit that. I'm no longer poor, due to my own backbone.

 

It certainly could. Deflation is just as harmful as an equal amount of inflation. Both amount to a transfer of wealth from some individuals to other individuals.

So you agree that lower income groups are disproportionately harmed by inflation?

I agree, which is why the free market handles it the most efficiently. Because government induced deflation and inflation shift wealth around in a manner that disproportionately harms the poor.

Inflation does not create jobs, all it does is transfer wealth. So any economic expansion created by it now is done so at the expense of growth in the future. There is no net gain. You're essentially advocating the broken window fallacy.

I admitted no such thing.

What about when that seller or investor goes to buy food? Or has to pay his energy bills? He has to pay higher prices.

Higher prices harms everybody. This isn't rocket science.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

I've aced every economics course I've ever taken, and I presented you with a basic AG and AS curve that shows a decrease in AG MUST lead to a decrease in output and price.

 

How do you know our productivity wouldn't be higher if it weren't for inflation? The rate of growth per capita has been cut in half since the dollar was delinked from gold in 1971. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator that we should be better off than we are right now.