Links and Stuff About US Contact Lunar
Welcome to Lunar Magazine
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar  RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Republican debate tonight...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LunarMagazine.com Forum Index -> Politics and Philosophy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
shlee



Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 163

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

.....

Last edited by shlee on Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enemigo



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 3503

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm starting to think it is completely pointless arguing with you about this... you're not even attempting to explain the process by which closing the Second Bank resulted in a paid down debt... You're just asserting that it did. You're also denying basic, uncontroversial facts about the structure of the Federal Reserve.

I'll go one more round though.


shlee wrote:
Jackson took advantage of western migration to pay off the debt, yes. Drastically cut spending, yes. With this momentum he was able to win the confidence of the people and shut down the private bank and eliminate ALL of the debt with this nail in the coffin.

You have not supported this statement in the slightest. You're like the underpants gnomes.

Phase 1. Close the Bank
Phase 2. ?
Phase 3. Profit

What economic forces are you claiming caused such a great increase in federal revenues that the debt was able to be paid down? Don't just say that it did. Explain how.


shlee wrote:
His campaign slogan was 'Jackson and NO BANK". It was quite clear where his priorities lied.

Not arguing that. It doesn't follow though that there is a causal relationship between those two policies.

The debt was paid down through fiscal policy, not monetary policy.


shlee wrote:
The Second Bank had it's charter renewed before we had a chance to sort it out like adults.

What are you talking about? The Second Bank did not have it's charter renewed. Jackson vetoed the renewal, pulled the money out, and the Second Bank went under. The end.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
The state-chartered banks that he put the federal funds into were private too. Jackson did not abolish the power of private printing of money. He just decentralized it.


Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

STATE RUN BANKS NOT A NATIONAL BANK

These state run banks were made up of many more representatives than the smaller, consolidated national bank and open to much more criticism and regulation.

Not "state run" banks. State chartered. They were still private banks. Please provide evidence that they were more regulated.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
The compromise was essentially public/government control of the Board of Directors (FOMC) so that the Fed isn't completely private.


public/government control? Board of Directors? Are we talking about the same thing here?

Those are all nice ways to make it appear The Federal Reserve is of the people or regulated in a sense... but it's not. At all.

Sorry, Board of Governors (which is different than the FOMC, which is the private part of the Fed). And again, this is all basic, uncontroversial fact...

Wikipedia wrote:
The seven-member Board of Governors is a federal agency. It is charged with the overseeing of the 12 District Reserve Banks and setting national monetary policy. It also supervises and regulates the U.S. banking system in general. Governors are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate for staggered 14-year terms. The Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

That means public. Not private.

shlee wrote:
Again, what's the national debt looking like these days?

So tell me how to fix this through monetary policy. And don't just say end or reform the Fed. Explain in detail the process and the effects each step will have.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enemigo



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 3503

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
And the Fed returns the accrued interest to the Treasury (minus expenses).


That's what they say they do. They seem trustworthy don't ya think?

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) routinely audits most of the Fed's operations. The Fed is not a wholly private institution and is not totally opaque.


I disagree. The Fed pays the Government and is in total control of the money supply. It is most certainly private.

Well, reality disagrees with you. Again, the Board of Governors is the public aspect.

And what do you mean by "The Fed pays the Government"?


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
Even if that were true it wouldn't matter. I need only point at our skyrocketing debt to prove that system is F for fucking failure.

The debt was created by fiscal irresponsibility.


In a nutshell yea. Better descriptions come to mind though: wars, bailouts, wars, bailouts, wars, homeland security, wars, etc.

Do you understand the difference between fiscal policy and monetary policy?


shlee wrote:
Actually, that's exactly what the Fed is/does:

Prints and controls our money w/o government regulation.

The Board of Governors = government regulation.


shlee wrote:
Most of Congress has been bought and sold. However, with no central bank this would change. Drastically.

How would it change? Explain, in detail. Stop merely asserting it. And you keep going back and forth between saying you don't want to get rid of the Fed (central bank), but rather reform it, and saying that you want no central bank. Which is it? Specifically, how would you reform it or what would you replace it with? Please be as explicit and detailed as you can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shlee



Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 163

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

....

Last edited by shlee on Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enemigo



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 3503

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
You have not supported this statement in the slightest. You're like the underpants gnomes.

Phase 1. Close the Bank
Phase 2. ?
Phase 3. Profit

What economic forces are you claiming caused such a great increase in federal revenues that the debt was able to be paid down? Don't just say that it did. Explain how.

Economic forces were the selling of land and spending cuts.

Neither of those policies had anything to do with closing the bank. You can't count those as revenue gained by closing the Second Bank.


shlee wrote:
More importantly, the interest to be paid to the Second Bank ended after Jackson refused to renew the charter. Thus, the federal fiscal beef was squashed.

Further, 2 = interest.

Which interest are you talking about?

Are you talking about interest on loans from the Second Bank to the government? If so, I don't quite see your point. If they weren't getting loans from the Second Bank they would just be getting them from somewhere else, and the interest rates elsewhere were no better than the 4.5% to 6% given by the Second Bank.

Further, the bank didn't charge the government for acting essentially as a Treasury agent, disbursing funds, paying pensions, etc... which saved the government millions of dollars.

And further still, the government actually made a profit from the dividends paid on its stock in the bank. See the chart at the bottom of this page (474) for details.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
The debt was paid down through fiscal policy, not monetary policy.


Not true.

Yes true. You even said yourself that the economic forces that caused such a great increase in federal revenues that the debt was able to be paid down was: "Economic forces were the selling of land and spending cuts."


shlee wrote:
Without having to pay the interest rates of the Second Bank, it became a monetary issue.

Do you really think the state chartered banks didn't charge interest? And do you think that merely by pulling federal deposits from the Second Bank that they didn't still have to pay off those loans at interest?


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
The Second Bank had it's charter renewed before we had a chance to sort it out like adults.

What are you talking about? The Second Bank did not have it's charter renewed. Jackson vetoed the renewal, pulled the money out, and the Second Bank went under. The end.


National Bank, Federal Bank, Second Bank.... my mistake...

Point was we didn't follow through and a national bank very similar to the Second Bank was chartered and eventually became the Federal Reserve.

What do you mean we didn't follow through? Follow through with what? It was roughly 80 years between the Second Bank and the Federal Reserve. That wasn't chance enough to "sort it out"?


shlee wrote:
State chartered banks are regulated nationally as well as locally. Power is more evenly distributed than a national bank.

They eventually were regulated nationally. But the Free Banking Era was hardly a step up from the Second Bank. The immediate result was the Panic of 1837, followed by a 5-year depression and the return of federal debt.


shlee wrote:
My argument isn't that these agencies and policies don't exist but that they don't work.

So you agree that the fed is a hybrid public/private institution? And you agree that there is government oversight, but you merely think it is insufficient?


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
Please be as explicit and detailed as you can.


Look, I can't give away everything. For one thing, I don't have time. Another would be, I'm not a politician. And yet another would be, I have no fucking clue.

Yes, I have some ideas but that's why we elect experts right?

My most basic feelings are:

1) tighten regulations of the Fed on ALL of it's services

2) give some power back to the people

3) free taco's every Thursday

"A lot of people like that reform. Maybe we should get us some."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shlee



Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 163

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

....

Last edited by shlee on Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enemigo



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 3503

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
Economic forces were the selling of land and spending cuts.

Neither of those policies had anything to do with closing the bank. You can't count those as revenue gained by closing the Second Bank.

When did I say those were effects of closing the bank?

I was asking you what economic forces resulted from closing the Bank, and caused such a great increase in federal revenues that the debt was able to be paid down.

This has been your argument thus far:
shlee wrote:
[Jackson] was able to do this [pay down the debt] by giving the power of printing the nation's currency back into the rightful hands of the people by taking it out of the private banks[...]

Land sales and spending is how the debt was paid down, but that has not been your argument.


shlee wrote:
Quite sure I meant they created revenue to help loosen the banks power and give Jackson some leverage in his attempt to defeat the Second Bank.

This whole time you've been arguing that ending the Bank is what paid down the debt. Now you're trying to flip it around and say that paying down the debt is what allowed Jackson to end the Bank. Neither is true.


shlee wrote:
True they would pay interest elsewhere.

So then why did you even bring up interest rates? Why claim that not having to pay the Second Bank's interest rates was instrumental in paying down the debt if they had to be paid everywhere else as well?


shlee wrote:
Not true that elsewhere would be a PRIVATE run bank

Oh really? So which non-PRIVATE banks did Jackson move federal deposits into?


shlee wrote:
who had absolute authority over printing currency

What do you mean by "absolute authority"? All the other banks printed currency while the Second Bank was in use by the federal government.


shlee wrote:
and would lend currency out when times were bad (wars, depression, panics) and call it back when times were good (to create more wars, depressions, panics) thus never being able pay it off completely.

And that wouldn't happen by using multiple private banks instead of one?


shlee wrote:
Private Banks serve their own investments NOT the people.

The government was invested in the Second Bank. It actually owned 20% of the Second Bank.


shlee wrote:
Again, the interest from a private federal bank is never able to be paid off rather, it just accumulates because the Federal Reserve has a complete monopoly over how much to give and when to give. NOT the Government.

Then how did the debt ever get paid off? When the Second Bank was first chartered in 1816, the national debt was at $125 million. By the time Jackson became president in 1829, the debt had already been reduced to $48 million. By the time Jackson started moving government deposits from the Second Bank in 1833, the debt was down to $7 million, and interest on all public debt was only about $300,000. And you're trying to tell me that it would have been impossible to pay down the rest without Jackson moving government deposits into state-chartered PRIVATE banks?

Seriously?


shlee wrote:
You claim the government regulates the Federal Reserve and throw around analytical graphs and charts which prove nothing when the same arguments can be made for the complete opposite:

Yes, I have provided facts to support my arguments. I wish you would do the same, but apparently all you have to offer are assertions that frequently contradict your previous assertions, and unsubstantiated, simplistic platitudes like this:
shlee wrote:
The Federal Reserve regulates the government.

World history proves this time and time again through historical fact not trend.



shlee wrote:
If you cannot see the corruption in this than I see no need to continue after this post.
To me, this is very acceptable, common and undisputed knowledge about how fucked up the Federal Reserve is and National Banks across the globe.

I'm not saying that there is no corruption or no room for reform. I'm just saying you've done a completely inadequate job of actually supporting your arguments in this thread.


shlee wrote:
It'll take time. If we're ever able to persevere and fully withdraw from the policy of a private banking entity having a monopoly on the printing of our money... it will be way more messier than before.

You can totally print your own money. Just don't be surprised when nobody accepts it as payment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Getting a bit winded here guys! Confused


The Fed is both a private and public institution. There are items on the Fed's balance sheet that are audited and other parts of the Fed's balance sheet that are NOT audited.

Quote:
audit would include the Fed's "discount window", its funding facilities, its open market operations, and its agreements with foreign bankers.




I want to give you guys something to think about here. Something I learned watching the crash of 08. Why did ALL the banks receive TARP money, even if they didn't need it?? The simple answer is because an individual bailout could expose which banks were considered solvent, and which ones were NOT.

Same theory applies to what kind of monkeybiz with the currency game the Fed is engaged in with foreign bankers. As the law is interpreted, the Fed is Constitutionally protected*, (depending on your belief something was lawfully enacted) from revealing these kinds of transactions. In theory the Fed could be bailing out the entire global banking system that isn't Red China and Congress would never have to know a thing about it.

Therefore, revealing the Fed's balance sheet with foreign entities could possibly expose some poor 2nd or 3rd world country to sudden economic collapse is the idea. Hence why the law is setup to protect the free marketplace from things it's not supposed to know is the best I can measure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
transponder



Joined: 18 Mar 2003
Posts: 5890
Location: Erotic City

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And no I didn't watch the debate cause I couldn't care less what these monkeys were bickering about, but I'm not surprised to hear Huntsman actually looks decent as he was my pick in the Lunar straw poll.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
shlee



Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 163

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

....

Last edited by shlee on Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shlee



Joined: 24 Jan 2008
Posts: 163

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

....

Last edited by shlee on Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enemigo



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 3503

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shlee wrote:
Is it a personal thing with Jackson? The man was a giant asshole at times but I'm not trying to argue over the validity of Jackson's policies and time in office which had some very obvious flaws.

I'm not arguing over the validity of Jackson's policies. You brought him up to argue that his policy of ending the bank was the primary factor in the debt being paid down. You have not provided any actual evidence that this was the case.


shlee wrote:
However, he was the last president to successfully stand up to the Central Bank and succeed in paying off the debt completely and did not renew the charter to the Central Bank.

You have been trying to argue that there is a causal link between the two policies. All I have been arguing is that there is not.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
True they would pay interest elsewhere.

So then why did you even bring up interest rates? Why claim that not having to pay the Second Bank's interest rates was instrumental in paying down the debt if they had to be paid everywhere else as well?

Because state chartered rates would be regulated and state chartered banks wouldn't set the rates to make a profit off the government.

You're just making this shit up as you go along.

what extra regulations were on state-chartered banks that weren't on the Second Bank? What were the interest rates that they charged that didn't bring them a profit?


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
Not true that elsewhere would be a PRIVATE run bank

Oh really? So which non-PRIVATE banks did Jackson move federal deposits into?

The ones that were truly federally and locally regulated?? Just guessing here...

Yes, you clearly are just pulling shit out of thin air. How about you name just one of these non-private banks?

The Bank of the Manhattan Company was private and it received federal deposits. Same with the Mechanics Bank of New York... and the Union Bank in Baltimore.. and the Bank of Maryland, and so on......


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
who had absolute authority over printing currency

What do you mean by "absolute authority"? All the other banks printed currency while the Second Bank was in use by the federal government.


who printed the overwhelming majority? who had the power?

So not absolute authority? And why did that matter? Fractional reserve banking got worse after the federal deposits were moved into the state banks.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
and would lend currency out when times were bad (wars, depression, panics) and call it back when times were good (to create more wars, depressions, panics) thus never being able pay it off completely.

And that wouldn't happen by using multiple private banks instead of one?


I wouldn't say 'never' but with printing power more evenly distributed and actual regulation in place it would be less likely.

Tell me more about this "actual regulation" that was in place? I don't know what regulations you are talking about. I suspect you don't either.

And by the printing power being more "evenly distributed," do you mean only that there were shitloads of different currencies, many of which weren't worth the paper they were printed on?


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
[The government] actually owned 20% of the Second Bank.

Laughing sorry but holy fuck dude... you do know why right?

Because that was the amount of capital the government provided to start the Second Bank.


shlee wrote:
enemigo wrote:
shlee wrote:
Again, the interest from a private federal bank is never able to be paid off rather, it just accumulates because the Federal Reserve has a complete monopoly over how much to give and when to give. NOT the Government.

Then how did the debt ever get paid off? When the Second Bank was first chartered in 1816, the national debt was at $125 million. By the time Jackson became president in 1829, the debt had already been reduced to $48 million. By the time Jackson started moving government deposits from the Second Bank in 1833, the debt was down to $7 million, and interest on all public debt was only about $300,000. And you're trying to tell me that it would have been impossible to pay down the rest without Jackson moving government deposits into state-chartered PRIVATE banks?

Seriously?


Impressive figures.

Your right though, all that debt must have magically dissolved because the policy of the Second Bank was so effective. Nevermind the tactics of the President we've both spent hours arguing over.

What (who?) are you arguing against/for? Seriously?

I'm the one saying that the fiscal policies of Jackson are what paid down the debt. You've been saying that ending the Bank magically dissolved the debt. The reason I posted those figures was to show that the Bank clearly wasn't the hinderance that you've been claiming it was.

You said right up there: "the interest from a private federal bank is never able to be paid off" (emphasis mine)

So please tell me why the government was able to pay down $118 million of the debt while using the Second Bank, but would "never" have been able to pay off the last $7 million while using that same bank.


shlee wrote:
Unsubstantiated? Hardly.

Many people believe The Fed controls the government and there is a huge amount of evidence and historical fact to back that assertion up.

Shall we go there?

Yes, please substantiate this claim by providing some of these huge amounts of evidence.


shlee wrote:
I think your arguments are in need of some serious research though.

Jesus Christ... project much? You're the one just making shit up like Jackson ending fractional reserve banking, or the Fed being a completely private institution with no government oversight.


shlee wrote:
Starting with the government owning 20% of the Second Bank and why that was. Enjoy.

I know why... why don't you tell me what conspiracy theory you believe was the reason?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
enemigo



Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 3503

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

transponder wrote:
The simple answer is because an individual bailout could expose which banks were considered solvent, and which ones were NOT.

Yes, I understand that is the reason for the Fed's independence and not auditing it... otherwise major instability could occur. I think a limited audit, after the fact, as happened not that long ago is fine though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Asm0deus



Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Posts: 12739
Location: Constantly waiting on Delta

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox+Google debate in FL: LOTS of repetition at this point, naturally.

All of Perry's coaches and rehearsing still couldn't keep him from showing his true idiocy tonight. Of course the Fox anchors stopped lapping at his taint long enough to give him the first question, which he stammered around like a true Bush family member.

The Dems like Jimmy Carter who are rushing to publicly endorse Romney (in an all-too-obvious attempt to destroy his chances for the Repub nom) perhaps have the only true strategy for defeating him, because he increasingly sounds more "Presidential" with each debate. Perry's rehearsed attacks did more to boost Romney tonight than any other factor.

Uncles Grumpy & Grumpier hardly got any time tonight, which is unfortunate. They have smarter things to say than most of the others, and the raw venom is always refreshing. They should just splinter off and form The Lemon Party.

Why are the rest of those people still up there?

I have no idea who the Hell this guy from NM is, but he said a few smart-sounding things. Absolutely none of them are realistic or practical, but his head's generally in the right place.... (The black hole that is Congress would devour him with nary a fart.) He sounded rather intimidated on that stage -- it was cute.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VJ



Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Posts: 5898
Location: Easside..

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Asm0deus wrote:
They should just splinter off and form The Lemon Party.


Laughing Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LunarMagazine.com Forum Index -> Politics and Philosophy All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot add events in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 
home  |  features  |  events  |  reviews  |  dj charts  |  forum  |  my lunar  |  links  |  about us  |  contact