Ongoing questions about Obama's birth certificate

jpete wrote:

Davian wrote:

jpete wrote:
Every line on that graph is positive. Who is the "wealth" coming from to increase the "One Percenters"?

If they went up, you'd expect at least one line to go down.

You have to factor inflation into it...once you do that, those lower groups have actually gone down since the early 1980s.

Inflation tends to average just under 4% long-term, FWIW. The last 30 years of economy policies (under both Parties) have basically been a massive wealth transfer from the middle class to the wealthy.

AHHH! "Inflation" you say? And who controls that?

Honestly? Nobody and everybody. Inflation can be influenced by the Federal Reserve but not controlled. It existed long before the Fed and was subject to far greater swings (the various economic Panics of the 19th century and the Great Depression are great examples of that)

Going into the reasons and various causes of inflation would take a couple dozen pages of text just to get the basics in place let alone a real answer to that.

Davian wrote:
Honestly? Nobody and everybody. Inflation can be influenced by the Federal Reserve but not controlled. It existed long before the Fed and was subject to far greater swings (the various economic Panics of the 19th century and the Great Depression are great examples of that)

Going into the reasons and various causes of inflation would take a couple dozen pages of text just to get the basics in place let alone a real answer to that.

You might want to check again. Controlling the economy is the Feds mission statement.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm

Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates

Here, the words "monetary policy" mean "controlling the supply of 'money'" and that is "inflation".

You and I certainly don't influence inflation as I assume neither of us are printing twenties in the basement. That only leaves the Federal Reserve.

And with a larger pool of money, is it any wonder that the people good at collecting money have done their jobs and collected more of it?

jpete wrote:

Davian wrote:
Honestly? Nobody and everybody. Inflation can be influenced by the Federal Reserve but not controlled. It existed long before the Fed and was subject to far greater swings (the various economic Panics of the 19th century and the Great Depression are great examples of that)

Going into the reasons and various causes of inflation would take a couple dozen pages of text just to get the basics in place let alone a real answer to that.

You might want to check again. Controlling the economy is the Feds mission statement.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm

Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:

conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates

Here, the words "monetary policy" mean "controlling the supply of 'money'" and that is "inflation".

You and I certainly don't influence inflation as I assume neither of us are printing twenties in the basement. That only leaves the Federal Reserve.

And with a larger pool of money, is it any wonder that the people good at collecting money have done their jobs and collected more of it?

As I already stated, its their mission statement the same as the Weather Service's statement is to predict the weather. They have influence over it but not total control or anything even close to total control. They can merely affect it by opening and closing the spigot.

Inflation existed long, long before the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve existed long, long before the current wealth gap in the United States did. There is nothing the Fed did in the early 1980s that started this gap. Reagan's policies (and the Dem Congress's he worked with) did.

If inflation existed long before the Fed, might I ask you share your recipe for churning out gold King Midas?

Don't confuse rising prices with "inflation".

Rising prices are the RESULT OF an increase in the money supply.

That is the real inflation.

And since the Fed controls that, the Fed is 100% responsible. They are the ones who print the money that Congress uses to buy your vote.

Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services. Consequently, inflation also reflects an erosion in the purchasing power of money – a loss of real value in the internal medium of exchange and unit of account in the economy. Generally high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply. Views on which factors determine low to moderate rates of inflation are more varied. Low or moderate inflation may be attributed to fluctuations in real demand for goods and services, or changes in available supplies such as during scarcities, as well as to growth in the money supply. However, the consensus view is that a long sustained period of inflation is caused by money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth.

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 2.00 percent in the third quarter of 2012 over the previous quarter. Historically, from 1947 until 2012, the United States GDP Growth Rate averaged 3.25 Percent reaching an all time high of 17.20 Percent in March of 1950 and a record low of -10.40 Percent in March of 1958. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate provides an aggregated measure of changes in value of the goods and services produced by an economy. The economy of the United States is the largest in the world. The United States is a market-oriented economy where private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions,. The federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace.

I don't know where you got that from but inflation is an increase of the money supply. It's the pumping up of the bubble.

The price increase comes second.

If the supply of dollars is fixed, where does the money come from to support the increase in prices?

There are obviously more dollars in existence today than there was a year ago or 100 years ago.

Just between QE I and QE II, the Fed added $15 TRILLION new dollars.

All those new dollars had the effect of raising prices. It CAN'T be the other way around. Prices can't skyrocket and then the Fed prints the money.

Generally high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply. Views on which factors determine low to moderate rates of inflation are more varied. Low or moderate inflation may be attributed to fluctuations in real demand for goods and services, or changes in available supplies such as during scarcities, as well as to growth in the money supply. However, the consensus view is that a long sustained period of inflation is caused by money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth

I think that is what it says in the middle of all that jpete. It just uses a lot of words to say it.

kevin

jpete wrote:... inflation is an increase of the money supply ... Prices can't skyrocket and then the Fed prints the money.

Not to split hairs, but inflation generally is an increase of the money supply RELATIVE TO the quantity of stuff that people spend money for. Or, as the previous poster said, "money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth". For example, if our economy produces 5% more this year, AND the Fed prints 5% more money, then in theory overall prices stay the same, nobody gets hurt and nobody gains. If the economy produces more but the Fed prints no more money, then overall prices should fall -- that is, deflation. Economic theory says that deflation creates its own set of problems, and I'm sure there is SOME truth to that. The problem is, the government needs the power to adjust the money supply, but history and common sense show they won't use the power responsibly.

rberq wrote:

jpete wrote:... inflation is an increase of the money supply ... Prices can't skyrocket and then the Fed prints the money.

Not to split hairs, but inflation generally is an increase of the money supply RELATIVE TO the quantity of stuff that people spend money for. Or, as the previous poster said, "money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth". For example, if our economy produces 5% more this year, AND the Fed prints 5% more money, then in theory overall prices stay the same, nobody gets hurt and nobody gains. If the economy produces more but the Fed prints no more money, then overall prices should fall -- that is, deflation. Economic theory says that deflation creates its own set of problems, and I'm sure there is SOME truth to that. The problem is, the government needs the power to adjust the money supply, but history and common sense show they won't use the power responsibly.

Well said! Shorter and a bit more concise! I Like it!

I'm in the camp that understands inflation to be an increase in the money supply that is not warranted by any similar increase in the size of the economy. Inflation is a disease (whereby currency acts like multiplying bacterias or viruses), and rising prices are merely a symptom of the disease destroying its host (each of us individually and as a nation).

The irony of this is that with bacteria and viruses the doctor directly fights the cause to effect a cure, but with inflation the government fights and lays blame and shame upon the the cure (free market laissez fare capitalism) and freely promotes the multiplication of the currency/virus (the disease), while simultaneously taking us ever further away from the cure.

lsayre wrote:I'm in the camp that understands inflation to be an increase in the money supply that is not warranted by any similar increase in the size of the economy. Inflation is a disease (whereby currency acts like multiplying bacterias or viruses), and rising prices are merely a symptom of the disease destroying its host (each of us individually and as a nation).

The irony of this is that with bacteria and viruses the doctor directly fights the cause to effect a cure, but with inflation the government fights and lays blame and shame upon the the cure (free market laissez fare capitalism) and freely promotes the multiplication of the currency/virus (the disease), while simultaneously taking us ever further away from the cure.

Which is why inflation didnt exist prior to such controls....oh wait, it did and it was even worse than it is now at times...and there was major periods of deflation as well which is just as bad for the economy.

rberq wrote:

jpete wrote:... inflation is an increase of the money supply ... Prices can't skyrocket and then the Fed prints the money.

Not to split hairs, but inflation generally is an increase of the money supply RELATIVE TO the quantity of stuff that people spend money for. Or, as the previous poster said, "money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth". For example, if our economy produces 5% more this year, AND the Fed prints 5% more money, then in theory overall prices stay the same, nobody gets hurt and nobody gains. If the economy produces more but the Fed prints no more money, then overall prices should fall -- that is, deflation. Economic theory says that deflation creates its own set of problems, and I'm sure there is SOME truth to that. The problem is, the government needs the power to adjust the money supply, but history and common sense show they won't use the power responsibly.

Good explanation.

The question is, why SHOULD the government be allow to say what the amount of money is?

Why can we never have "deflation"?

As Davian's chart shows, we have had several and periodic "booms and busts" in the past. Good times that lead to a "panic" and then a one year or so "depression". But since 1929, we have never had another one? Maybe a "recession" once in a while, but no depressions. Slightly odd don't you think?

But (inheriting it as we did from Great Britain) we have always had the specter of the fractional reserve banking racket looming over us, and under fractional reserve banking even a gold standard is merely a facade. The endless boom/bust roller coaster cycle is standard operating practice for a fractional reserve banking based economic system. Mobsters couldn't have engineered a better racket than fractional reserve banking.

Net inflation over time prior to the Federal Reserve was below zero (because the net historical trend back then was mild deflation), and net inflation since the Federal Reserve has been positive, with an exponential rise in its effects post the 1971 abandonment of what was left of the old gold standard with fractional reserve scam. Meet the new scam,worse than the old scam.

jpete wrote:

rberq wrote:

jpete wrote:... inflation is an increase of the money supply ... Prices can't skyrocket and then the Fed prints the money.

Not to split hairs, but inflation generally is an increase of the money supply RELATIVE TO the quantity of stuff that people spend money for. Or, as the previous poster said, "money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth". For example, if our economy produces 5% more this year, AND the Fed prints 5% more money, then in theory overall prices stay the same, nobody gets hurt and nobody gains. If the economy produces more but the Fed prints no more money, then overall prices should fall -- that is, deflation. Economic theory says that deflation creates its own set of problems, and I'm sure there is SOME truth to that. The problem is, the government needs the power to adjust the money supply, but history and common sense show they won't use the power responsibly.

Good explanation.

The question is, why SHOULD the government be allow to say what the amount of money is?

Why can we never have "deflation"?

As Davian's chart shows, we have had several and periodic "booms and busts" in the past. Good times that lead to a "panic" and then a one year or so "depression". But since 1929, we have never had another one? Maybe a "recession" once in a while, but no depressions. Slightly odd don't you think?

Well, its probably because deflation is far more damaging to the economy than inflation overall...so the Fed (and the other Central Banks) try to avoid it as much as possible).

Also, I think you are underestimating the dangers of those Panics during the 19th century and early 20th century. Several of them were as bad or worse than the Great Depression. The Panic of 1873 was called the Great Depression prior to the 1930s for example. The Panic of 1837 was a pretty brutal deflationary event and a fine example of why deflation sucks so bad.

lsayre wrote:But (inheriting it as we did from Great Britain) we have always had the specter of the fractional reserve banking racket looming over us, and under fractional reserve banking even a gold standard is merely a facade. The endless boom/bust roller coaster cycle is standard operating practice for a fractional reserve banking based economic system. Mobsters couldn't have engineered a better racket than fractional reserve banking.

Net inflation over time prior to the Federal Reserve was below zero (because the net historical trend back then was mild deflation), and net inflation since the Federal Reserve has been positive, with an exponential rise in its effects post the 1971 abandonment of what was left of the old gold standard with fractional reserve scam. Meet the new scam,worse than the old scam.

There are a lot of issues with the Austrian School too though...having species based currency makes its very easy to collapse banks and it makes it very difficult to get an economy out of a recession as you get deflation which causes people to hoard cash reserves which aggravates the issue even more....those those huge dips on the chart.