You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   109-133   134-158   159-183   184-208 
 209-233   234-258   259-283   284-308   309-333   334-358   359-383   384-408   409-433 
 434-458   459-483   484-508   509-533   534-536      
 
Author Message
25 new of 536 responses total.
drew
response 134 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 2 20:43 UTC 2003

Re #131:
    We *do* have inflation, and precious little growth at the moment. Prices
overall still go up on quite a few things. The proof is as close as your
nearest supermarket, gas station, and real estate broker.
slynne
response 135 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 2 21:27 UTC 2003

resp:133 - darn it that I didnt say good cite or well respected source. 
Oh well. ;) Ok, I am wrong about the 1/3 currency thing. 
asddsa
response 136 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 2 23:24 UTC 2003

slynne is in a wheelchair?
jp2
response 137 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 00:51 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

tsty
response 138 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 05:18 UTC 2003

until recently it was the inflation of goods ans services that occurred
when teh money supply outpaced teh growth of gdp. now (!!) there is
an inflation of   asset values   sted goods and services.  
  
more correctly put, wehn the fed injected massive quantities of dollars
into the banking system (that *is* wehre it goes, btw) teh economy
ddi strt to turn around, slowly. why slowly withsuch an infusion?
  
welllll, it seems that 'all that extra cash bought securities
instead of goods ans services. [so,] instead of *consumer price*
inflation (emp added) teh united states got an *asset price* inflation" more
commonly called a stock market boom.
  
'thre reamins a mystery to haunt the dreams fo central bankers,
because nobody know why monetary stimulus becomes *consumer price*
inflation in one country and *asset price* inflatoin in another.'
  
  



of course the trasury has been printing more and more little green pieces
of paper (now to be peach or some other vomit-color [another argument])
but that has *nothing* to do with monetary policy except to *reflect*
teh hand-to-hand liquidity we need.
  



and also, please recognize, that federal reserve notes are a 
CLAIM ON A BANK, not a claim on the government. teh gummint is insulated!
  
silver certificates (with the blue seal) are a claim on the government.
  
and to mask some of teh illiquidity that exists every night, even teh
federal reserve notes are un-traceable now! bills used to have teh 
bank-of-issue on teh obverse side, to the left of  the portrait.
  
teh singles in-hadn now still do (series 2001) fed reserve of philidepphia
adn fed reserve of san francisco (to identify two) 
  
however teh 5s and 10s ans 20s now *simply state* 'united states
federal reserve SYSTEM' so you don't know where teh hell teh damn thing
came from (also series 2001)!
mdw
response 139 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 07:16 UTC 2003

Actually, federal reserve notes aren't a claim on a bank, they're merely
"legal tender", which is a very different animal.  Silver certificates
aren't a claim on the bank today either, 'cause the feds won't honor
that claim today.  They are, however, worth something considerable to a
coin collector so if you find one by all means enjoy the windfall.
Since all federal notes have a serial number they certainly aren't
untraceable.  In fact, if you'd like to trace the cash you spend, you
can register it at
        http://www.wheresgeorge.com/
and find out.
jp2
response 140 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 10:13 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

tsty
response 141 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 10:50 UTC 2003

the 1s have teh fed bank adn letter - the 5s, 10s, etc no longer do.
jp2
response 142 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 12:49 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

rcurl
response 143 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 20:52 UTC 2003

Re #108: klg is again "out of touch". Transmission of information at
greater than the speed of light has been demonstrated in the laboratory
(well- as far as several kilometers). This is the phenomenon known as
"nonlocality" in quantum physics. It was originally a prediction of
quantum physics that Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", but it
has since been verified as a fact. Since the speed-of-light barrier has
been cracked for information, I would refuse to make a categorical claim
that it can't be for materials. 

drew
response 144 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 21:55 UTC 2003

Re #137:
    What I want is to know that a given quantity of dollars will always buy
at least the same quantity of food, gasoline, housing, or anything else I
might want any number of years from now as it does today. What I *really want
is for the price of everything else in the economy to do what the price of
computers and other electronics has been doing over the past couple of
decades, and to the same degree.

    And it would be nice if interest rates were significantly greater than
inflation.
jp2
response 145 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 3 23:21 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

mdw
response 146 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 4 03:27 UTC 2003

There is no functional difference between a federal reserve note drawn
upon San Francisco or Kansas City.  They are worth exactly the same
amount, circulate in exactly the same way, and probably roll off the
same printing presses after being printed on the same paper with the
same ink.  At best all that it is is an inventory/production tag;
important to the people who bail the stuff up and send it out to the
first bank, but completely irrelevant to how money functions in the
economy.  This is, of course, even supposing that actual paper cash is
really all that important to the economy in the first place - which is
surely getting less and less true.  When you pay for something using a
credit card funded via an electronic fund transfer from an account that
gets filled up with "money" you earned and arranged to have direct
deposited; does it matter what's printed on the green stuff some people
still use for incidental expenses?

Besides "federal reserve notes" and "silver certificates", I ran across
mention of "united states notes".  These seem to have been in
circulation from 1862 through 1923, and may have been briefly issued
during the Kennedy administration too.  There were also "Gold
certificates", which came in a large size and a small size.  Some of the
issues of gold certificates reached general circulation, others were
only circulated between banks.  For while, it was actually illegal to
own a gold certificate.
tsty
response 147 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 4 09:36 UTC 2003

 ... as well as gold, for a while ...
russ
response 148 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 4 13:26 UTC 2003

Re #143:  You're wrong, Rane.  The non-locality principle cannot
be used to transmit information.
jp2
response 149 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 4 13:41 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

asddsa
response 150 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 4 16:04 UTC 2003

Learn to write, jp2.
slynne
response 151 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 4 16:37 UTC 2003

Haha. jp2. YOu dont embarrass me. You convince a few people who are 
more stupid than you that you are correct. But that doesnt embarrass 
*me*. Keep trying. 
jp2
response 152 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 4 16:44 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

asddsa
response 153 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 5 01:33 UTC 2003

AAhahaha
murph
response 154 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 5 01:39 UTC 2003

152: you act as though hanging out with other could possibly be a bad thing...
mdw
response 155 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 5 03:03 UTC 2003

It's true private banks "own" stock in the FRBs.  But!  The US
government apoints the top officers and determines all policy.  And! The
stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as a security for a loan.
Owning the stock is in fact a condition of membership in the system; it
is in essence a required loan to FRB and nothing more.  Also, does
anybody here seriously think the feds would let just one FRB default on
its own?  I should think they'd move heaven and earth before allowing
such a situation to occur.
gelinas
response 156 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 5 15:23 UTC 2003

(Seems to me that the Federal Reserve Banks are private in the same sense that
United States Postal Service is private.)
jp2
response 157 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 5 17:16 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

slynne
response 158 of 536: Mark Unseen   Oct 5 20:28 UTC 2003

This is from the NY Fed's web site. I am sure that jp2 will continue to 
spout his bs but I imagine that most folks will trust The Fed itself 
over jp2. Jamie, I hope you will consider reading the entire FAQ before 
you make more of a fool of yourself...

http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/faq.html#link24

Are the Federal Reserve Banks private companies? 
Federal Reserve Banks, created by an act of Congress in 1913, are 
operated in the public interest rather than for profit or to benefit 
any private group. Member banks hold stock in their regional Reserve 
Banks, but do not exercise control over the Reserve Bank or the Federal 
Reserve System. Holding this stock does not carry with it the kind of 
control and financial interest that holding publicly traded stock 
allows. Fed stock cannot be sold or traded. The member banks receive a 
fixed 6 percent dividend annually on their stock and elect six of the 
nine members of the Reserve Bank's board of directors. 

So, who owns the Fed? Although it is set up like a private corporation 
and member banks hold its stock, the Fed owes its existence to an act 
of Congress and has a mandate to serve the public. Therefore, the most 
accurate answer may be that the Fed is "owned" by the citizens of the 
United States. 

 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   109-133   134-158   159-183   184-208 
 209-233   234-258   259-283   284-308   309-333   334-358   359-383   384-408   409-433 
 434-458   459-483   484-508   509-533   534-536      
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss