They cited the Fed's historic independence in ruling against Trump. But in the FTC case they blew that off and even overturned precedent to do it.
Make it make sense.
Here's one take that few of you will appreciate.
They cited the Fed's historic independence in ruling against Trump. But in the FTC case they blew that off and even overturned precedent to do it.
Make it make sense.
Here's one take that few of you will appreciate.
Instead, for Roberts, “What matters is that the Federal Reserve remains ‘consistent with the principles that underpin’ the First and Second Banks—namely, that monetary policy should not be subject to political interference.”
I'd like to see the full context, but this is laughable. If you want monetary policy to not be subject to political interference then abolish the FED and let markets figure it out.
@snarlcakes not many desire a cycle of booms and depressions. Maybe you would like to stand in bread lines for the sake of your principles, but most of the population wouldn't.
I always find it amusing when people complain about inequality when the poorest have cell phones and food. They need to re-educate themselves on the Depression and just how terrible of an experience that was for most across the globe.
I get your point but one could also say it's pretty horrific that 100 years after the Great Depression we're thinking the US is a more equal place just because minimum sustenance and basic tech are available to most.
@snarlcakes not many desire a cycle of booms and depressions. Maybe you would like to stand in bread lines for the sake of your principles, but most of the population wouldn't.
First off all you have no idea what would have happened. I can't disprove your imaginary world. Also, it always makes me laugh when people instantly jump to 1930s depression. Why not jump to 1400s productivity levels if we don't bail out the banks in 08. You know, make it really scary. You got to sell the fear, buddy.
The idea that the economy was a stable paradise before 1913 is a total myth. The 'free banking era' was defined by wild boom-and-bust cycles, wildcat banks printing worthless local currencies, and regular panics that wiped out everyday citizens' life savings. Central banking isn't perfect, but going back to a system with zero liquidity backstops is a recipe for perpetual economic chaos.
You talk about the 'depression', as it was a one time event. Instead of the fact that there were 4 depressions in the century prior to the creation of the Fed. Most of similar root causes (financial panics/bank failures). 1893 was almost as bad as the 1930s....25%+ unemployment and a 30% loss to GDP.
Only a complete goober would want to return to such a world. Instead of the system that in the last century created the most powerful and robust economy in human history.
You missed my point. I was arguing a depression today wouldn't be as bad as the 30s because we're far more productive today because of the innovations over the past 100 years. It's a silly assumption for someone to make.
Human advancement comes from us humans making better tools and becoming more productive, not monetary policy. We have progressed in spite of the monetary system, not because of it. And no I'm not arguing a depression is a good thing.
I get your point. And it's completely asinine. There is no tools and advancement without a stable capital system underlying.
How exactly do you think we build those 'better tools'? They require massive, long-term capital investment. Without a stable monetary framework, central liquidity backstops, and a functional banking system, risk capital vanishes and innovation grinds to a halt. We didn't progress in spite of the system; our central banking system provided the stable economic runway that allowed that explosive innovation to take off in the first place.
I think you have it completely backwards. In the 1930s, a huge portion of the population lived on farms and could feed themselves. Today the 'high productivity' you talk about is the result of global, just in time supply changes, and stable access to credit markets are imperative to how most all businesses operate. We are significantly more dependent upon the financial system in our modern credit economy than we were a century ago. I think your general dismissal of this reality is incredibly naive.
By the way we're doing it all your way. The monetary system is centralized, the bubble is bigger than it's ever been, and we bailed out the banks. Don't you come b#tching at me when the they blow it all up again. You're only getting the biggest I f#cking told you so.
@snarlcakes not many desire a cycle of booms and depressions. Maybe you would like to stand in bread lines for the sake of your principles, but most of the population wouldn't.
I always find it amusing when people complain about inequality when the poorest have cell phones and food. They need to re-educate themselves on the Depression and just how terrible of an experience that was for most across the globe.
I get your point but one could also say it's pretty horrific that 100 years after the Great Depression we're thinking the US is a more equal place just because minimum sustenance and basic tech are available to most.
Amen. And we had to import slave labor, ship our factories to China, and double the workforce by convincing women to work and not have children to achieve those minimal achievements.
@snarlcakes not many desire a cycle of booms and depressions. Maybe you would like to stand in bread lines for the sake of your principles, but most of the population wouldn't.
I always find it amusing when people complain about inequality when the poorest have cell phones and food. They need to re-educate themselves on the Depression and just how terrible of an experience that was for most across the globe.
You and twenty sound a lot like those Covid zealots. What year was their big fear tactic? Was it 1918? 1926? Or was it the black plague?
If you think I'm like Shitter then that says more about you than me and you clearly weren't on the prior board.
@snarlcakes not many desire a cycle of booms and depressions. Maybe you would like to stand in bread lines for the sake of your principles, but most of the population wouldn't.
I always find it amusing when people complain about inequality when the poorest have cell phones and food. They need to re-educate themselves on the Depression and just how terrible of an experience that was for most across the globe.
I get your point but one could also say it's pretty horrific that 100 years after the Great Depression we're thinking the US is a more equal place just because minimum sustenance and basic tech are available to most.
How would you compare the times, then, Rico, since sustenance is not relevant in your view? To me, moving the goalposts is poor logic.
@snarlcakes not many desire a cycle of booms and depressions. Maybe you would like to stand in bread lines for the sake of your principles, but most of the population wouldn't.
I always find it amusing when people complain about inequality when the poorest have cell phones and food. They need to re-educate themselves on the Depression and just how terrible of an experience that was for most across the globe.
I get your point but one could also say it's pretty horrific that 100 years after the Great Depression we're thinking the US is a more equal place just because minimum sustenance and basic tech are available to most.
Amen. And we had to import slave labor, ship our factories to China, and double the workforce by convincing women to work and not have children to achieve those minimal achievements.
minimal achievements? You really comparing standards of living today vs 100 years ago for the middle/working class?
@jdb I'm being cheeky. You're not Shooter, but you're using a similar type argument. If we didn't do X we all would have ended up in soup lines and a Great Depression. You have no had no idea what would have happened. Presenting it as fact is what I take issue with.
Not to mention, if you guys are right and it was extremely successful and necessary to "save the economy" from a soup lines Depression. Why don't we centralize more of the economy (Brad's d#ck just chubbed up? Because magically our centralized FED leaders and Government knows what best for the economy now.
Also, are there any trade offs? Like say a stock market almost now 3 times larger than the economy. Speaking of the Great Depression, didn't that kick off with a bubble bursting? Or housing at the most unaffordable levels in God knows how long.
Perhaps, allowing the banks to fail and not inflating the markets to never before levels isn't the best idea and there will be unintended consequences that will be much worse. But what do I know. I'm just one of those free market kooks.
@twenty the stall begins in the 1970s when we came off the gold standard. And no I'm comparing it to what it would be if we weren't on a fiat standard. And the major issue is the productivity gains are being more concentrated at the top.
@snarlcakes not many desire a cycle of booms and depressions. Maybe you would like to stand in bread lines for the sake of your principles, but most of the population wouldn't.
First off all you have no idea what would have happened. I can't disprove your imaginary world. Also, it always makes me laugh when people instantly jump to 1930s depression. Why not jump to 1400s productivity levels if we don't bail out the banks in 08. You know, make it really scary. You got to sell the fear, buddy.
The idea that the economy was a stable paradise before 1913 is a total myth. The 'free banking era' was defined by wild boom-and-bust cycles, wildcat banks printing worthless local currencies, and regular panics that wiped out everyday citizens' life savings. Central banking isn't perfect, but going back to a system with zero liquidity backstops is a recipe for perpetual economic chaos.
You talk about the 'depression', as it was a one time event. Instead of the fact that there were 4 depressions in the century prior to the creation of the Fed. Most of similar root causes (financial panics/bank failures). 1893 was almost as bad as the 1930s....25%+ unemployment and a 30% loss to GDP.
Only a complete goober would want to return to such a world. Instead of the system that in the last century created the most powerful and robust economy in human history.
You missed my point. I was arguing a depression today wouldn't be as bad as the 30s because we're far more productive today because of the innovations over the past 100 years. It's a silly assumption for someone to make.
Human advancement comes from us humans making better tools and becoming more productive, not monetary policy. We have progressed in spite of the monetary system, not because of it. And no I'm not arguing a depression is a good thing.
I get your point. And it's completely asinine. There is no tools and advancement without a stable capital system underlying.
How exactly do you think we build those 'better tools'? They require massive, long-term capital investment. Without a stable monetary framework, central liquidity backstops, and a functional banking system, risk capital vanishes and innovation grinds to a halt. We didn't progress in spite of the system; our central banking system provided the stable economic runway that allowed that explosive innovation to take off in the first place.
I think you have it completely backwards. In the 1930s, a huge portion of the population lived on farms and could feed themselves. Today the 'high productivity' you talk about is the result of global, just in time supply changes, and stable access to credit markets are imperative to how most all businesses operate. We are significantly more dependent upon the financial system in our modern credit economy than we were a century ago. I think your general dismissal of this reality is incredibly naive.
By the way we're doing it all your way. The monetary system is centralized, the bubble is bigger than it's ever been, and we bailed out the banks. Don't you come b#tching at me when the they blow it all up again. You're only getting the biggest I f#cking told you so.
You are like the Defund Police crowd, but for central banking.
Tell the truth, did you hang out with AOC at some of the Occupy Wall St events back in the day? It's ok, we're all friends here.
@twenty You're the one for government intervention, not me. And I'll come clean, I banged her several times. In all total, it lasted about the length of the Kentucky Derby.
You're right; I don't appreciate it. It's political hackery.They cited the Fed's historic independence in ruling against Trump. But in the FTC case they blew that off and even overturned precedent to do it.
Make it make sense.
Here's one take that few of you will appreciate.
@twenty the stall begins in the 1970s when we came off the gold standard. And no I'm comparing it to what it would be if we weren't on a fiat standard. And the major issue is the productivity gains are being more concentrated at the top.
Yikes. The gold standard was not compatible with a growing global economy. There was only so much gold on the planet and you could not maintain a fixed dollar conversion without creating a deflationary global depression.
You should do some research on the Triffin dilemma. It was known by 1960 that the gold standard was impossible to maintain, but took a crisis before the govt acted (as usual).
A live look on Snarlcakes as he read the bolded section:@twenty the stall begins in the 1970s when we came off the gold standard. And no I'm comparing it to what it would be if we weren't on a fiat standard. And the major issue is the productivity gains are being more concentrated at the top.
Yikes. The gold standard was not compatible with a growing global economy. There was only so much gold on the planet and you could not maintain a fixed dollar conversion without creating a deflationary global depression.
You should do some research on the Triffin dilemma. It was known by 1960 that the gold standard was impossible to maintain, but took a crisis before the govt acted (as usual).