Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
The Fed has worked diligently toward that goal – significantly reducing the value of the dollar. In February, the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee made the policy official by announcing it plans to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years.
.citation needed
AAAaaahhhhhhhh see internet???
Do you know what a strategy is?
The strategy, devalue the dollar.
The goal, keep banks limping along, monetize the debt, allow the gov to continue massive deficit spending.
I'd say their strategy is effective for now..... Until it isn't.
whodare changes the term from 'goal' to 'strategy' but makes the same argument. Devaluation is an accepted law of our monetary system. To characterize as a goal or strategy is a rejection of fundamentals of US economics. Folks want to go back so something they know little about and are willing to mischaracterize aspects that lend to the perception of impropriety.
I'm soooo happy Greenspan is long gone.
as usual a succinct summary.Devaluation is an accepted law in our monetary system, yes. We are doing something far more destructive than "devaluation". We are monetizing sovereign debt. On a global level.
It was not an accepted law in monetary systems long before ours and for a very good reason, but history repeats itself because after a few generations lessons learned are lost. And so here are.....again....
I think the idea is to stimulate the poor unemployment rate and then shift to medium and long-term debt reduction.
The sooner we get away from supply-siders calling the shots, the sooner we'll return to the economics of the 50s and 60s (and 90s) that many conservatives reference as sound economic times.
New Deal might meet it's death knell if conservatives could persuade Americans to abandon it. Trouble is, too many are New Deal supporters and conservatives chose to wreck fiscal order to get rid of it.
The conversation rarely acknowledges that half the Hill is trying to fix the economy and fiscal order while the other half is trying to break it so they may go in another direction. I can smell what supply-siders are cooking and it ain't democracy.
This report, written by Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, reveals that the growth of U.S. exports to countries with which the United States does not have Free Trade Agreements (FTA) has outpaced the growth of exports to the 17 U.S. FTA partners. This analysis of government trade data finds that FTAs have actually imposed an export "penalty," including in the service sector. The report also exposes the inconsistent methodology underlying reports by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers to show how the corporate lobby has produced data to support their demand for more FTAs.
•Between 1998 and 2008, U.S. goods exports to FTA partner countries grew by an annual average rate of only 3.0 percent. Goods exports to non-FTA partner countries, by contrast, grew by 4.2 percent per year on average. (The 2008 end date is used to show the trend before the overall falloff in trade flows related to the global economic crisis.) For convenience, we call this phenomenon the FTA export growth “penalty.” We do not claim that there is a causal link between export growth and FTA implementation, unlike proponents of FTAs. Rather, we simply report the actual outcomes with respect to exports of the past U.S. FTAs, given
misrepresentations about them now figure prominently in arguments in favor of passing more pacts based on the same model.
• The picture looks especially grim if one looks at the 1998-2009 period. Throughout this longer
period, which includes the year in which the global economic crisis peaked, goods exports to FTA countries grew by an average of only 0.8 percent per year. This compares with a growth rate of 2.2 percent year for U.S. exports to non-FTA countries – double that rate.
Defenders of the past U.S. FTAs regularly claim that these pacts’ existence helped avoid a worse falloff in trade related to the global economic crisis. In fact, in 2009, exports to FTA countries shrank 21.1 percent, while exports to non-FTA countries shrank only 18.4 percent.
I think the idea is to stimulate the poor unemployment rate and then shift to medium and long-term debt reduction.
hhhm?
i dont think i made an argument, i stated fact.
Not the economy honey, the monetary system.lol, i'm rejecting fundamentals of the u.s economy by pointing out their strategy, and the goal of that strategy?
insert bubble blowerconsidering the capture of most monetary policy maker positions by the the banks and "ex-employees" i think it's fair to scrutinize decisions made that benefit those "ex-employers".
Here's your rejection of fundamental economics. Investment, not sitting on your laurels generates expansion.hahahahahahahaha hows that banana feel. you really think devaluing our dollar will help the poor get jobs. what jobs? NAFTA and free trade killed those jobs and making our dollar worthless isn't going to bring them back.
Not in the context you purport.You're a supply sider yourself, an monetary one at that, i mean you do support the devaluation right?
Where's the promised hyperinflation from the first two actions? It doesn't cost anything to borrow right now. Our infrastructure is crumbling and there's no better time to kick start more jobs, more demand and ultimately the expansion we're expecting.stimulate job creation by printing(ie supplying) to devalue the currency, so manufacturers can afford to hire americans.(cost of living increases be damned)
Let's take a look at the first 4 decades. Democrats controlled both house of Congress and Republicans had a president here and there. Before the advent of intentional fiscal desrtruction by Republicans, Democrats rolled peanut deficits and "trillion" never entered the lexicon.the entitlements the new deal created are destroying the economy just as bad if not worse than the ''slash and burn conservatives''.
fiscal order versus "me first"blah blah blah red team blue team....
All the stranger to wish to regress to a time worse than both. A time where you could be a banker, a railroader or a farmer. Very little in the way of infrastructure because banks and railroads only built banks and railroads.both side are destroying the economy , in their own special way, and they both will succeed because people are still convinced one side is really working for them(the voter) and not themselves(the politician)
I agree, China is an unscrupulous player in global trade. That said, the current administration has sued China more times than the last guy (in less than half the time.) And we've won all our suits, resulting in more manufacturing jobs here.if america wants it's jobs back get rid of NAFTA and all free trade, impose tariffs on imports(like practically every other country. china kills our exports with tariffs) and create a sound stable currency.
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=4398
a few notable statistics in the report
Not the economy honey, the monetary system.
insert bubble blower
Here's your rejection of fundamental economics. Investment, not sitting on your laurels generates expansion.
Not in the context you purport.
Where's the promised hyperinflation from the first two actions? It doesn't cost anything to borrow right now. Our infrastructure is crumbling and there's no better time to kick start more jobs, more demand and ultimately the expansion we're expecting.
Your own personal slice of modern infrastructure was created the same way. The things you use every day and apparently take for granted cost money, don't last forever and have to be maintained.
Let's take a look at the first 4 decades. Democrats controlled both house of Congress and Republicans had a president here and there. Before the advent of intentional fiscal desrtruction by Republicans, Democrats rolled peanut deficits and "trillion" never entered the lexicon.
Compare this with one man. One man compared to 39 other men and 200 years of their combined debt. In a deliberate attempt to wreck fiscal order, this one man tripled their combined debt. Add HW's adventures and we quadrupled 39 men and 200 years worth of debt in 12 short years.
Add W's 6 trillion and 3 successive GOPer presidents spent 10 times the combined National debt of 39 presidents. These 3 spent 10 times more in 20 years than 39 managed in over two centuries.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
fiscal order versus "me first"
All the stranger to wish to regress to a time worse than both. A time where you could be a banker, a railroader or a farmer. Very little in the way of infrastructure because banks and railroads only built banks and railroads.
I agree, China is an unscrupulous player in global trade. That said, the current administration has sued China more times than the last guy (in less than half the time.) And we've won all our suits, resulting in more manufacturing jobs here.
If you thought President Obama's expressions of sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement meant he was suddenly going to stand up for "the 99%," think again. Obama has just submitted to Congress the Chamber of Commerce-backed Colombia, Panama, and Korea Free Trade Agreements. And now, thanks to maneuvering by Obama and his business-friendly Chief of Staff William Daley and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, they're on an accelerated schedule in Congress. According to a report in The Hill, they will be voted on Wednesday, where they're expected to pass.
Compare this to GOPers plans for the Reagan Free Zone.
http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2011/09/mitt-romneys-reagan-economic-zone.html