I've never heard of Judy Shelton before. Her article
Loose Money And the Roots Of the Crisis is one of the better I've read describing why the dollar is the problem. A couple of my favourite quotes:
Whatever well-intentioned reasons existed in 1913 for creating the Federal Reserve -- to provide an elastic currency to soften the blow of economic contractions caused by "irrational exuberance" (and that will never be conquered, so long as humans have aspirations) -- one would be hard-pressed to say that the financial fallout from this latest money meltdown will have less damaging consequences for the average person than would have been incurred under a gold standard.
It is time to take on the task of establishing a new foundation for international economic relations and financial relations -- one dedicated to open markets and based on monetary integrity. Every country is responsible for anchoring its own currency to the universal reserve asset, and every citizen has the right to convert the national currency into the universal reserve asset.
That's how a gold standard works. A bimetallic system, linked to silver and gold, works the same way. In either case the money is fixed to a common anchor -- and thus automatically functions as a common currency to serve the needs of legitimate producers and consumers throughout the world.
26 comments:
"Whatever well-intentioned reasons existed in 1913 for creating the Federal Reserve -- to provide an elastic currency to soften the blow of economic contractions caused by "irrational exuberance" (and that will never be conquered, so long as humans have aspirations) -- one would be hard-pressed to say that the financial fallout from this latest money meltdown will have less damaging consequences for the average person than would have been incurred under a gold standard."
This person is obviously a retard, because she doesn't seem to understand that if 18 million high paying jobs were not shipped overseas, there would have been NO crisis. The CRA would have continued, the mortgages would have been paid, and I wouldn't be reading her half-baked, pro-corporate doctrine.
"It is time to take on the task of establishing a new foundation for international economic relations and financial relations -- one dedicated to open markets and based on monetary integrity. Every country is responsible for anchoring its own currency to the universal reserve asset, and every citizen has the right to convert the national currency into the universal reserve asset."
Maybe that is so, but it has nothing to do with the current crisis. Again, she must a retard, because there is not enough gold in the world to allow for a commodity based currency. Such a currency would inflate the real value of products, because the currency would have its own value and an unreasonble demand for it as a currency. There simply is not enough gold. GET OVER IT.
"That's how a gold standard works. A bimetallic system, linked to silver and gold, works the same way. In either case the money is fixed to a common anchor -- and thus automatically functions as a common currency to serve the needs of legitimate producers and consumers throughout the world."
Anchor? Is she completely stupid? Somebody has to mint the coins, and that somebody has to be an authority. I think the real problem she has is with the nature of banks including interest and the banks ability to create money if not regulated. Well! She just called for deregulation! So is she going to let the banks create their own money like they did before the FED? Sounds like these libertarian retards want to trade one problem for another.
Please don't think, Josh! Thinking might lead you to conclusions that contradict your assumptions! Which *gasp* would lead to new conclusions!
If you give in to even one of my arguments you might be guilty of thinking, Josh! *Gasp* and that would be truly evil.
"is she going to let the banks create their own money like they did before the FED?"
Banks didn't create money, they issues receipts redeemable for gold.
"Banks didn't create money, they issues receipts redeemable for gold."
Did you even watch that video about how banks worked that you posted? I don't think you did. The bloody banks started creating money because they knew not everyone would take out their gold at the same time. They gave out loans on gold they didn't have on the assumption that a run on the bank was rare. This effectively created new money and happened well before the creation of the FED.
Yeah, now I'm pretty sure you are not thinking about what you are reading. It's kinda sad, because that video on the banks that you posted really contradicted many of your assumptions.
This person is obviously a retard, because she doesn't seem to understand that if 18 million high paying jobs were not shipped overseas, there would have been NO crisis. The CRA would have continued, the mortgages would have been paid, and I wouldn't be reading her half-baked, pro-corporate doctrine.
"he bloody banks started creating money because they knew not everyone would take out their gold at the same time. They gave out loans on gold they didn't have on the assumption that a run on the bank was rare. This effectively created new money and happened well before the creation of the FED."
It happened before the FED, but its precisely why the central banks do not work and the responsibility of issuing gold and silver backed currency should be the government's.
"she doesn't seem to understand that if 18 million high paying jobs were not shipped overseas, there would have been NO crisis."
Sooo...if the companies kept paying these employees high paying jobs, but then went out of business because of it, how would that have helped anyone?
Chrysler just sent out its notice to all employees thats required 60 days before laying them off (which will be Dec 23, the day before Chrysler employees get a week vaca for christmas). Whats causing Chrysler to go out of business? 18 million jobs being shipped over seas? Please make that connection.
I'm not quite understanding your logic. Companies ship jobs over seas to stay in business. Yet, these companies should be forced to only employ high paying workers domestically, which would cause these companies to go out of business employing noone... huh? Maybe they should raise the prices of their cars so that they could afford to employ more people domestically? But...then people wouldn't buy the cars and again...they would need to go out of business....
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY 18 MILLION JOBS GOING OVER SEAS IS THE CAUSE AND NOT A SYMPTOM.
"Sooo...if the companies kept paying these employees high paying jobs, but then went out of business because of it, how would that have helped anyone?"
Who said they would have gone out of business?
"Chrysler just sent out its notice to all employees thats required 60 days before laying them off (which will be Dec 23, the day before Chrysler employees get a week vaca for christmas). Whats causing Chrysler to go out of business? 18 million jobs being shipped over seas? Please make that connection"
That, and the oil prices coupled with their reliance on producing big trucks and SUVs.
Anyway, the logic of the current model is a race to the bottom.
1. The car companies in America get rid of expensive healthcare and pension benefits.
2. American companies stop pegging wages to the UAW.
4. American workers are paid 14 bucks to start. Sounds okay, right?
5. Up to this point, Japanese car manufactures have been paying their workers 20 dollars to start.
6. The ensuing competition forces greater innovation and a downward push on wages, because wages represent a significant overhead cost.
7. Wages for the non-educated workforce are continually driven down as the competition gets more entrenched, until labor is paid just enough to reproduce itself.
Remember, Japanese wages are based on Western models.
"PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY 18 MILLION JOBS GOING OVER SEAS IS THE CAUSE AND NOT A SYMPTOM."
A SYMPTOM OF WHAT? THE FINANCIAL CRISIS OR CAPITALISM? I WOULD SAY IT IS DEFINITELY A SYMPTOM OF CAPITALISM, BUT NOT OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS. IT IS THE CAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS!
It sounds like you're saying competition is bad because its a race to the bottom...of course this isn't true. Competition increase wages and give incentive for innovation. The big three hasn't reacted to this well and are failing, but pension, healthcare and unemployment benefits are killing them as well. Japanese factories in the United States are generally not unionized.
"It sounds like you're saying competition is bad because its a race to the bottom...of course this isn't true."
Yes, it is. Most jobs can be done by anyone. Therefore, the only people who would benefit from the incentives of free market system are the best.
"Japanese factories in the United States are generally not unionized."
Japanese factories in the US have been riding the high wages of unionized workers. They haven't needed to unionize, because unionized labor drives up the average wage, and in this case, the wage for auto workers.
"Japanese factories in the US have been riding the high wages of unionized workers."
They don't have the same irrational benefits though, and thats what is hurting the big 3.
"Yes, it is. Most jobs can be done by anyone. Therefore, the only people who would benefit from the incentives of free market system are the best."
I'd say people people having the right to unionize and negotiate wages in a free market have helped, wouldn't you?
Actually, Josh, it is the oil crisis that is hurting them. Before that, this was not a problem.
"I'd say people people having the right to unionize and negotiate wages in a free market have helped, wouldn't you?"
Yes, but only with government support. The ability to fire is just too devastating.
What type of government support?
I suppose an ammendment supporting the right to unionize the way members want to unionize.
Gotta love a form of government that protects rights instead of creating laws...
Which amendment?
A new amendment.
I'm confused, I said:
"I'd say people people having the right to unionize and negotiate wages in a free market have helped, wouldn't you?"
I'm pretty sure this is a protected right, probably would fall under the 1st amendment...so government already protects this...
"I'm pretty sure this is a protected right, probably would fall under the 1st amendment...so government already protects this..."
I think you idealistically assume that rich people would not influence government if they all became libertarians.
"I think you idealistically assume that rich people would not influence government if they all became libertarians."
Which would change if an amendment passed (imagine passing an amendment...the federal government need not waste its time with such archaic sillyness. this would mean the government would recognize it is not all powerful) that overlaps already existing constitution rights...
"Which would change if an amendment passed (imagine passing an amendment...the federal government need not waste its time with such archaic sillyness. this would mean the government would recognize it is not all powerful) that overlaps already existing constitution rights..."
What, that rich people will not be able to talk to senators and representatives?
i don't follow. my comment was of complete sarcasm btw.
You seem to think influence is only monetary. It is not.
I'm not sure where I made that assertion.
Well, then, what makes you think rich men would ever relinquish their power voluntary?
Post a Comment