Originally posted by: Boilerman
Biden's so called inflation reduction policy did nothing but ensure high inflation. Excessive spending on top of inflation does that and it's learned in Econ 101.
Trump's spending is more than Biden's ..and he's calling for 500 billion increase to the military.
aren't ya glad we did DOGE?
happy new year!
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
Currency inflation - An artificial increase in the supply of currency caused by the Federal Reserve has been happening for over a hundred years.
Price inflation - A common symptom of currency inflation. Has been going on just as long.
The banksters and monyed interest have people fooled into blaming one side of the aisle or the other. It keeps the people conveniently distracted.
Trying to blame one major party or the other is relatively pointless. The problem will remain until we make fundamental changes to our monetary system.
The government MUST continually add to the currency supply as the nation's wealth increases; otherwise, deflation will occur.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
The government MUST continually add to the currency supply as the nation's wealth increases; otherwise, deflation will occur.
Some increase in the currency supply as wealth increases can be good for the economy. Absolutely. But as you probably know too much is disastrous.
The Federal Reserve is not a government agency. It is a mostly private consortium of bankers
The Congress can, and should "coin money and regulate the value thereof", but they don't.
A large portion of new currency is created not by U.S. government decree, but by private banks.
I think you're overstating the case. Those banks don't just print currency willy-nilly. They do so with the permission and at the behest of the US government. They're agents, not actors.
I think that a LOT of people confuse currency with wealth. It REPRESENTS wealth and is simply a mechanism. Also, it has nothing to do with the money supply.
Printing currency doesn't cause inflation unless more is printed in a given period than overall wealth is increased. I don't know how or how much the government correlates the two, but my guess is that they try to balance them. Don't increase the currency supply more than necessary to prevent deflation.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
The government MUST continually add to the currency supply as the nation's wealth increases; otherwise, deflation will occur.
You spelled International Banks wrong.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
I think you're overstating the case. Those banks don't just print currency willy-nilly. They do so with the permission and at the behest of the US government. They're agents, not actors.
I think that a LOT of people confuse currency with wealth. It REPRESENTS wealth and is simply a mechanism. Also, it has nothing to do with the money supply.
Printing currency doesn't cause inflation unless more is printed in a given period than overall wealth is increased. I don't know how or how much the government correlates the two, but my guess is that they try to balance them. Don't increase the currency supply more than necessary to prevent deflation.
The Federal reserve are not government agents. Only a portion of the board is selected by the government. The other portion of the board is selected by private banks.
The federal government does not tell the Federal Reserve when and how to increase the currency supply
The Federal Reserve does not need, and often does not have the government's permission to increase the currency supply.
Do you think that the US Treasury determines the amount of Federal Reserve Note in circulation? They don't.
The US Treasury determines how many US Treasury bills are produced. Much of these treasury bills are bought by The Federal Reserve and member banks. This is true.
However that is not the only way new currency enters the system. The Federal Reserve does not need permission to loan money to, member banks, foreign banks, or foreign governments, All these actions introduce new currency into the system.
Also, nearly every time a bank makes a loan, new currency is created. That new currency is extinguished when the loan is paid, but only the principle is extinguished, not the interest. The interest is new currency.
I used the word currency instead of money purposefully.
An increase in the amount of currency in this system IS currency inflation. This may or may not result in price inflation.
Additionally the Federal Reserve sets interest rates on their own. This has a profound effect on the amount of currency in circulation.
I agree, currency is not money. And money can be created without currency being involved at all.
Thus, if money is created but not enough currency is printed to represent it, deflation will occur; too much is printed, inflation will occur.
You seem to be thinking that the latter is happening. By what measure are you determining that too much currency is being printed?
Originally posted by: Inigo Montoya
You spelled International Banks wrong.
You banged your head on something just before you posted this?
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
I agree, currency is not money. And money can be created without currency being involved at all.
Thus, if money is created but not enough currency is printed to represent it, deflation will occur; too much is printed, inflation will occur.
You seem to be thinking that the latter is happening. By what measure are you determining that too much currency is being printed?
One big indicator is the tremendous loss in value and purchasing power of the Federal Reserve Note over the last hundred plus years.
When savings accounts lose purchasing value because the interest earned can't beat price inflation, that is another indicator.
The fact that the government has had to debase coinage on several occasions is another. (First removing gold, then silver, then copper)
At any rate. The Federal Reserve can and often does change the currency supply without any government approval.
The main check against The Federal Reserve inflating the currency supply was that the Dollar was based on a unit of silver.
Until 1964 anybody could go to the bank and trade their Federal Reserve Notes for silver coins. For periods of time before that they could also trade for gold as well.
When those checks against currency inflation were removed the problem skyrocketed.
To help demonstrate this loss in purchasing power could I ask you to humor me a moment? Think back to the early 1960's. Admittedly I wasn't born yet but if I recall correctly from other posts you are old enough.
If you walked into a store in 1963 with a quarter in your pocket, what could you expect to buy?
Today twenty five cents has very little purchasing power. However, that same quarter you had in your pocket in 1963 is worth over 16 Federal Reserve Notes today.
I don't understand your last statement.
However, to answer your question, 25 cents would buy a bag of freshly made peanut brittle at the Candy Jar, which was strategically located next to the movie theater and a block from my school. They fired up the oven just as school was letting out. No fools they.
For any price comparison year over year to have meaning, purchasing power would have to be factored in as well. I can tell you that subjectively, our family had less purchasing power back then than a similar family has today.
We can debate the evil machinations of the Fed all day, but my measure of increasing or decreasing national wealth and prosperity has nothing to do with currency or coinage: How long does Joe Average have to work to be able to buy X? How long did he have to work back then?
Nothing else matters IMHO.
