http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:17:09 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-730698 Last I checked large profits are GOOD for the economy. More people making more money including bank shareholders seems like a very desirable thing. Plus I'm pretty sure none of us would benefit from the failure of a bunch of big banks, even if that were the sole function of the Fed. As for stability, your assertion that the Fed somehow caused the depression, the inflation of the 1970s and all of our current problems is absolutely unsupportable. It just doesn't square with the facts. The Fed did not cause US manufacturers to overproduce in anticipation of non-existent foreign markets in the 1920s. It didn't cause the oil shortage, high taxation and terrible government policies of the 1970s, and while it may have created opportunity for misbehavior in the current situation it certainly didn't cause it. And do you know why Morgan ended up supporting a Federal bank? Because when the Treasury ran out of gold in 1895 as a result of the Panic of '93, Morgan had to basically front them $65 million in gold against a $100 million bond issue to keep the government solvent. Morgan rightly concluded that a gold-based currency system was too vulnerable and needed rational control. Dave 730698@blogcritics.org Thu, 3 Jul 2008 19:17:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-730683 Dave, The problem is that central banks do not provide stability to the financial markets. Look at 20th Century U.S. economic history - Great Depression, various recessions, 1970's inflation, and today's crisis. I am afraid that today's crisis is going to be the mother of all economic crisis. The Fed has backed itself into a corner - recessionary economy with inflation and no where to go on interest rates. Can anybody say stagflation? Further, the Fed was founded with one purpose - to protect big banks from failure and allow them to participate in risky behaviors to achieve huge profits. JP Morgan was at the front of fighting for a central bank and among its rewards was the Fed guaranteed "purchase" of Bear Stearns. Lastly, the inflation caused since 1913 is huge. Inflation is a hidden tax which allows the politicians to spend at will while our savings and the financial integrity of our currency is destroyed. I just don't see how the current Fed is a benefit to the U.S. as a whole? 730683@blogcritics.org Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:39:53 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-730682 Dave, The problem is that central banks do not provide stability to the financial markets. Look at 20th Century U.S. economic history - Great Depression, various recessions, 1970's inflation, and today's crisis. I am afraid that today's crisis is going to be the mother of all economic crisis. The Fed has backed itself into a corner - recessionary economy with inflation and no where to go on interest rates. Can anybody say stagflation? Further, the Fed was founded with one purpose - to protect big banks from failure and allow them to participate in risky behaviors to achieve huge profits. JP Morgan was at the front of fighting for a central bank and amounst their rewards was the Fed guaranteed "purchase" of Bear Stearns. Lastly, the inflation caused since 1913 is huge. Inflation is a hidden tax which allows the politicians to spend at will while our savings and the financial integrity of our currency is destroyed. I just don't see how the current Fed is a benefit to the U.S. as a whole? 730682@blogcritics.org Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:36:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-730605 Kenn, control on the money supply and interest rates and regulation of banking does not necessarily mean that trade in general is not free. It's certainly possible to have controls and regulation on finances while having pretty unregulated trade in most other areas, and that seems like a functional balance between the stability of managing the financial sector and the dynamic growth that goes with free trade in other sectors. Dave 730605@blogcritics.org Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:19:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-730575 If the congressional republicans were really opposed to managed economies they would stop promoting subsidies to oil interests as well as opposing windfall profits taxes. Subsidies and taxes are two sides of the same coin. 730575@blogcritics.org Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:15:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-730573 If the congressional republicans were really opposed to managed economies they would stop promoting subsidies to oil interests as well as opposing windfall profits taxes. Subsidies and taxes are two sides of the same coin. 730573@blogcritics.org Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:09:18 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-730505 Command economies don't work but neither do "free market" economies since they soon devolve into monopolies administered in much the same way and with the same disastrous results as command economies. 730505@blogcritics.org Thu, 3 Jul 2008 02:59:51 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-730498 Dave, I did say that "The primary culprit responsible for high oil prices are the monetary central planners at the Federal Reserve Bank." There is a demand issue also from India and China. Additionally, our foreign policy in the Middle East has caused speculation - will the U.S. invade Iran and oil supplies cut? So the Fed in my view is not the only cause of the high cost of gas. The article's point was that planned central economies do not function as well as totally free markets. Free markets are not perfect, but they are the best way to go and I will always be unapologetic about that view 730498@blogcritics.org Thu, 3 Jul 2008 02:14:11 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-729898 And your point would be? 729898@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:07:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-729888 Leverage is obtained by buying options, not the stocks or commodities themselves. 729888@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:33:04 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-729840 jammin, "speculators being required to pay 100% of their bid for the futures, same as the "regular" stock market speculator has to pay for his stock." Under NASD and NYSE regulations, an investor can buy stock on the NYSE with as little as 50% initial margin. Maintenance margin can be as low as 25%. Individual brokerage firms can establish their own requirements (higher, not lower), but usually don't. 729840@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:59:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-729760 The only part of the bill that I would have supported was the speculators being required to pay 100% of their bid for the futures, same as the "regular" stock market speculator has to pay for his stock. When I found out that the speculators only have to front 25% that concerned me. Isn't that how the stock market was a contributor to the Great Depression? I know of other issues, but that was one of the biggies, right? 729760@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:28:30 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/06/29/235818.php#comment-729752 Some good points here, Kenn, but I'm afraid I have to contest one of your points. Much though we all hate fiat money and all the bogus currency the government has printed, it is not actually responsible for more than a fraction of the increase in oil prices. For example, in the 3 year period when so much money was printed, the value of the dollar dropped only 15%. Mathematically that means it only increased the nominal price of a barrel of oil by about 9%, nowhere near enough to account for the massive increase in the price per barrel in that same period. And if we look at the numbers for the last 7 years, since Bush started printing more money to deliberately deflate the value of the dollar, you see the price of oil increasing almost 200% while the value of the dollar has gone down only 44%. That 44% decrease in dollar value accounts for only an 81% increase in the price per barrel, so the remaining 3/5 of the increase in oil prices MUST have a different cause. Sorry, but the math just doesn't back up your claim. Dave 729752@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:38:15 EDT