End the Fed!, says...Alan Greenspan??? (1 Viewer)

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,366
Reaction score
21,558
Offline
If Alan Greenspan Wants To 'End The Fed', Times Must Be Changing - Forbes

Basically acknowledges the unprecedented times we live in and the concern over what the long term impact of conjuring up limitless quantities of money and handing it over to banking cronies (not dropping it from a helicopter to average citizens despite that image cultivated by the Ben Bernank)...

Good thing is collectively we have no long term memories. If there are is harsh fallout from this 5 or 10 years out no one will remember how to connect the dots to the Fed and the Wall Street oligarchy, so they will call on the Fed to save us from the Fed.
 

J-Donk

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
3,389
Reaction score
3,688
Offline
"There are numbers of us, myself included, who strongly believe that we did very well in the 1870 to 1914 period with an international gold standard.”

There were multiple recessions during that time period. In fact the longest recession in our history happened during that period. Here is the wiki link: Long Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greenspan couldn't see the housing crisis, and had to step down in shame. He sure doesn't sound like he knows what he is talking about, which isn't surprising.
 
OP
blackadder

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,366
Reaction score
21,558
Offline
"There are numbers of us, myself included, who strongly believe that we did very well in the 1870 to 1914 period with an international gold standard.”

There were multiple recessions during that time period. In fact the longest recession in our history happened during that period. Here is the wiki link: Long Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greenspan couldn't see the housing crisis, and had to step down in shame. He sure doesn't sound like he knows what he is talking about, which isn't surprising.
Business cycles will never be eradicated. It's part of the system. You factor in the risks and make decisions accordingly.

We also got the Fed in 1913 and then the largest Depression in history in 1929.

We'll see which system ends up worst...interesting times.

A central bank can be a positive thing. It just need not be privately owned and administered, because you will never separate out the decisions made to benefit the short term profit motive of the banking business vs. the best interests of the consumer and long term best interests of the nation.

We have the crony version of a monetary and financial system and it's really good at making you co-dependent and a believer that it's there to help YOU, as opposed to protect its own business interests.
 

dapperdan

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Jul 29, 1998
Messages
11,295
Reaction score
7,242
Age
58
Location
Juanita Beach, WA
Online
Income Growth for Bottom 90% in America Since 1966 is…59 Dollars
Posted on March 26, 2013 by Michael Krieger

We’ve all seen these statistics before in one form or another, but David Cay Johnston does an excellent job going into more detail for us in an article he published late last month.

However, I would take exception to Mr. Johnston’s conclusion that the root problem is the tax system. While I do not for one moment deny that the oligarchs game the tax system to provide loopholes for themselves, this is not why the 1% of 1% has taken all the wealth of the nation. This is much more related to the Federal Reserve and its policies of printing trillions of money out of thin air and distributing it to the oligarchs, either directly or through low interest loans. If you tax the rich more, they will still make more because they will still have the access to the cheap money. The Federal Reserve is the core cancer of the entire thing and they must be stopped. Some excerpts below:

The average increase in real income reported by the bottom 90 percent of earners in 2011, compared with 1966, if measured at one inch, would extend almost five miles for the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent.

Remember, we got off the gold standard in 1971, after which the Federal Reserve could print as much as they wanted and distribute it wherever they wanted…and they have.

Incomes and tax revenues have grown from 2009 to 2011 as the economy recovered, but an astonishing 149 percent of the increased income went to the top 10 percent of earners.

[from Johnston]
If you wonder how that can happen, the answer is simple: Incomes fell for the bottom 90 percent.

Ponder that last fact for a moment — the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent, those making at least $7.97 million in 2011, enjoyed 39 percent of all the income gains in America. In a nation of 158.4 million households, just 15,837 of them received 39 cents out of every dollar of increased income.

In 2011 the average AGI of the vast majority fell to $30,437 per taxpayer, its lowest level since 1966 when measured in 2011 dollars. The vast majority averaged a mere $59 more in 2011 than in 1966. For the top 10 percent, by the same measures, average income rose by $116,071 to $254,864, an increase of 84 percent over 1966.

Between 1980 and 2005, more than 80 percent of the total increase in income went to the top 1 percent of American households.1

Tax policy is driving these trends.
from Krieger
As I mentioned before, I disagree with the statement above. He correctly points out that the super rich make their money from capital gains and dividends, but why have those grown so much? It’s all Federal Reserve policy, which targets increases in assets prices that the oligarchs own. It’s not a secret that Ben Bernanke is actively targeting the stock market with his money printing and not the real economy. So who does that benefit? That’s not tax policy, that’s monetary policy.
Income Growth for Bottom 90% in America Since 1966 is
 

Chinny

Cinnamon and Desperation
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
3,182
Reaction score
1,028
Location
Terrytown
Offline
We need some kind of drastic reform however it comes.

Handing our government a limitless credit card that we have to foot is madness. If ever I would be lumped (gladly) into a conspiracy theorist category it would be in the Anti-Fed genre.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom