Forum Post: As you can see, the dollar is on it's way up. The FED wants to stop this trend.
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 28, 2012, 8:43 a.m. EST by richardkentgates
(3269)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The FED will soon be issuing QE3 in an effort do devalue the dollar again. When the dollar is strong, prices are low, and the shareholders make less profit. At the same time, a stronger dollar means more purchasing power for the poor and working class. The FED wants to take away your purchasing power, so the the 1% retain maximum wealth. This is what the FED is focused on, not a recover. If the FED was interested in a recovery, they would allow the dollar to stay strong so that people can afford to buy more, which leads to more hiring. But that is not what the FED is interested in.
Just some fyi on printing money, and that is what QE3 is, it's printing money.
printing more money only devalues the dollar compared to other currencies ... if all countries print more at the same time... the dollar stay at the same value....
understand ... we have added more people worldwide into the economic picture ... we have to add more currency or the new will not be able to participate ....
think like we are in a monopoly game.... when you add new players.... do you take money from the existing players and give to the new ones?
or do you create more money to give to the new ?
when new money is printed it gains in value at the loss in value of old money. All dollar denominated assets suffer loss.
So in your monopoly example, we do in fact take a portion of money from the existing players, but that value flows to whoever prints the new money.
Here, I'll let Forbes tell it to you. http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/08/27/federal-reserve-delivers-46b-of-first-half-profit-u-s-treasury/
????? Richard.... I have no idea what you are trying to say with that link... the link is simply saying that the economy is recovering for the banks
Exactly. My entire point is that the FED is only taking action to preserve wealth for banks and investors, they are not actually taking action to assist the recovery. They are waiting for demand to return and protecting wealth while they wait. Because of the current level of inflation, not any rises but the current level, is not sustainable with wages where they are, demand is not returning. They are spending tax payer dollars to protect wealth while waiting for something that isn't coming and that they are actually preventing a recover by fighting deflation, ie keeping prices artificially high.
well.... as I understand... the idea behind the Fed... is to keep the banks healthy... which in turn should keep the economy healthy.... there's a BIG difference between Banking & the corruption that took place on Wall St....
Jobs gained thru Inflation/deflation activity is SMALL potatoes compared to Jobs gained thru capitalization (investment) into new business ...
understand.... we have just gone thru a massive redistribution of wealth & industry from the Industrialized Nations to the impoverished Nations... now we have to rebuild.... that takes investment... which takes healthy banking.... unless of course we want to destroy the banks also.... putting another 15% of the population out of work....
better to fix banking than to destroy it ....
the extreme right & left like to destroy things
Supporting a failed bank or a bank that cannot survive without a government handout is simply more unjustified debt and artificial competition. We aren't going to run out of banks if a few huge banks go bust. There is a big difference between The Depression and now. Aside from the FDIC, we have regulators with preparations for winding down these banks and FDIC policy for asset seizure and sale for payment of debts.
The people selling you the idea that this country cannot live without any of the megabanks is protecting their interest, not offering an objective set of facts. There is a community bank and/or credit union in almost every town. Yes, setting up a new account is a pain in the ass but hardly enough to capsize your business. If you don't qualify at another bank, that indicates a lack of stable revenue on your part (low demand), not with the banks.
I could spend hours telling you this and offering credible source after credible source saying the same thing, as I have been. But I think I made my point for the day.
Q: Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank?
A: There are actually 12 different Federal Reserve Banks around the country, and they are owned by big private banks. But the banks don’t necessarily run the show. Nationally, the Federal Reserve System is led by a Board of Governors whose seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. ... more >>>
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/
Ok. How does that effect this argument. It seems as though you are trying to create grey area in a very specific issue. This thread is about the fed actively making the decision to continue sacrificing demand which in turn prevents hiring, in exchange for price retention, ie protecting shareholders and banks.
you keep mentioning the Fed ... when I believe you really are mad at the corrupt banks... like BofA, Citicorp .. etc....
we really should be mad at the SEC for allowing the WallSt corruption to take place
The FED inflation policy is the pivot between supply side and demand side economics. This policy must be changed to reflect demand side economics, or the argument against supply side is for nothing.
what happens when ... when all the needs are produced cheaply overseas... and eventually produced for pennies by machines... how will the Supply side create new or even support old jobs? .... We are in a NEW time ...
I am against supply side, just to clear that up. The competition from overseas is why I feel inflation should be tackled instead of raising wages. You would do less harm to international trade and keep our exports healthy by allowing for slight deflation which brings prices down to an affordable level for a wider rage of income levels thereby increasing demand and stimulating hiring.
Wages shouldn't rise? A more equitable distribution of income does not raise product cost, it lowers income for the wealthy.
Wages should rise, but that is not likely to happen until the economy is stable. What I'm talking about is the damage the FED is doing to any chance of a recovery. I have made many arguments for raising wages, I could use a raise my damn self. But like I said, the fed is standing in the way of the higher demand that is required before wages can be raised.
The core economic problem is that lower and middle incomes are stagnant or declining. All of the increase is going to the top earners. Demand is low because we have no surplus left. That surplus is in the hands of the wealthy. We must reverse the flow of wealth back to the people who create it. Higher wages are the most effective way to do that.
We can't wait for demand to increase. That may never happen because the current level of income is so weak. Higher wages must come first in order to increase demand.
With a GDP per worker of over $100K per worker, there is ample room to negotiate pay raises. Unions, collective bargaining, and other forms of negotiation need to be brought back into style if we want real change.
[Deleted]
thought you were done with this bullshit - you are misinforming people - sorry that you can't understand that. not name dropping - just pointing out that if you agree with larry kudlow you must think carefully about what you are saying. in case you missed it this is the important line - Wall Street and the international banking fraternity loved [Volcker]. They hated inflation-bankers don't like to be repaid in money that is softer than the money they lend, even if the softer money makes the economy hum-and they knew that Volcker was mean enough to destroy the economy to save the hardness of their dollars." this is good also - Volcker stated, upon taking office, that "the standard of living for the average American has to decline."
Argue with the graph. Are you siding with the FED to devalue the dollar with QE3? If you are for devaluing the purchasing power of the working class by moving forward with QE3, just say so.
this post is incorrect and people interested in moving ows forward need to understand this issue - it is one of the more important questions of the day. here is the simple idea that must be understood - what is good for bankers is generally not good for workers - "Wall Street and the international banking fraternity loved [Volcker]. They hated inflation-bankers don't like to be repaid in money that is softer than the money they lend, even if the softer money makes the economy hum-and they knew that Volcker was mean enough to destroy the economy to save the hardness of their dollars." this is good also - Volcker stated, upon taking office, that "the standard of living for the average American has to decline."
Are you siding with the FED to devalue the dollar with QE3? If you are for devaluing the purchasing power of the working class by moving forward with QE3, just say so.
you are making larry kudlow argument for king dollar - look him up - he is the quintessential spokesman for the rich - are you - fyi - bankers hate inflation why do you? check this out - "The Fed is supposed to minimize unemployment as well as inflation, and before 1979, it tried to achieve some sort of balance between the two goals. But under Volcker and his successor, Alan Greenspan, it's simply aimed for low inflation, regardless of the effect that has on jobs. In fact, Greenspan has asked Congress to relieve the Fed of responsibility for keeping unemployment down. Inflation was high when Volcker took over-13% or so. To get it under control, he tightened the money supply. This brought on a monster recession, the biggest since World War II. Within a year, the prime rate shot up to the unheard-of level of 21.5% (compared to an average of 7.6% for the fourteen previous years). Unemployment peaked at just under 11%. According to author Robert Sherrill, Volcker stated, upon taking office, that "the standard of living for the average American has to decline." Sherrill says Volcker was recommended by David Rockefeller because "Wall Street and the international banking fraternity loved [Volcker]. They hated inflation-bankers don't like to be repaid in money that is softer than the money they lend, even if the softer money makes the economy hum-and they knew that Volcker was mean enough to destroy the economy to save the hardness of their dollars."
Are you siding with the FED to devalue the dollar with QE3? If you are for devaluing the purchasing power of the working class by moving forward with QE3, just say so.
as i said i am not for qe3 but deflation will not create jobs - just the opposite. did you read this - and can you respond to it? -"The Fed is supposed to minimize unemployment as well as inflation, and before 1979, it tried to achieve some sort of balance between the two goals. But under Volcker and his successor, Alan Greenspan, it's simply aimed for low inflation, regardless of the effect that has on jobs. In fact, Greenspan has asked Congress to relieve the Fed of responsibility for keeping unemployment down. Inflation was high when Volcker took over-13% or so. To get it under control, he tightened the money supply. This brought on a monster recession, the biggest since World War II. Within a year, the prime rate shot up to the unheard-of level of 21.5% - and this - "the standard of living for the average American has to decline." Sherrill says Volcker was recommended by David Rockefeller because "Wall Street and the international banking fraternity loved [Volcker]. They hated inflation-bankers don't like to be repaid in money that is softer than the money they lend, even if the softer money makes the economy hum-a
Without more easing, deflation will happen anyway. It will be just a bump in the road. Before you know it, sales will jump right back up there and employment will grow from higher demand due to lower prices. It's ok, you don't have to admit it. There may already be enough pressure to prevent any more easing and then just sit back while the markets self correct.
I really think your logic resembles a man trying to read a document with the paper less than an inch from his eye. Over focused on words with no apparent priority as to the order of influence and effect. You've talked much about inflation creating jobs but higher prices do not lead to higher employment under any circumstances. They may happen at the same time but inflation is not a job creator, you're reaching. Too much book knowledge and not enough understanding.
you are saying the same thing that the bankers are saying to the greeks - how has it worked for them. look at history and show me where your formula has worked. and cut the shit about book learning - the fact that you cannot respond to a simple point of logic is not my fault. one way to look at it is to see who wants inflation and who wants deflation. you are siding with the 1% - well not really more like the .01% - doesn't that make you wonder why you are on the same side of this issue. are you a follower of ron paul since he makes the same argument? you do realize that a stronger dollar helps importers and hurts exporters - do you? things are rarely black and white and that is true on this issue - the fact that you can buy more goods is great as long as you have a job and with deflation your boss will tell you he has to pay you less - then what can you buy! do you own a house? many people do - do you know the numbers for home ownership?
This issue is not about making cuts. It's about ending the money printing by the fed. Stop trying to overlap the issues.
the Fed does not print money .... the Treasury does .... the Fed only does the analysis... under Greenspan days... the Treasury did anything Greenspan said
Exactly, so why do we need the FED? Since national security is supposed to be a huge consideration in economic policy per EO12333(1981) and the Treasury does the actual printing, why do we need the FED and why do they need to make a profit in order for our economy to function?
All things that can be done and should be done by elected officials, their staff, and regulators.
did you miss this question - i notice you don't like to answer questions you just like to ask them. - you are siding with the 1% - well not really more like the .01% - doesn't that make you wonder why you are on the same side of this issue.
Your question is not about the issue or even how I feel about an issue. You're asking me to compare myself to a negative brand. Pretty lame.
i am asking you to examine why you want the same thing as they do - lots of poor and working people will vote for romney and ryan