-3 votes

Critical Thinking Exercise! Central Banking

I have read "End the FED" and "The Case Against the FED".
So, I understand well the negative aspects of the Federal Reserve System. I have a Bachelors Degree in Economics for what it's worth.

In order to be unbiased, certain of my position, able to combat opposite positions, and generally intelligent, I like to understand both sides to each position.

I've researched for a list but I cannot find one. I'm looking for essentially the CASE FOR THE FED/CENTRAL BANKING. If anyone can find such a thing, please post a link here.

Until then, let's brainstorm reasons that the FED is a good thing.
Please don't respond with drivel like "there aren't any positives" or "end the fed." Let's be intelligent.

I will start with a couple:

1. Those with long term debts (most people have mortgages) will earn more money over time due to inflation while their debt payments stay the same. Therefore, less of their future income as a percentage needs to go towards their long term debts. This is true for individuals as well as businesses. Granted, a central bank could be designed to have zero inflation.

2. A single currency used by all people in an entire country is pretty darn convenient

Please help add to the list!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Go read a Macro-Econ book...

from any major university.

There you'll find all the Keynesian arguments your little heart desires.

To understand why we don't need one all that is necessary is to read von Mises's thoughts on socialism.

Don't downvote

this is a good exercise for everyone. Instead of circle jerking about ending the Fed, let's look at both sides of the issue so we can be prepared to defend our position.

I'm no economist but a point I hear often is that there would be many many crashes because there's no central bank to regulate the economy. Can someone give me a rebuttal (preferably someone with good background in economy plz)

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

I don't know why this is being

downvoted. I think it's kinda interesting to try to step in the shoes of the statists.
And that's what those who support a central bank are - statists. Can we understand the mind of a statist? Maybe. How many of us want to win our arguement no matter what it is? Winning an arguement gives us the 'power' over our opponent, and there's nothing a statist want more than power.
OK, maybe not the best analogy, someone can come up with something better.
Hamilton, who I consider to be the absolutely most horrific and despicable creature in our early history, started the whole mess. In arguing for his central bank, he wrote, "every power vested in a Government is in its nature sovereign, and includes by force of the term, a right to employ all means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power," - since the Constitution doesn't forbid the govt from creating a bank, that power is implied and the mischeif of 'implied powers' began.
So read Hamilton's letter to Washington where he argues for a central bank, and you might have a better understanding of the statist mindset.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I think you may be on to

I think you may be on to something. Like the comments I've read, I can think of no good points about the federal reserve. Someone with standing and notoriety should start asking this question of the PTB. I'd like to hear their answers to this question. I'm a pretty sharp guy, and I dare say they won't have any answers.

when I heard Big Ben B state that

derivative market is so complex only a few knew of the deeper inner workings of it, I puked.
find another VALID subject to critically ponder on
Taint nuthin POS+ bout fliggin Banksters bustin a workin mans ass on a daily, weekly,monthly, yearly, decades long program .
END THE FED

I like to be unbiased too

And can honestly think of no legitimate "good" reason for a private central bank. Sorry, there simply is none. It is a group of white collar criminals sucking off society.

Perhaps the only "good" that comes of having them is they can get their ill gotten gains in a less volotile manner than if they used their weight to openly rob the marketplace. But then, maybe they'd be arrested and jailed like Madoff.

All The Positives Of The Fed

All the positives of having a central bank are entirely directed toward those in control of the bank, at the expense of the general public.

1. It allows the government to steal wealth from the national pool of capital by dilution of the existing promissory notes.
2. It allows the misallocation of capital away from the productive private uses that grow the economy, toward unproductive public projects that benefit cronies.
3. It allows those in control of the central bank to manipulate markets (stock, commodity, etc) to the benefit of cronies, who are given specific advance warning of market operations.

The central bank is a means of controlling the economy so as to benefit a small group of power-hungry elites. Without it, the free-market would produce a superior private system that leads to improved economic growth.

Fractional reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking gives you access to more loans and capital to implement your big idea and grow the wealth of the whole nation.

If only gold existed as money the wealth of nations could not grow as fast or as sustainably.

http://www.policymic.com/deba

http://www.policymic.com/debates/3086

There IS an argument for it. The problem is that of course, it is run by bankers.

So like most things, we are better not having it and taking our lumps every once in awhile.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

The #1 Best thing about central banks!

It gives patriots a common cause to unite and take back their freedom, liberty and sovereignty from their debt slave masters.

Critical thinking exercise (*)

(*) May include artificial critical thinking flavors. Does not include any actual critical thinking.

"1. Those with long term debts (most people have mortgages) will earn more money over time due to inflation while their debt payments stay the same."

You present this as a positive, but it is not. This is many things, all of them bad:

  • It is a transfer of wealth from savers to debtors. (In a simplistic view, the savers lose just as much wealth as the borrowers gain, so your #1 is no net positive at all. But it's worse than that because the transfer of wealth is a form of rampant theft, which damages all of society by destroying/disincentivizing capital formation.)
  • It interplays with fractional reserve banking, supporting the banking cartel's grip on lending. Banks that can lend money by first creating it out of thin air do not care if inflation destroys more value from the loan's principal than is made by the loan's interest payments -- the principal was just created from thin air and will return there if/when repaid so the bank gets to keep the gains and doesn't suffer the losses (it literally privatizes the gains in the form of interest and socializes the losses in the form of inflation). This allows banks to profit at much lower interest rates than they otherwise could, artificially depressing loan rates to the point where savers are discouraged from lending directly to borrowers because even if the loan is repaid it's still a value-losing proposition.
  • It provides disincentives for saving and incentives for going into debt, distorting economic decisions, resulting in less efficient allocation of capital. Savers are pushed into speculation. Would-be borrowers are encouraged to borrow to do things that don't actually make economic sense.
  • One specific entity that low rates encourages to go deeper and deeper into debt is particularly troubling, and that is government (placing us deeper into involuntary debt slavery and further eroding property rights via rising property taxes).

Even for the borrowers who you suggest this benefits, in addition to amartin315's point about wages not keeping up with inflation (so increased food and energy costs may wipe out any interest savings), and borrowers being directly or indirectly hit by many of the above issues, there's also the specific issue of excessive borrowing leading to excessive demand leading to excessive prices -- as demonstrated by the housing bubble. I'm sure the low interest rates will be a real comfort to those who lose their house and can't even sell it for enough to pay off the bank because they are now underwater so they end up filing for bankruptcy and losing everything.

"Granted, a central bank could be designed to have zero inflation."

And a central bank could be designed to summon fairies that wave their magic wands and bring world peace, prosperity and happiness. The likeliness of either actually happening is about the same.

"2. A single currency used by all people in an entire country is pretty darn convenient"

  • That doesn't require a central bank to achieve. (We had a bimetallic standard without any central bank. A single-currency standard could be achieved the same exact way. Though technically even then many people didn't use gold/silver and instead used notes issued by private banks which where [in theory] backed by gold/silver.)
  • That is also not really a positive. (You don't want to force everyone to use a common currency. Well, maybe you do, but people who believe in liberty don't.)
  • We are technologically beyond the point where a single currency is really all that important. (I can go online and use my US $ backed credit card to buy stuff where Euros or Australian dollars or other currencies are used, and currencies get converted automagically.)

Very Good Post, Foo! Thank

Very Good Post, Foo!

Thank you!

I didn't think about the transfer of wealth from saver to debtor. Are there any actual savers any more?

I'm pretty sure that all of the FED's positives are accompanied by negatives which often overshadow the positives.

Assuming this is so, do you have any more ideas of positives of the FED? What are other benefits of the FED for any particular groups or classes of people at the expense of others? For instance, government contractors make a lot of money and employ a lot of people. Financing government spending through inflation helps them.
What about social security? SS tax funds SS benefits, but since 40% of federal monies is borrowed/created some of that does or could go to seniors, so some of them benefit. I realize this is at a cost to everyone else holding dollars.
But, besides people receiving money directly from the government, who else benefits?

Thanks!

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

there are no real positives

When thieves steal money, IMO it's not valid to look at that situation and say that "one positive is that the thieves now have more money". That's just an absurd separation of the benefit from the directly-related harm done. You might as well talk about the benefit of taking money out of your left pocket and putting it in your right.

"Are there any actual savers any more?"

Of course. I am one of them. (Though my savings are of course not all in dollars.)

Also note that "savers" is a bit of an oversimplification. The wealth transfer is from anyone with anything that can be measured in "future dollars" where the number of such future dollars does not scale with inflation. This includes many people -- people who save in dollars or dollar-denominated assets like government or corporate bonds, people with a fixed income, people who's income does not fully scale with inflation (e.g., SS recipients), people whose income increases lag behind inflation increases (most everyone with a paying job), lenders who can't just print money from thin air, etc. The wealth transfer can also be from people who are in the business of accepting dollars today and in exchange have to provide real goods/services in the future (when the inflation ends up being larger than accounted for in the price charged).

"What are other benefits of the FED for any particular groups or classes of people at the expense of others?"

You can basically (ignoring some unusual cases like people living completely off-grid) break people down into two groups:

  • Those that know how to game the system, have the means to game the system, and do so.
  • Everyone else.

People in the first group (to the extent that they successfully game the system) benefit at the expense of people in the latter group.

There are also non-monetary transfers to watch out for as well. For example, as inflation marches on your right to privacy is further invaded. Banks are required to report any transaction of at least $10K, and $10K is not what it was when that requirement was first instated. Also criminal laws that are written with fixed $ amounts describing the threshold for damage done or value stolen (made up example: more years in jail if amount stolen is $3K or above) effectively change meaning as the $ is devalued. Many of these constitute transfers of power from individuals to the state.

"But, besides people receiving money directly from the government, who else benefits?"

As per above, those gaming the system benefit. E.g., if you know gold will hold its value and the dollar will lose value, then you can use leveraged long gold positions to make profits. (I find it most satisfying to make money this way, and then turn around and buy physical gold with the profits.) Note that if you just buy and hold gold, you are still in the "victim" group (though perhaps not as badly victimized as someone holding only dollars), at least as long as capital gains taxes apply to the "profit" you made by holding gold.

you can scratch reason 1 from

you can scratch reason 1 from the list. The average american's wages stay the same in nominal terms, while the wealthy, mostly creditors "wages" increase.

23

Most studies I have seen show

Most studies I have seen show rising nominal wages over time.
Real wages have remained pretty stagnant though.

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

http://acivilamericandebate.w

http://acivilamericandebate.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/the-30-...

I beg to differ. The rich people's incomes have risen, but the regular people's incomes have remained stagnant. When you average them together it may appear that incomes rise with inflation

23

That's exactly what I

That's exactly what I stated... You're not differing at all. :-D

Real wages have remained fairly flat...

Those graphs are pretty inspiring though. At least I know that I can and will be in the top 5%!

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

Money is the value of products that you purchase WHEN...

you make the purchase. The question them becomes how much value is that money good for in purchases. There's a few considerations to evaluate in that question, especially when dealing with a loan and time. This is because we currently live in a world with expected inflation.

If you get paid $100, you can then purchase whatever that will buy at that time. If you wait a year, decade or even a single day, it will likely buy less. This is because the money is losing relative value to those goods/services.

If you invest it by lending it to someone at interest, you should consider at what rate the devaluation of the money is so you can charge extra and get back an amount that buys the same goods. This is the first fallacy of 'the time value of money' because unless you had an actual asset to purchase prior to lending it, you were bound to lose money anyway. A truly fair interest would pay you back the same value you would have had available whenever you actually PLANNED on spending it.

If you instead invested the money by lending it to earn a profit then you are trying to get more goods in the future than you could have purchased prior to lending. This is no different than investing it in some type of business venture to actually earn that profit, except that you now have no direct societal contribution of productivity. In short, this is robbing society of value without genuine justification. The net result of large volumes of these type of transactions is to migrate all wealth to those who control the terms of such loans. That causes wealth abundance for a few, but financial scarcity for the many. This is, IMHO, reaching the heart of many social problems that otherwise would seem unrelated. This is also the basis for statements like 'usury is evil'.

So where does this inflation come from? The simple answer is from monetary expansion. The long answer is from the interest on loans that causes monetary expansion in the first place.

If, however, we had a system where the money supply was stable (relative to productivity) and you lend your money to someone under the terms of getting back exactly what you lent, then the whole system stabilizes. At this point, money actually becomes an asset because it does not lose value over time. You can buy a loaf of bread today or wait and still buy one at any time in the future. If you lend it out and get the same amount back, that still applies. It is no different than lending your snowblower to a neighbor (up to the point where wear and tear become an issue).

In such a system of no inflation, it is much easier to visualize how non-productive it is for someone to lend for a profit (especially compared to today's conventions where some people get absurdly wealthy at the expense of the very poor). Those actions are easily exposed as the cause of inflation. With those actions being sanctioned by the populace, we accept inflation and the lending game is incredibly muddied to the point the 99% don't get this. This causes money to become nothing more than a medium of exchange in an elaborate complex barter system because any store of it for any amount of time is a losing move.

Without the inflationary manipulations (both intentional or not and direct or not), money would return to it's original purpose as a store of value. At that point, many of the common conceptions of money regain their validity.

To solve this, there have been a number of proposed plans. We here at DP all know of the Keynesian model, but there are others. The 99%ers knew something was wrong, but didn't have any specific plan. The Zeitgeist movement went to the extreme to abolish money and property ownership. Even the various tax schemes (property only, flat tax, fair tax, no tax, sales tax, VAT tax, etc. etc.) all attempt to address the symptoms of all this. Unfortunately, they all miss the point of the inflation causing inequality. And we all know where that leads. Serfdom and a feudal system, tyranny and oppression, socialism and about anything else you can think of are continually considered valid solutions. This mob mentality, fueled by monopolistic propaganda needs to be avoided at all cost.

Auditing the Fed is the best solution we have to all of this. Since the Fed is the sole source of the majority of inflation, exposing it as corrupt is the most 'cost effective' step we can do. The next steps would include eliminating that global monetary corruption, then eliminating fractional reserve banking, then the lending of pure credit, then leveraged (and other scams) stock trading, etc. After all these really big problems get solved, then we can discuss how to work out a system of no interest between two private parties on a private contract. Until then, we have MUCH bigger fish to fry.

Reasons for Central Banking

Hello,

Excellent question! I'll try to answer it in detail shortly, but let me direct you to some blog posts of mine that might be useful:

"The Essence of Central Banking"
http://www.soundmoneyproject.org/?p=7893

"The Incredible Morphing Fed"
http://www.soundmoneyproject.org/?p=6002

(more to come!)

Thanks Economist. Those are

Thanks Economist.

Those are good articles about the origin and evolution of central banking.
I have already read all about that.

I was looking more for the positive aspects of it.
So it seems to:

1. Allow the US Government to have massive amounts of credit (Good
for short term emergency and short term taxation/ Bad for long
term taxation).
2. Allow a fractionally reserved banking system needed liquidity in
times of large cash withdrawals via federal funds rate.
3. Control the price of government debt and money supply via open
market operations.
4. Create Standard and uniform and difficult to counterfeit currency.
5. Creates mild inflation helping all debtors.
6. Encourages spending instead of saving which gives the whole
economy a boost - technologically and numerically speaking.

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

More "positives" that are actually negatives.

"1. Allow the US Government to have massive amounts of credit (Good for short term emergency"

That's a bad thing. In a real emergency there should be an emergency tax created. That's the only way to keep the government from declaring things emergencies that aren't, and to avoid taxation without representation (which is what happens when one generation of voters allows money to be spent and charges the bill to people who aren't old enough to vote yet, or haven't even been born yet). At most, if there's going to be any government borrowing at all, it should not be backed by future voters, but only by existing voters who actually had a chance (in terms of age/timing) to vote for the people who are now putting them in debt. If that set of people is unable/unwilling to pay that debt back, then that debt should be defaulted on.

"2. Allow a fractionally reserved banking system needed liquidity in times of large cash withdrawals via federal funds rate."

That's a bad thing. Fractional reserve banking should not be artificially propped up (and should only be allowed to issue private bank notes that are distinct from the underlying currency).

"3. Control the price of government debt and money supply via open market operations."

That's a bad thing. It allows government to further control the use of real resources, reducing individual liberty.

Also, this game doesn't work forever. And it leads to an accumulation of debt that ensures that when the game does end, it won't end well.

"4. Create Standard and uniform and difficult to counterfeit currency."

That doesn't require a central bank.

It's also interesting to note that "perfect forgeries" of gold coins is basically impossible. Even if a given coin was "fraudulent" because it was not minted by the US Mint, the only way it can really stand up to significant scrutiny is to be made out of the same approximate mix of gold, silver and copper as the real thing. And in that case no one's going to care too much that it's a "knock off" because it will still have approximately the same value. When the labor and other costs of making the forgery are added to the cost of the raw materials (along with the risk of jail time or execution), it would be cheaper for the would-be forgers to just buy the genuine article from the US Mint. In the case of Federal Reserve Notes, though, accurate copies using identical materials are a real problem because the required raw materials are an insignificant cost.

"5. Creates mild inflation helping all debtors."

As I mentioned previously (though perhaps I was too subtle), this is incorrect.

For example, say I have a $50K/year job, and I have $10K of debt @ 10% annual interest and I'm stupid so I only pay interest and no principal.

A year later, inflation has affected the value of the dollar by 5%, driving up the costs of my non-debt expenses. I have not gotten a raise this year. I still have the same $10K of debt and am still paying 10% interest on it. In this scenario, inflation has done nothing but hurt me because my living expenses will be higher and everything else stayed the same.

If you want to argue that inflation helps all debtors, then you need to show that every debtor's income goes up at least proportionally with inflation, and with no lag relative to changes in non-debt expenses, and that their non-debt expenses go up at most proportionally with inflation (or at least show that net/net it works out that their new after-debt income grows at least as fast as their non-debt expenses).

"6. Encourages spending instead of saving which gives the whole economy a boost - technologically and numerically speaking."

You seem to be confused about how inflation and spending are related. The direct effect on spending is not really driven by inflation (or interest rates), it is instead driven by the first derivative. When there is no inflation, the system tries to adjust the amount of savings to some optimal amount, balancing short term and long term needs. When inflation rises, that balance is upset, and the amount of savings is reduced, temporarily resulting in increased spending. However, once inflation stops rising and settles at some fixed amount, a new equilibrium will be reached. (If it doesn't stop rising then there is inevitably a hyper-inflationary event.) Savings will then stabilize (at its new lower level) and spending will once again equal earnings. (*) All that has been accomplished is that demand has been pulled forward a bit. (This reminds me of GM's channel stuffing in an attempt to make their earnings look better. They are being sued for fraud for that.)

(*) This, of course, is ignoring changes in debt. If you want demand to remain elevated rather than just getting a temporary boost as per the previous paragraph, then the only way to do that is with constantly increasing debt. Inflation does tend to promote debt. However, this is just another form of temporal shift. As Ludwig von Mises wrote:

"Credit expansion cannot increase the supply of real goods. It merely brings about a rearrangement. It diverts capital investment away from the course prescribed by the state of economic wealth and market conditions. It causes production to pursue paths which it would not follow unless the economy were to acquire an increase in material goods. As a result, the upswing lacks a solid base. It is not real prosperity. It is illusory prosperity. It did not develop from an increase in economic wealth. Rather, it arose because the credit expansion created the illusion of such an increase. Sooner or later it must become apparent that this economic situation is built on sand."

Furthermore, constantly increasing (real) debt is not sustainable. Again from Mises:

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

And inflation does not help technological development, all it does is hurry deployment of existing technology. I.e, except in areas that are experiencing rapid development (faster than inflation), it discourages consumers from being selective and picking the technology that will meet their needs best over the long run by encouraging consumers to purchase whatever is available right now (because if they wait for tomorrow's better technologies their money may not buy as much), and even in areas that are experiencing rapid development it results in a distortion. Furthermore, this encourages businesses to get inferior stuff to market now rather than superior stuff later. (Even without inflation some of that is already baked in, but inflation makes it worse.) Finally, by discouraging savings, inflation makes investment in new technologies less likely. Savings better allow for taking risks, and really pushing the envelope rather than making small, incremental, already-understood changes involves risk. (Try getting a loan from a bank to pay for some experiments that may or may not result in a marketable new technology and therefore the means to actually repay the loan.)

Benevolence

The Dictator may decide to be benevolent.

Joe

For someone with a useless

For someone with a useless bachelor's in economics, you certainly don't seem to know a goddamn thing about it.

Then again all they teach in schools is central planning. Your post is trash.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

I knew I shouldn't mention a

I knew I shouldn't mention a degree around here. The morons would attack.

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

The Fed HAS given us price stability

But with purchasing power always trending downward. Whereas when currency was backed by gold, and before the Fed, purchasing power fluctuated wildly at the whims of the market, but tended to average out over decades. $100 saved when you were 20 was still probably worth about $100 when you were 80.

You could make the argument that since the existence of the Fed, and thus inflation, discourages savings and encourages spending, that we may actually be 10 or even 20 years ahead of where we would have been both technologically and infrastructurally, than if we'd never birthed the Fed, or left the gold standard. Without the Fed, we might all still be using bulky brick phones, or using Windows 3.1!

Constant positive inflation puts the economy into a relative sprint to stay ahead of decreasing purchasing power. This makes it a lot easier for people who already have money to make more money. However, you're going to run out of breath and collapse a lot sooner than if you were only jogging along, like we were doing before the Fed.

Certainly the US would have had a LOT harder time in the World Wars without the Fed to print the money to pay for weapons and labour. But would the World Wars even have happened without fiat currencies worldwide enabling unlimited military spending by both axis and allied powers?

Here's another thing to consider: Inflation encourages spending, and lowers the net worth of the middle class. But it also hurries along a rise in the standard of living through progress. One could argue that the rise in working mothers to support this standard of living has been greatly encouraged by the existence of the Fed. One could also argue that the decrease in population growth we see accompanying a rise in the standard of living almost everywhere it occurs on earth, would have happened much LATER than it has due to the Fed.

Given that, the population of the US might have been 400 million, or 500 million or more by now. You can definitely make a case that central banks of all nations put the brakes on population growth world wide. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? In any case, the world we live in would have been much different.

You make excellent points

I'm really intrigued by the one stating that it has hurried our technological development along. I don't dispute it, but rather I would like to dispute that it's a good thing. Here's an example.

By hurrying too fast into oil, we got robbed of the benefits of hemp, bio-fuels, solar (only thermal back then) and efficient car development. By hurrying into an interstate system, we missed our opportunity to install a mass transit network. (Yes, there were and still are some innovative technologies that could be much better than the entire fleet being personal autos.) We missed our opportunity for decentralized cell phones because we're now stuck in a centrally monopolized "tower based" system. I could go on.

Basically, I'm trying to say that short term profits aren't always better in the long run. Just look at the fights we're waging these days to get off oil, install high speed rail, and cut our cell phone bills. If we had waited a while longer on those major shifts of industry, maybe we would have had the real solutions by now.

Totally agree

On all of your points. Kudos.

Excellent couple of posts you

Excellent couple of posts you guys. Very thoughtful.

END THE FED!

Sorry, but it's not just a campaign slogan, it's also the title of a book by someone whose highly regarded as nothing but a critical thinker. I'm thinking the cliff notes should be out by now. Otherwise, just hang around DP for awhile longer, you'll see a lot of critical thinking when it comes to the Fed. Arr-ite?

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

SteveMT's picture

Your two reasons aren't very good ones.

Answer to #1: Although their mortgage payment "stays the same," the price of everything else will go up with inflation. They will have more money to spend, but this extra money will only be used for the ever inflating prices of every commodity that they need. They will only have higher bills to pay for these same goods.

Answer to #2: A single currency is very convenient ..... for a very powerful group of bankers to easily manipulate and corrupt. Multiple currencies make it much more difficult for these miserable people to manipulate.

The only case FOR a central bank can only be found among central bankers. Notice that all of the world's central banks have fractional reserve banking and fiat currency systems, WHICH ARE ALL NOW FAILING. No central bank wants a value-based currency like gold. They cannot manipulate that. They want only worthless paper money circulating among the people, and they want to keep the gold for themselves.

Are you a banker?