 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
President Obama's financial regulatory plan has created controversy over the role of the Federal Reserve in our economy like rarely before. The person in Congress with perhaps the most unconventional point of view on these issues in American politics is Congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX), a longtime critic of the very institution of the Fed and fractional reserve banking. He has recently sponsored a bill that would audit the Fed, which has attracted cosponsors such as Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).
The news above can be seen as a bridge between the socialists and the capitalists if someone where desirous of such a bridge. If someone prefers to stay on the socialist side and from that side the idea is to completely destroy the competition, then the bridge being built would be used to carry the Trojan horse.
If someone prefers to stay on the capitalist side and do the same thing as the socialists who want to destroy the competition at all costs, then, my friends of liberty, you can see that those socialists and those capitalists are truly on the same side, the side that wants to destroy competition at all costs.
The bridge allows socialism to compete with capitalism without allowing one to destroy the other at all costs, to defend the idea of competitive offerings to those of us who really don't care which label is placed on the product.
I don't care if the product is called socialism, my nose doesn't wrinkle at the mention of the word, and I don't turn my nose up, and I don't sneer. What is inside? If the product allows the competition to present another product on the same shelf as socialism, then I can try each one out at liberty, and I can judge for myself which one I want, which one I will employ, which one is better for me, and which one costs me the least.
The idea behind this competition thing is to pass the control of choice from the socialists who destroy competition, and from the capitalists who destroy competition, to the consumers of either. Note that neither offers "none of the above".
Competition passes the power to choose from the supplier to the consumer and by that feat of magic the producers of socialism and the producers of capitalism are left with a challenge to supply the higher quality product at the lower cost.
What is wrong with that?
I don't get it. Why is it presupposed that manipulation of the interest rate to something higher is required? Does the supposition suggest that the money powers are giving up too much power to their victims? That makes no sense. The interest rate, if it is anything other than a cost of doing business is an insurance cost paid for by the borrower. Why would a risk-less borrower pay any insurance cost? Why would risk-less borrowers pay costs that are produced by high risk borrowers, does the idea incorporate collective punishment into its dogma?
I guess the response from defenders of Greenspan would be that to jack up interest rates enough to defuse the housing bubble would have been really bad for growth and unemployment, and that was unacceptable at the time.
I'll read on to see if Dr. Paul offers an explanation.
That looks like agreement with the collective punishment dogma to me. Why should risk-free borrowers, people who spend their lives producing more than they consume, people who earn good credit, be grouped into the group of people who must pay high interest rates for credit that they earn? I don't get it.
Nobody wants the pain that comes with getting off the drug.
So there is more of the same thing. What do these people consider to be too low or too high as these people consider charging someone for the use of legal money? In a free market the force of competition will drive quality up and cost down. The best money will win market share over the second best money. I've tried to get anyone anywhere to confess to me what they think is the best money and no one confesses, as if the question comes from an extra-terrestrial source. The supposed "market" is nothing more or less than an aggregate of individual choices and that "market" asks the question I am asking of the supposed "authorities" and the supposed "experts" on money - what is the best money?
In an interview not long ago, he was quite frank that the Fed kept interest rates down too long and too low. I think he was caught off-guard. But he was telling the truth.
The least expensive money that continues to do the job is the best money for the consumers of money, how can that not be true? The suppliers of money, on the other hand, may be seeing the money issue from a different perspective, they may want a money that transfers the most power possible to them, at the cost of the consumer, and that, my friends of liberty, is the same thing as a higher interest rate (the cost of money passed onto the consumer).
Why would the cost of money caused by abusers of money be passed onto everyone as if everyone were held accountable for the increases in cost that has been caused by the few who run up those costs?
I'm going to post this, seeking feedback, and add more if more from the Ron Paul interview inspires more questions or comments. I see that someone on this forum has linked an educational video on money, and if my time and energy allows I will view that video.