The _real_ economy also tends to increase by a few percent each year, so the money supply needs to be increased a few percent each year to compensate for this (or else there would be deflationary pressure because of real growth). Exactly... The UK money supply: 14% per year at the moment. The US supply? 10%? 20% 30% Who knows just now. There's a general theory that they dropped the figures so they could "monetise" the US debt, and there's trillions of that to go through.
Whatever it is, it's much higher than real growth.
Part of the job of the Fed is to increase the money supply at an appropriate rate, since mild inflation tends to be good for the economy and deflation tends to be disastrous. Mild inflation and disastrous deflation are a feature of fractional reserve banking. The system expands gradually until it reaches a peak, then collapses over a short period. It's the fractional reserve system which makes deflation disastrous. You're right that is the job of the Fed. However. There's no need for inflation or deflation.
but you'll also find the largest, most impressive economic expansion in the history of the world. You're aware the monetary system hasn't changed since the Bank of England was created in 1694? Or the fact that fractional reserve banking was practised for centuries before that? How do you explain the lack of "the largest most impressive expansion" during those times?
We have the largest most impressive economic expansion in history because we discovered how to harness the energy in water then coal, then oil and the resources were there to do it. Nothing to do with the monetary system itself. Systems other than fractional reserve would have had exactly the same effect.
Well, there's a point about 2 1/2 hours into that documentary where it's like stepping into the twilight zone. All of a sudden it's a massive century spanning conspiracy theory. The economic basics are fair enough, and the effects of the system are pretty much as described in the documentary, however the conclusion that it's all a massive world wide conspiracy is a bit far fetched.
All that's required is bog standard greed. It doesn't require a conspiracy.
but, I mean, what's so terrible about both adults in the household earning a salary? Supply and demand. The value of work decreases with increasing supply.
Oil is denominated in US dollars. It means the whole world has to buy and hold USD reserves. This increases the demand for dollars more than other currencies and keeps it artificially strong. If you compare the salaries you'll see approximately where the dollar is heading if the oil link is broken.
For the politicians it's all about making you feel good until the election is over. They don't care that you're actually getting poorer, only that you don't realise you're getting poorer. That means keeping the things which are increasing out of the inflation figures and keeping the money supply flowing.
What you mean by "money" is obviously different than mine. My "money" has the stamp of the location it was minted in. Clearly. Money is any medium of exchange. Over 95% of the money in the US comes from debt. Not from a mint or from the government and it doesn't exist as bits of green paper. I doubt you hold most of your money as green paper.
Benefits == people who owe. Loses out == people with cash savings? Well, another way to put it. The people who benefit from inflation are those who can afford to be in assets rather than cash. The rich rather than the poor.
If you take on debt to get into assets you only benefit if that particular asset inflates at more than the rate of interest, something a lot of Americans seem to be realising around now.
But let me guess: Your answer involves [a] Illuminati [b] Jewish bankers [c] Fractional Reserve Banking Well, fractional reserve banking is the closest answer there, but debt was my point.
Wow! I'm totally convinced by your compelling argument - backed up with fact after fact after fact! What're you? A whiney rail fanboy too? Go look up the typical cost per mile for real bought and paid for rail systems; light, heavy and monorail.
It really doesn't matter if they plan to pay it off in a single year or not. It's state funded which means that the state taxpayers are paying to reduce the commute times on a service very few are likely to use more than once or twice a year, if that.
If the airport were funding the line I think we may have seen something rather different.
The track between Munich and the airport is 37km; 23 miles long. A conventional express train (not even ICE) could do that easily in 20 minutes if it doesn't stop at each station. The maglev will do it in 10 mins.
Wouldn't it make more sense to operate the Maglev over a distance which would allow it to save a significant amount of time? i.e. Actually inter city?
Oh, and I don't believe those cost/mile figures for a second. Any of them.
Is Bernanke really, truly going to make the US pay it's debts? It's like watching train wreck in slow motion. Fascinating and horrifying at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever it is, it's much higher than real growth.
Austrian Economist: Ludwig Von Mises.
Terry Pratchett's protagonist: Moist von Lipwig
We have the largest most impressive economic expansion in history because we discovered how to harness the energy in water then coal, then oil and the resources were there to do it. Nothing to do with the monetary system itself. Systems other than fractional reserve would have had exactly the same effect.
Well, there's a point about 2 1/2 hours into that documentary where it's like stepping into the twilight zone. All of a sudden it's a massive century spanning conspiracy theory. The economic basics are fair enough, and the effects of the system are pretty much as described in the documentary, however the conclusion that it's all a massive world wide conspiracy is a bit far fetched.
All that's required is bog standard greed. It doesn't require a conspiracy.
Quality...
No, the admins wouldn't have the clout. Probably someone much higher up.
Actually, I learned by reading Mises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
Well they clearly don't care so why would anyone else care what they think?
Stop complaining, you voted for it. 99% of Americans voted for high tax parties.
You don't think that the increase in price of housing is inflation? Or the stock market?
Not in the figures. What is inflation to you?
No. Really!
Oil is denominated in US dollars. It means the whole world has to buy and hold USD reserves. This increases the demand for dollars more than other currencies and keeps it artificially strong. If you compare the salaries you'll see approximately where the dollar is heading if the oil link is broken.
If you're not getting it, who is?
No idea what the US supply looks like. They decided you don't need to know that.
For the politicians it's all about making you feel good until the election is over. They don't care that you're actually getting poorer, only that you don't realise you're getting poorer. That means keeping the things which are increasing out of the inflation figures and keeping the money supply flowing.
If you take on debt to get into assets you only benefit if that particular asset inflates at more than the rate of interest, something a lot of Americans seem to be realising around now. But let me guess: Your answer involves [a] Illuminati [b] Jewish bankers [c] Fractional Reserve Banking Well, fractional reserve banking is the closest answer there, but debt was my point.
Do you know where money REALLY comes from? (no it's not the government or the mint)
Do you know what inflation REALLY is?
Do you know who benefits from inflation and who loses out?
Not the CPI? Perhaps the RPI? Or maybe it should be the money supply figures... which oops aren't being published in the USA any more (wonder why).
It really doesn't matter if they plan to pay it off in a single year or not. It's state funded which means that the state taxpayers are paying to reduce the commute times on a service very few are likely to use more than once or twice a year, if that.
If the airport were funding the line I think we may have seen something rather different.
They claim...
The track between Munich and the airport is 37km; 23 miles long. A conventional express train (not even ICE) could do that easily in 20 minutes if it doesn't stop at each station. The maglev will do it in 10 mins.
Wouldn't it make more sense to operate the Maglev over a distance which would allow it to save a significant amount of time? i.e. Actually inter city?
Oh, and I don't believe those cost/mile figures for a second. Any of them.
Do you think it'll encourage more than 8% of journeys to be made by rail?
"OECD in Figures 2005 - Transport"
http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,3398,en_2825_497139_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
Or is it just a way for politicians to make themselves look good while wasting vast quantities of money?
It's not a leak. It's a cache.
Slow news day.
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=5d
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=GBP&amt=1&t=5d
I'm just wondering how much faith the Japanese, Chinese and Saudis have left. The Saudis have just unpegged their interest rates...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/09/19/bcnsaudi119.xml
Is Bernanke really, truly going to make the US pay it's debts? It's like watching train wreck in slow motion. Fascinating and horrifying at the same time.