Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:35 AM
 
2,908 posts, read 3,880,434 times
Reputation: 3170

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Here is Ellen Brown explaining to Schiff how the monetary system actually works, while Schiff ignorantly berates her and calls her names. Ellen Brown is throwing pearls before swine, here.


Ellen Brown destroys Peter Schiff !!!(?) 1 of 2 - YouTube
What interview were you listening to? This woman is a babbling idiot. While I don't always agree with Schiff's delivery, he completely schools this woman.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:37 AM
 
2,908 posts, read 3,880,434 times
Reputation: 3170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Well, I guess we can agree on something. No, they aren't in good shape, and they are dragging the rest of us down with them in the process. They should be forced to mark their assets to market so they will fail, be split up, and sold off.

Mark to market is debatable. Do you take a capital gain on your home when its value increases or do you wait until you sell?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:38 AM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,629,695 times
Reputation: 1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by theS5 View Post
What interview were you listening to? This woman is a babbling idiot. While I don't always agree with Schiff's delivery, he completely schools this woman.
Schiff doesn't even understand what she is saying. His replies are non sequiturs that simply repeat what he has always said, rather than dispute what she said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Florida
33,595 posts, read 18,229,483 times
Reputation: 15570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Schiff doesn't even understand what she is saying. His replies are non sequiturs.
I understand what she is saying. What do you think she is saying? Give us your understanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:42 AM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,629,695 times
Reputation: 1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by theS5 View Post
Mark to market is debatable. Do you take a capital gain on your home when its value increases or do you wait until you sell?
In my opinion, the time at which capital gains are realized does not, and should not, have any bearing on how bank assets are valued.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,740,498 times
Reputation: 9981
It doesn't matter, there is no debate. Debating only plays their game of talking while nothing gets done. The people need to stay in the streets until something is done, period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:47 AM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,629,695 times
Reputation: 1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova View Post
I understand what she is saying. What do you think she is saying? Give us your understanding.
She is arguing a postkeynesian view, that private banks lend out Fed money, which is a privilege we should revoke from them, and that Fed money should be pointed towards states and households, and then loosened. Her particular idea is unusual, which is that states should create banks to essentially be primary dealers.

He is arguing in his own little world without even listening to her. He is arguing a sort of Austrian view, that Fed policy should be tightened because we are going to have inflation. He fails to address her arguments that loosening isn't causing any more inflation, and he refuses to even attempt to understand her point that we should revisit the mechanism by which the Fed creates money. He just keeps berating her with "INFLATION INFLATION INFLATION BLAH BLAH BLAH"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:47 AM
 
2,908 posts, read 3,880,434 times
Reputation: 3170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
In my opinion, the time at which capital gains are realized does not, and should not, have any bearing on how bank assets are valued.
So we agree, M to M is debatable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:49 AM
 
2,908 posts, read 3,880,434 times
Reputation: 3170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
She is arguing a postkeynesian view, that private banks lend out Fed money, which is a privilege we should revoke from them, and that Fed money should be pointed towards states and households, and then loosened.

He is arguing in his own little world without even listening to her. He is arguing a sort of Austrian view, that Fed policy should be tightened because we are going to have inflation. He refuses to even attempt to understand her point that we should revisit the mechanism by which the Fed creates money, because it is going to an unproductive place.
Isn't she arguing that the Fed should be nationalized? Turning the keys over to the inmates is not a good idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2011, 10:53 AM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,629,695 times
Reputation: 1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by theS5 View Post
So we agree, M to M is debatable.
sure. if you think private banks should be coddled, if you think we should aspire to be like Japan, then let them pretend their assets are worth whatever they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theS5 View Post
Isn't she arguing that the Fed should be nationalized? Turning the keys over to the inmates is not a good idea.
In my view, the "inmates" here are the private banks.

Nationalizing the Fed (in the sense that she's talking about) would force private banks to lend out deposits once more, no more Fed money, which would curtail all these lending bubbles they keep creating.

Schiff argues that this would allow the government to borrow as much as it wants --- she of course, delivers the news flash -- government already borrows as much as it wants. She's simply saying that private banks shouldn't be granted the same privilege as the Congress. I'd say that's reasonable, wouldn't you?

Last edited by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus; 10-28-2011 at 11:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top