The History of the Federal Reserve 514
Michael J. Ross writes "Money plays a key role in modern life; in fact, for some people, nothing is more important than acquiring more of it. Yet most people do not know what money really is, how it is created, how its supply is expanded and contracted, and who benefits from those changes. In the United States, the central figure in this ongoing drama, is our central bank, the Federal Reserve, whose history, power, and effects are explored in G. Edward Griffin's fascinating book The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve." Read on for the rest of Michael's review.
For the citizens of the United States and several Latin American countries, the "coin of the realm" is the US dollar, which is, in simple terms, created by the Federal Reserve, a.k.a., the Fed. But who created the Federal Reserve, and why? The subjects of banking in general, and the Federal Reserve in particular, would be considered by most Americans to be dry, boring, and of little importance to their day-to-day life. But those same people are endlessly fascinated by how to make more money (with minimal effort, such as the lottery), how to spend as little of it as possible (coupons never go out of style), and how to maximize one's investment returns. Why this disconnect? Why do Americans care so little about the origins of that which they spend a third of their time pursuing, and seemingly another third spending?
| The Creature from Jekyll Island | |
| author | G. Edward Griffin |
| pages | 624 |
| publisher | American Media |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | Michael J. Ross |
| ISBN | 0912986212 |
| summary | A compelling history and indictment of the Federal Reserve system |
Some of these "salary slaves" may understand that their money serves as a store of wealth and a medium of commercial exchange, which makes possible their daily financial transactions without the need for bartering. But, for the most part, they do not understand the critical importance of what is backing that money, if anything; how that money comes into existence, and what debt offsets it; what entities control the supply and distribution of that money; and how those changes can be used to legally steal purchasing power from victims who may not be entirely unsuspecting, but do not truly comprehend how they are getting ripped off.
The typical American, if he or she has given any thought to the matter, would consider the following statements to be true: The Federal Reserve is federal, i.e., a part of the US government. The Federal Reserve is a reserve, i.e., it has monetary savings of real value. The Federal Reserve serves the public, and is not a cartel of private banks serving itself. The US dollar has real value, i.e., it represents tangible wealth, such as gold securely stored at Fort Knox. Inflation is an increase in prices. Inflation is caused by greedy companies, not the US government or the Federal Reserve.
As G. Edward Griffin makes clear in his book, none of these beliefs are true — regardless of how well entrenched they are in our conventional "wisdom." He also explains why the US government and the Federal Reserve have their own reasons for being in no hurry to eliminate this ignorance. Yet these topics are just a small portion of what is covered in his far-ranging discussion of the theory and history of money and banking, particularly within the United States.
Spanning 624 pages, the material is organized into 26 chapters, which are grouped into six sections: "What Creature Is This?" (the Federal Reserve's shameful birth, and the shenanigans of the Fed, S&Ls, the IMF, and the World Bank), "A Crash Course on Money" (money, gold, debasement, fiat money, fractional-reserve banking, and money creation), "The New Alchemy" (the Rothschilds, J.P. Morgan, and banker financing of wars and revolutions), "A Tale of Three Banks" (America's failed experiments with central banking, and the American Civil War), "The Harvest" (the unconstitutional creation of the Federal Reserve, and its dreadful effects, including the Crash of 1929), "Time Travel into the Future" (current crises caused by central banking, how they can be reversed, future scenarios, and what the individual can do regardless). Every one of the six sections begins with a brief summary, as does every chapter, with every chapter wrapped up with a more extensive summary.
The section summaries also appear in the table of contents, which precedes a preface and the author's acknowledgments. These are followed by a delightful introduction — a piece from the British humor magazine Punch, comprising a rather telling exchange between an unusually honest banker and a soon-to-be-disillusioned bank customer. The book contains three appendices: a summary of the structure and function of the Federal Reserve system; natural laws of human behavior in economics; and whether the M-1 measure of money is subtractive or accumulative. The author also provides an index, as well as an impressive bibliography, reflecting his extensive research on the topics. In addition, the author invites readers to join Freedom Force, an organization dedicated to increasing liberty in the United States, curbing federal totalitarianism, and abolishing the Federal Reserve — all through peaceful participation in government, and the shaping of public policy starting at the grassroots level.
The Creature from Jekyll Island is published by American Media, under the ISBNs 0912986212 and 978-0912986210. It first came out in July 1994, and is now in its fourth edition, and its 19th printing. It also has Japanese and German editions, published in February 2005 and August 2006, respectively. On the book's Web page, visitors will find testimonials and comments from readers, updates to the book, a review of the book by Jane H. Ingraham of The New American, and G. Edward Griffin's response to a critique of his book by Edward Flaherty, who holds a Ph.D. in Economics. On that Web page, interested readers can order audio cassettes or CDs of the author's lecture, based upon this book, and produced in 1998.
My only criticisms of the book concern not the material itself, but its production — more specifically, the printing and layout, presumably chosen and thus fixable in the future by the publisher. The generous font size used throughout the volume, makes it easy to read; but the bold text, such as the subheads found in every chapter, is a bit rough-edged — on some pages worse than others. The subheads, already bolded, do not need to be in all uppercase; the publisher should choose one or the other. In addition, the inside margin length is a bit too small, forcing the reader to crack open the book more than should be needed, in order to comfortably read the text closest to the binding. In future editions, some of the space in the outer margin could be used to solve the problem, without any change to the words on each page, and thus the length of the book.
But aside from these minor flaws, this book is to be highly recommended. The Creature from Jekyll Island is a remarkably thorough, detailed, and challenging critique of central banking and America's latest incarnation of it, the Federal Reserve. G. Edward Griffin's precision of language, and his interweaving of the major players and their motives, makes for a most compelling historical study.
Michael J. Ross is a Web developer, freelance writer, and the editor of PristinePlanet.com's free newsletter.
You can purchase The Creature from Jekyll Island from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Another good read... (Score:5, Informative)
I've read dozens of books (over 30, for sure) on central banking theory, and none of them have given a completely clear and transparent picture of what the Fed really is, what is does, and what it is supposed to do. In the end, all central banks have one customer: member banks (the banks you and I go to), and the central banks have one policy: save their buddies in the member banks against any malinvestment or market change.
The Fed isn't here to protect the value of OUR money (in fact, since the Fed's creation in 1913, the US dollar is about 95-96% devalued), and it isn't here to protect our investments or savings.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The animation is cheap, but the meat of it is in the audio, which puts in pretty clear terms where money comes from.
- RG>
Re:Another good read... (Score:4, Insightful)
If we were stuck on a gold or silver standard, we'd be in real trouble: there just isn't that much gold or silver around to make a a very good currency. We need a currency that can grow as the amount of real assets in circulation grows -- as we as a society and civilization create more valuable stuff, we need a way to pay for it. The debt money system uses all those real assets as the basis for its value, rather than an arbitrarily chosen precious metal.
In effect, the debt money system, though complicated, is a lot more 'real' than a gold standard. Gold is only valuable because it's shiny and pleasant to look at and you can beat it into useful shapes and it's been used as money for a long time. You can't eat it, you can't live in it, you can't plow a field with it -- aside from some applications in the jewelry and electronics industries, you can't do much of anything with it. But a house, that has real value. A factory has value. A John Deere tractor has value. When people borrow money to pay for these things, the money is created and the newly-created money is backed by the pledged asset. So when I buy a house for $250k, two hundred and fifty thousand new dollars are created, but those dollars are backed by my house; they are, in one sense, actually my house, floating around out there. And then I work, and pay the loan principle back, and basically suck those 'house-dollars' back out of the market and put them back into my house.
Once you get around the mental shock of realizing that the system doesn't work the way you thought it did, there's a certain elegance to the system. Money is created and destroyed as it's needed to pay for things, rather than there being some fixed amount of it floating around. When we need a lot of capital, it appears; when we don't (and pay off our loans), it goes away. With a fixed amount of gold, you'd have massive inflation/deflation cycles as prices changed in response to the amount of available currency.
Where you run into serious problems are when banks start making loans to people who don't have enough real assets behind them to cover the amount of money that's being created. IMO, this should be illegal, or at the very least the banks should be held directly responsible for ensuring that the loans they're making are backed by something (real property, or an income stream). If they don't, then they're magicking money into existence that has nothing behind it, and letting it out into the market. That's dangerous business, and the source of our current credit problems.
Re:Another good read... (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't need something that can grow with the economic growth of the country. If we fixed to a gold standard, prices (in gold ounces or grains) would fall softly over time -- soft price declines. This encourages people to save rather than overspend, and only spend on things they need or are sure they want. Soft price declines are GOOD and happened for thousands of years when people used gold as a medium of exchange. This also allows for proper investment as people are not pushed to invest and can watch their savings grow in value even if they hoard their gold in the mattress.
Instead, we have fiat currency inflation (which just means more money is created than destroyed) which caused soft price increases -- this gives people incentive to spend and not save, even if they don't need or are sure they want something. It also creates malinvestment as people invest "just to protect their savings."
But a house, that has real value.
No it doesn't. Buy a home and ignore it for 5 years. The yard gets destroyed, pests and mold destroy the inside, roofs fall apart, windows need replacing, carpet goes stale, dust collects. A house has declining value.
A factory has value.
I'm sure all those horse-shoe manufacturing factories in 1889 are still valuable today. I'd say they weren't valuable within 30 years.
A John Deere tractor has value.
For about 7 years, at which point it is more costly to buy used than new in terms of lost productivity.
When people borrow money to pay for these things, the money is created and the newly-created money is backed by the pledged asset. So when I buy a house for $250k, two hundred and fifty thousand new dollars are created, but those dollars are backed by my house; they are, in one sense, actually my house, floating around out there. And then I work, and pay the loan principle back, and basically suck those 'house-dollars' back out of the market and put them back into my house.
Not quite, because when you have an inflationary fiat economy, people malinvest -- they take the easy new money as quickly as it comes, and that causes prices to rise extravagently. Your $250,000 house bought in 2005 may only be worth $175,000 today -- and if it is in Southern Florda [unanimocracy.com], it may be worth only $125,000. Add to that your property taxes, maintenance, utility cost, and general upkeep, and the house is a terrible investment.
With a fixed amount of gold, you'd have massive inflation/deflation cycles as prices changed in response to the amount of available currency.
Inflation just means an increase in the money supply, deflation means a decrease in the money supply. You mean price rise/price decrease. This is _good_, actually, because it benefits the non-hoarders to pick up newly repriced assets that have dropped in value when they need them most, and it benefits hoarders in watching their money become more valuable even without investing.
Where you run into serious problems are when banks start making loans to people who don't have enough real assets behind them to cover the amount of money that's being created. IMO, this should be illegal, or at the very least the banks should be held directly responsible for ensuring that the loans they're making are backed by something (real property, or an income stream). If they don't, then they're magicking money into existence that has nothing behind it, and letting it out into the market
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another good read... (Score:5, Insightful)
Something can have substantial value, even if it's not the sort of thing you can leave sitting around idle and come back to later.
A tractor has substantial value not in the same way a pile of gold bricks does, but because it performs a function. It represents a potential income stream to a farmer, which is why a farmer might want to own one. Thus the farmer goes to a bank and takes out a loan against the tractor, in order to purchase it. For the bank to make this loan, they want to ensure that the farmer isn't an idiot, and that he'll pay back the value of the tractor either faster than it depreciates (or he has some other assets that won't depreciate as quickly, in order to secure the loan). If they think this is the case, they can then go and create a pile of 'tractor-dollars', dollars that are backed by that tractor. Those dollars only stay in the system until the farmer pays off the loan, and assuming the loan was intelligently made, there should never be more tractor-dollars sloshing around than the tractor is actually worth (either in literal terms or as an income stream).
The same holds true for a factory, or anything else that helps create an income stream. Just because it's not a stable asset doesn't mean it's valueless; as long as you can predict the depreciation, you can still use it as collateral, and if you can use it as collateral, you can use it as the basis for new money. (As long as you trust the government to enforce the lien and let the bank repossess it, of course -- the real basis for debt banking is the threat of force by people with guns.)
I also agree that banks have been supremely irresponsible with their lending practices, but I don't think that full-reserve banking is really the best solution. There are rules that need substantial tightening, but there's nothing inherently wrong with letting a bank use mortgaged assets as part of its reserves, as long as the value of those assets over time is computed, the loans made accordingly, and there's a iron-hard willingness by the government to liquidate those assets in the event of a default by the borrower.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, I definitely agree that some of the assets you listed have value to SOME individuals, but there is generally NO asset that is valuable to all individuals -- except for gold, which I can not believe that another individual would not covet or desire if offered in trade for a profitable outcome (for both parties). Tools, to me, are not positive-income assets for all. Houses can be tools (for
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Any kind of hard standard however means that the money supply is disconnected from the actual underlying economy - it's linked to the actual reserve - a quickly expanding economy means, perforce, deflation and vice versa, which
Re:Another good read... (Score:4, Insightful)
Add up mild inflation over the course of a century, and yes, you will find that the dollar has lost 95% of its value - but you'll also find the largest, most impressive economic expansion in the history of the world.
Re:Another good read... (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But the demand for land does increase as the population increases, pushing up the price.
Supply and Demand. Not just one or the other.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the herd does not panic when it sees deflatin-- the period when the US was really growing, while on the gold standard and when we went from being a backwards nation to a world leader-- was a period of deflation.
Why would people get mad when their wealth gets more valuable?
No, all the anti-deflation propaganda comes from those who profit by printing money, which is literally a form of theft.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
That is an extremely subjective statement if ever I saw one!
How can you say it is more impressive than say the Roman Empire's utter transformation of Europe and Asia Minor, or the British Empire's transformation of world trade. After all, it was their empire which combined with the industrial revolution is what started this whole globalization thing - which is what you appear to be referring to (otherwise the dollar's valuation is meaningless).
In re
Re: (Score:2)
With almost all of that devaluation beginning with the closure of the gold window [wikipedia.org] by Nixon in 1971 and the creation of political fiat money (money with no commodity backing) in its place. The problem with political money is that it creates a tremendous incentive for people to engage in risky behaviors because they believe that the government will use its power over the money supply to "ease the pain" or bail them out of tig
Re: (Score:2)
Taxpayers never share in gains, but somehow we are expected to "take one for the team" when there are loses?
Yes yes yes...I'd put this along side people who insist on building in areas known to be extremely risky (i.e. frequently flood prone areas, weak hillsides) yet expect the other taxpayers to bail them out if they get hit. The prudent get stuck with the bill. Fine, you can use my tax dollars to cover your ass as long as I get to use your beach house occasionally.
The result of the monetary policy of our nation has been nearly continuous punishment of savers through inflation
I love how they make sure they discourage you by taxing the interest on savings.
Dollars are not a store of wealth (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand if you'd put your money into Ford stock in 1913, today that stock would be far more valuable than it was during that time. The truth is that the only true stores of wealth are assets. Dollars are not assets--they are currency. They are handy for exchanges, but are not wealth themselves.
You don'
Re: (Score:2)
Is a god damned idiot. Inflation happens even in mercantile systems like the gold standard.
Re: (Score:2)
The gold standard is a mercantile system?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So should anyone who has been trying to save their money safely to invest in a home (say towards a 20% down payment), prepare for a future business, or leave money for their heirs. All central banks discourage savings and encourage "investments" when not everyone should be taking a hefty risk on their savings.
For someone who doesn't have a good idea of "what the Fed really is,
Re:Another good read... (Score:4, Informative)
People who die from surgical errors are, sorry to say, idiots. I would _never_ undergo surgery. Surgery is physical assault, it is mutilation, and it should be criminal. The idea is criminal for anyone to perform except for physicians licensed by the state or federal governments. Did you see the fallacy? There's two: first, you severely mischaracterize why and how fractional reserve banking is legally controlled. If you act as a bank (in some strictly-defined ways) without being licensed, you're guilty of banking without a license, just as I would be guilty of performing medicine without a license if I tried giving people open-heart surgery. It doesn't mean that fractional-reserve banking (or surgery for that matter) are inherently bad things, just that they are high-risk endeavors that are considered deserving of licensing and control.
Your second fallacy is your apparent belief that, since fractional-reserve banking involves a degree of risk, it shouldn't be done at all. That's absurd. Risks can be controlled and mitigated, and in the decades of experience we have with fractional-reserve banking, the risks in question have been mitigated. The biggest failure in fractional-reserve banking was the monetary contraction towards the beginning of the Depression, which was caused by a combination of poor banking regulation and poor monetary policy (including what remained of the Gold Standard at the time).
No, the bank would not be insolvent. Uncollected debts that are owed to you are still assets, and insolvency only occurs when your liabilities exceed your assets--not when your short-term liabilities exceed your cash on hand. (That's a cashflow problem. And yes, they borrow funds from the Fed to cover that cashflow problem, but once they collect their debts they pay the Fed back with interest--part of the cost of doing business.) And yes, the percentage of uncollected debt that never ends up being collected due to deadbeats is already accounted for--that's one of the purposes of interest, to mitigate risk. In any case, I enjoy living in a society where I can collect interest and borrow money without too much difficulty, and where the risk is spread out sufficiently. If you want to bury gold in your backyard instead, that's up to you.
in 4, 3, 2, 1... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
All that's required is bog standard greed. It doesn't require a conspiracy.
A Better Reference is (Score:3, Funny)
and you won't fall asleep reading it.
Re: (Score:2)
Its been several days, and its still not out, dammit.
Re: (Score:2)
Terry Pratchett's protagonist: Moist von Lipwig
Bah! Who needs history when there's ADVENTURE! (Score:5, Informative)
You want the negatives on this book? (Score:5, Informative)
There are plenty. [amazon.com] Many people do not consider this book to be a balanced discussion of the subject matter at hand. This type of controversy should be mentioned in any prominent book review.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is not evidence of mismanagment, especially considering that the policy of the Fed for much of its existance has been to keep inflation low, predictible, and most importantly, above zero. This 98% statistic that you think proves mismanagement is actually
Re:You want the negatives on this book? (Score:4, Informative)
The United States did not become the world's largest economy until after WWII. The economy in the 19th century was wild, with massive swings in employment, GDP growth, and inflation. It was not uncommon for the economy would grow by 20+% one year, only to contract by 15% 2 years later (1813 and 1815, for example). The average nominal GDP growth for that century was only around 4.5% compared that to almost 7% since then (and that includes the Great Depression!).
This is incorrect. Between 1790-1913, the annualized inflation rate was around .1%, which is very low, but still positive. With only one exception, every deflationary period during the 19th century time corresponded directly with an economic contraction. The exception to this is the years 1866-1878, where there were 12 years of sustained deflation (the longest deflationary period on record) but GDP growth remained positive. This period is an outlier in our economic history, and not a basic rule like you claim.
Of course a bond is a loan, but the mechanism which public debt increases the money supply is different from private debt. When the government holds an auction to sell securities, it transfers $X from the public to the government (in exchange for $X worth of interest bearing assets). This alone would actually decrease the money supply if it weren't for the fact that the government does not maintain a cash account, so it turns around and spends the $X, putting the money back in the private sector (although to different people that it borrowed the money from). The end result is that the private sector still has $X and they have $X worth of interest bearing assets in the form of treasury securities.
I have seen that video before, and I do not like it. It is classic conspiratorial propaganda- just enough fact so you can't accuse them of outright lying, but dressed up with the most inflammatory language possible and reaching conclusions not supported by the facts. I found it to be an appeal to emotion rather than to reason, and I don't like that.
I have no idea who you are referring to here (who has supported ad hominem attacks in this thread?), but the idea that slashdot of all places (the cesspool of online discourse) is somehow too dignified for ad hominem attacks made me chuckle.
You just did it again. It is possible to understand the macroeconomic impacts of fractional reserve lending, and disagree with benzapp at the same time. You have to stop assuming that anybody that disagrees with you is just ignorant.
No one is buying our treasuries? Today's Treasury auction for 5 year notes attracted over $37 billion worth of competitive bids. This was about $2 billion more than last month's auction (before the Fed announced the cut in the target rate), and about the same as the auction held in September 2006. Oh, and the interest rate from today's auction was 4.25%, which is only 1/8% higher than last month, and a full .
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. The data I got was from these two sources:
http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/ [eh.net]
http://measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/ [measuringworth.com]
Perfect. You have constructed another argument where the facts don't matter. How about instead of blindly labeling any contrarian data as "bullshit", suggest some alternate mea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yup- I had started out analyzing the GDP vs inflation rates, where the nominal GDP is the proper number to use, to generate that graph. I should have used real GDP numbers for the direct comparison. I need to stop posting after my brain has already turn off from a long day of work. My bad.
But look at the per capita GDP growth rates. From 1790-1913, real per capita GDP grew by an average of 1.45% per year. From 1913-
Money is.. (Score:2)
What the...? (Score:2)
Stuff that matters? Yeah, I guess, sort of. But not from an IT perspective, or even the persective of someone who is more concerned about computers than money.
Why is this review here?
Oh, I forot. Slashdot is Digg now.
Sorry, my fault.
Stay ignorant then (Score:2)
Unless you want to buy a house. Or a car. Or food. Or anything, really.
I mean, computers come free anyway. Computing time was never so costly that they ever had to divvy it up by time slices or something. And IT should never have to be affected by monetary concerns. Unlimited budgets for our departments are a good thing. Or at least were until the tech bubble crashed some years back....
Re: (Score:2)
about the world around you. It's not as if any of this stuff will ever affect you.
Unless you want to buy a house. Or a car. Or food. Or anything, really.
I mean, computers come free anyway. Computing time was never so costly that they ever had to divvy it up by time slices or something. And IT should never have to be affected by monetary concerns. Unlimited budgets for our departments are a good thing. Or at least were until the tech bubble crashed some years back....
Now you're just being an ass. You sound like congress torturing the commerce clause to invent authority to pass laws about shit that ain't their business. Yeah, anything can be said to be related to anything else if you loosen the definition enough.
Re:What the...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nevertheless, I'm going to comment:
The review claims that a number of statements are false. I mostly disagree:
The Federal Reserve is federal, i.e., a part of the US government.
It's a semantics game to claim otherwise. The Fed chairman is appointed by "the government", charterd by the government, and designated to achieve US domestic policy goals, and subject to being shut down if it acts too crazily. It is given significant autonomy by congress. Does that make it "not part of the government"? Okay, then I guess the federal courts aren't either.
The Federal Reserve is a reserve, i.e., it has monetary savings of real value.
The federal reserve has cash holdings. Cash has real value. Don't believe me? Go offer it in an exchange.
The Federal Reserve serves the public, and is not a cartel of private banks serving itself.
Kind of. Given its autonomy, it could achieve nefarious goals. However, members are required to basically give up any financial holdsing that could lead to a conflict of interest.
The US dollar has real value, i.e., it represents tangible wealth, such as gold securely stored at Fort Knox.
It is true that money is only a *claim* on real wealth; that, in other words, money flows in the opposite direction as wealth. However, you can in fact trade your money for real wealth; in that sense, it has real value.
Inflation is an increase in prices.
Usage determines meaning, and this is exactly how most people use the term "inflation" (in the economics sense).
Inflation is caused by greedy companies, not the US government or the Federal Reserve.
Under the definition the author wants to use, yes, the US gov. and Fed cause inflation. They're not the only cause of general price increases. There are also supply shocks.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal reserve has cash holdings. Cash has real value. Don't believe me? Go offer it in an exchange.
The Fed does keep both gold and foreign currency around (I used to live next door to a fed branch, it was quite heavily fortified). However, its value is a trivial fraction of the currency in circulation, which itself is a fraction of the money supply.
I think the point is: the US Dollar is not in any way backed by the holdings of the Fed. Instead it's backed by the government's ability to tax the people. Seriously, I trust the government to rasie taxes *way* more than I trust it to hold onto something o
Re: (Score:2)
If you have worked with any kind of finance/economics, you would know that it is all nothing but math. Probability and statistics, linear and dynamic programming, machine learning techniques, data mining techniques and so on and so forth.
Secondly, that was a rather interesting review. For those of who have been reading Slashdot over the years, we are now in positions where we deal with this thing called the Real World. Given that state of the US
How does one become a member bank? (Score:2)
I hope this isn't too painfully stupid or off point: how does one open a bank? I don't think that is a title in the Dummies series yet and I have been periodically curious about it. How realistic is it for a small group of people or a community to start a bank or credit union?
Re: (Score:2)
real value? (Score:4, Insightful)
Real value is power--the ability to control other people (aka labor). Whether the medium is gold coins or paper money or tootsie pops, what you are trading when you exchange money is labor.
Inflation does not tax the poor: They have no cash savings.
Inflation does not tax the middle class: They keep their assets in real-estate and mutual funds.
Inflation forces everyone else to invest in something, because hoarding money isn't good for the economy.
I'm sick of all the "money is a scam" articles on the internet recently.
Re: (Score:2)
That, or it's an example of Gresham's Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_Law [wikipedia.org] in action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically if you can plug it into a BASIC program on a Commodork 64 to calculate some physics thingy, then it's a law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gold is one of the only elements that does not deteriorate
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
First, your physics is completely wrong. Radioactive elements are the only ones that decay.
Second, your assertion that all new gold is used in industry is highly questionable. Most gold is hoarded underground and not used for ANYTHING--a senseless waste of resources.
You are correct that my one-sentence definition of "value" is an oversimplification. But your assertion that ANY physical object has some sort of inhe
Cheaper gold would actually be quite useful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference is that fiat currency can be arbitrarily increased by politicians with ease whereas increasing the available gold supply requires more time and effort and thus tempers the ability of politicians to pull the inflation ripcord whenever it is politically expedient to do so. The essential qualities of a commodity that serves as a store of value are rarity, durability, easy divisibility, and the general ease
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
for the cliff notes, go here... (Score:3, Informative)
The Invisibility of Money (Score:3, Informative)
To get a sense how invisible money as an instrument is to most people in modern stable economies, you can look at the plays of Shakespeare and all the reference to coinage and especially "debased" currency during the period. One of the most insightful history books I've read is E.C. Challis's The Tudor Coinage. It really gives you a sense of how much we take a stable currency, as the bedrock for a stable economic system, for granted.
Anyway, if you have any curiosity about that subject at all, you can check out this article:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0117(196712)2%3A20%3A3%3C441%3ATDOTC1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H [jstor.org]
I've been looking for a good stimulating non-fiction read. I think I'll pick up G. Edward Griffin's book. Thanks for the review.
Redaction (Score:3, Informative)
On second thought, maybe not
Other sources of information on the Fed (Score:2, Informative)
The FED is.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Books like this disguise the fundamentally boring/abstract issues that few American citizens, want to deal with, much less so the politicians that represent them in any way shape or form. The outcome of these issues is all but the richest Americans will be poorer. Sadly everyone will be standing around yelling "something must be done!" sooner or later. When the time long ago passed when
Totally worthless... (Score:2)
I expect ink, green and the new multi-colors, to be all over my fingers by the end of it.
I often dream of winning the lottery. Then I can spend the majority of the time learning what to do with the money. Another, almost perhaps, equal grind as my current day job.
As one who knows... (Score:4, Informative)
There's much more I could say, but that's an example of the type of information I pass on to friends and neighbors all the time when they hear that I work "at the Fed."
[I'm posting anonymously just in case my employer might think this post violates some policy or other. I don't think it does, because this is public information, but I rather like working here, so I'll play it safe.]
Gold Standard == Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the value of gold is implicitly tied to the value of a currency, gold can no longer be traded as a commodity in any real sense. As in - if your currency is backed by gold, what happens if the value of gold should go down due to a glut in the production market? Answer is nothing, because it *can't*. If money is backed by gold then you can't logically trade gold separately from money. This means that gold is artificially valued, and the prices of things that use gold would increase for no sound economic reason.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Steve Forbes, right? [theamericanadvisor.com] The guy who said that oil would go back down to $55/barrel [newsmax.com] (or lower).
No wonder his father's wealth has been squandered. Yet, amazingly, financial hacks like Kudlow still have him on from time to time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they give you a booklet containing coupons worth 10gAu, 0.1 bushel of wheat, etc.
You then go to the local granary, hand them the coupon for the wheat, and they give you a bag of wheat. They punch the coupon to indicate it had been redeemed and put it in the bag to send back to t
Re:US Dollar and Oil? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock [wikipedia.org]
The dollar was then simply being printed, unbacked by anything. This increases the supply of dollars and the value falls massively. Huge inflation.
1972-3 Nixon or someone went to the Saudis and "persuaded" them somehow to remain only US dollars in return for oil. No idea what they promised, but it was big. From that point, the US dollar is pretty much backed by OPEC oil. It was denominated in dollars before, but the dollar had been backed by gold, so basically the oil price was based on gold. Not so after 1971.
So. All oil all over the world has to be bought in US dollars... The demand for US dollars (not gold) rockets, all the central banks across the world have to keep reserves on hand so the countries can buy oil. Billions of them. Trillions in total.
Do you see what this does? It does 2 things.
1: America gets paid first for any oil which other countries want to buy. They have to get the requisite number of dollars. And they get paid simply for running a printing press.
2: It allows the USA to print and spend as many dollars as they want to. The demand from outside the country means that inflation can't take off. The entire world is subsidising the US economy.
Now... 35 years later, there are trillions of US dollars out there sitting in central banks waiting to be spent on mostly oil. If oil were to be available in Euros, the dollars would be useless. They would come back to the USA.
Ask yourself what a million dollars would be worth if everyone had a million. ok, imagine what a trillion dollars or so would do coming back into the country. The value of the dollar would fall and as the value of the currency falls, the price of everything else increases.
As to the size of the effect... who knows.
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/nov03/middleEast.asp [navy.mil]
Re:US Dollar and Oil? (Score:4, Interesting)
What do Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela have in common? (besides being the subject of US animosity, chest-thumping, invasion, and a coup-attempt?)
They threatened to sell oil in Euros.
The reason Ron Paul is always talking about the Fed like he's some kind of nutcase is NOT because he's some kind of nutcase. It's because the Fed is the bouncer at "I want to run the planet" club. Want to go running all over the world invading countries? No problem when you can just print all the money you want with no accountability.
Once the dollar jumped off of the gold standard, the only thing propping up the dollar was the threat of military action by the US. That's very uncomfortable, so some folks wisely decided to use the world oil market as an intermediary. The dollar is supported by oil; oil is supported by military might. Any crack in US control of world oil is a crack in the dollar, and thus, the US economy.
The entire history of state-managed currency shows a steady trend of the ruling entity devaluing the currency to persue wars or other ambitions not generally related to the well being of society, with the obvious result that the citizenry become measurably worse off.
Anatomy of the Great Oil Swindle (Score:3, Interesting)
According to John Perkins' Confessions of An Economic Hitman [economichitman.com], it was a variety of things:
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now whether it is a valid argument is an entirely different story...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we're discussing an article about China's proposed manned mission to the moon, for instance, and some fool writes a comment that seriously clai
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gold Standard == Bad (Score:5, Informative)
The entire disadvantage you just listed as stemming from a gold standard is: "Things requiring gold would be unjustifiably expensive."
That advantage is so bad that no one can support a gold standard unless they "fundamentally misunderstand macroeconomics"?
It's things like this that for so long kept me from understanding the hate for the gold standard. The best arguments against it seemed to be pretty trivial, and yes, that includes the extensive list on Wikipedia.
Think how confusing that must sound: Those who support a gold standard are idiots because they are too dismissive of high prices for items containing gold. Huh?
After a while of wringing out sources for a serious argument, I finally found something more convincing, which is this:
1) Under a gold standard, the (very high) volatility of gold is imposed on the general price level, making it that much harder to plan economic activity, and magnifying negative events.
2) Significant amounts of gold must be held out of production, just for use as money, with signficant opportunity cost.
3) Increasingly huge portions of the economy are diverted to gold production during times of economic growth because that, rather than e.g. cancer cures, have the highest return.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gold Standard == Bad (Score:4, Insightful)
As a counter-argument (I have to play devil's advocate here):
1) The volatility of gold is only tied to the supply and demand of it. If the supply of gold increases, does it really reduce the value of currencies? Or does it create new wealth? If it creates new wealth (in the hands of the mining companies) then it hasn't reduced the value of gold holdings, as long as demand increases proportionate with supply. This is why gold is usually put forth as a standard: the demand for it increases almost exactly 1:1 with the increase of the supply. Or, in other words, there is infinite demand, but the price sensitivity is linear.
2) The opportunity cost of not being able to manufacture electronics with gold in it (or jewelry, or whatever you're going to do with the gold) is balanced by the opportunity cost of running out of gold. Gold is rare. It's not as rare as some other minerals, but by putting significant amounts in reserve, any government can then guarantee the value of its currency. Hyperinflation is a significant opportunity cost just so that manufacturers (and jewelers) have an unlimited supply of gold.
3) This may be the hardest one to counter. The environmental cost of mining for gold will probably never be properly taxed or regulated. I think the best counterargument is to compare a gold standard with our current environmental crisis, fueled by the U.S. Government's insistence that all oil be sold for U.S. Dollars (source [wikipedia.org]). If we assume (pretty naively) that oil will continue to be pegged to the U.S. Dollar, then we effectively have Oil as our currency backing right now. The result is that in times of economic growth, (now I'm quoting you) "Increasingly huge portions of the economy are diverted to [oil] production
The environmental impact of mining is arguably more controllable (it stays on the ground) than that of burning oil (it causes GLOBAL pollution).
OK, so please respond to me and let's debate the pros and cons of a gold standard.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Yes, gold follows supply and demand, but the problem is that these S/D curves result in significant daily volatility. It does not steadily increase like you seem to think. The problem with the volatility is that it exposes people to sharp, unpredictable price changes. (Yeah, yeah, "price changes are g
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If money is backed by gold then you can't logically trade gold separately from money. This means that gold is artificially valued, and the prices of things that use gold would in
Isn't this a setup for a conversation of Ron Paul? (Score:3, Interesting)
The government does not borrow money from the FED (Score:4, Informative)
The FED only lends money to banks, who lend it out for loans to private industry. Believe it or not, the majority of the domestic national debt it owed to . . . the U.S. government. Social security has been collecting a surplus of money since its inception, and the government has been spending that, and issuing bonds to repay what they took from the program at a later date (presumably they will pay for it by raising the federal income tax). The rest of the national debt is owed to private investors who purchased bonds from the government at a fixed rate of return, much of this money is owed to foreign entities. To finance a deficit, the government issues more bonds, which it must repay later with interest.
The FED isn't some huge conspiracy, a bunch of banks got together and tried to find a way to end the volatility that the money market was continually facing. The primary goal of the FED is controlling inflation. People always say that inflation is out of control, I don't know what country they live in. We have very low, but always positive inflation. Most economists agree that this is the best situation. Anything else you can think of (including a commodity standard) would be much worse. It would be more volatile, and it would be hard to control inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
What else do you need?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There, fixed that for you.
(Disclaimer - your definition of what government should do may vary.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This only restricts the states from coining money that is not gold or silver. The federal government can make anything they want legal tender. Once it's legal tender, the states can use it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That pretty strongly says to me that they can't accept anything as legal tender other than gold or silver, as this would be tantamount to making it legal tender, which is prohibited. The Federal Government can not legally coerce the States to accept fiat currency as legal tender.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the federal government can't coerce the states into accepting dollars, but why would the states need to be coerced?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Probably because they wanted to keep the States from being able to declare any old thing as currency. You don't want Virginia using tobacco leaves as money, or Florida to declare it will accept foreign banknotes, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because right now the value of the TexasDollar (oil and military) would be skyrocketing as compared to the value of MichiganDollar (US Automotive Industry) and Detroit would be even more screwed than it already is. Add to this having to exchange money when you crossed state lines and well basically the States can't print there own currency (Federal currency is standard) for the same reasons the the EU adopted he Euro.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My review (Score:4, Insightful)
Bankers are able to create money to lend far in excess of what is actually backed by real assets, meaning money from depositors, gold, silver, goats, or whatever. They have been doing this for a long, long time though. They were doing it during the gold standard as well. These days, the vast majority of money in circulation is backed only by a debtor's promise to pay it back to the bank.
This [google.com] is a video that attempts to explain this in plain terms. It is long (around 45 minutes) but informative.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bankers are able to create money to lend far in excess of what is actually backed by real assets, meaning money from depositors, gold, silver, goats, or whatever.
When a bank lends money that's backed by someone's mortgage, it's backed by a very "real asset": the mortgaged property.
It's not an asset that the bank can keep in its vault (how would you fit it in there, exactly?), but it's a bank asset nonetheless. If the borrower fails to repay the loan, the bank gets the house.
As long as the government is around and is willing to enforce liens, those are all very real assets, and I don't see a problem in using them as a basis for a currency.
The only reason you need a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IANAE, The corollary is that the mortgage must be for an amount that is very close to the value of that asset. If you have massive over estimates of property values due to something like a real estate bubble, once the bubble burst the revaluation throws the system out of whack. Banks says they have X dollars but due to over valuation they actually only have Y% of X dollars where Y is 100.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, feel like re-reading the author's comments??? Here there are to make it easier for you:
Re: (Score:2)
change in money supply+money supply*change in velocity of money (the rate at which it changes hands)=change in gdp + inflation
If the money supply is stable, you can only increase gdp if you have deflation (at least equally bad) or if people start using the same money more. Since thats unrealistic, you need to increase the money supply. What you try to do is incr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn those free masons, putting us hard-working stone workers out of a job. All I wanted to do was have a nice house and feed my kids!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Lord Stamp, former
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new around here.
Child Porn is not "fine"! (Score:2)