A Fed Thread

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8830
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

A Fed Thread

Post by dualstow » Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:14 am

Trump wants Judy Shelton, who likes the idea of a return to the gold standard and is supposedly for ending the Fed’s independence from the rest of government. I think that’s weird. Don’t you think that’s weird?
TLT HITS NEW 52-WK HIGH
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1902
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by Kriegsspiel » Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:16 pm

What do you mean by 'weird.'
There are several thousand nearly complete viral genomes integrated into the human genome, most now inert or missing a crucial gene. These account for 1.3% of the entire genome. That may not sound like much, but 'proper' genes account for only 3%. If you think being descended from apes is bad for your self-esteem, then get used to the idea that you are also descended from viruses.
Ridley, Genome
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8830
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by dualstow » Sat Feb 08, 2020 3:35 pm

Kriegsspiel wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:16 pm
What do you mean by 'weird.'
A bad idea. Both bad ideas.
TLT HITS NEW 52-WK HIGH
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4809
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by technovelist » Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:52 pm

dualstow wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 10:14 am
Trump wants Judy Shelton, who likes the idea of a return to the gold standard and is supposedly for ending the Fed’s independence from the rest of government. I think that’s weird. Don’t you think that’s weird?
The fed is unconstitutional and unbacked paper money is a ticking time bomb.
The only thing that is weird about this is that trump is saying what no one else would say.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by boglerdude » Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:26 am

She's a trump supporter and will do a 180 on gold like Greenspan did, to keep her position of power.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by Tortoise » Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:24 am

boglerdude wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:26 am
She's a trump supporter and will do a 180 on gold like Greenspan did, to keep her position of power.
Exactly. Doesn’t matter if she supports a gold standard. If she gets a position of power, she’ll get the “big girl briefing” and be forced to toe the line like everyone else.
User avatar
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by Kbg » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:25 pm

technovelist wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:52 pm
The fed is unconstitutional and unbacked paper money is a ticking time bomb.
DO discuss both assertions, proof, evidence, rationale...and you MUST explain deflation and historically low inflation in Japan from 1990 until now and the developed world from 2008 until now as part of your response. If you are unable to, then we throw this statement into the pile of useless conspiracy theories and factual inaccuracies.

Popcorn and soda in hand...go.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2283
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by Xan » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:31 pm

Kbg wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:25 pm
technovelist wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:52 pm
The fed is unconstitutional and unbacked paper money is a ticking time bomb.
DO discuss both assertions, proof, evidence, rationale...and you MUST explain deflation and historically low inflation in Japan from 1990 until now and the developed world from 2008 until now as part of your response. If you are unable to, then we throw this statement into the pile of useless conspiracy theories and factual inaccuracies.

Popcorn and soda in hand...go.
Not sure exactly what good or bad the Fed has done in its existence, but I believe according to the 9th and 10th amendments (as well as to the tenor, purpose, and spirit of the original unamended Constitution), it's up to the Fed's proponents to prove that it IS Constitutional, not the other way around.
User avatar
technovelist
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4809
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:20 pm

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by technovelist » Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:17 pm

Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:31 pm
Kbg wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:25 pm
technovelist wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 1:52 pm
The fed is unconstitutional and unbacked paper money is a ticking time bomb.
DO discuss both assertions, proof, evidence, rationale...and you MUST explain deflation and historically low inflation in Japan from 1990 until now and the developed world from 2008 until now as part of your response. If you are unable to, then we throw this statement into the pile of useless conspiracy theories and factual inaccuracies.

Popcorn and soda in hand...go.
Not sure exactly what good or bad the Fed has done in its existence, but I believe according to the 9th and 10th amendments (as well as to the tenor, purpose, and spirit of the original unamended Constitution), it's up to the Fed's proponents to prove that it IS Constitutional, not the other way around.
Correct.
User avatar
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by Kbg » Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:27 pm

Actually that's not how it works at all...a law is considered constitutional by the very fact it was approved properly by the Legislative branch. It is then up to an entity to challenge said law's constitutionality and then the Supreme Court can render a decision.

Fed fans don't have to demonstrate anything, Fed haters have to get the Supreme Court to agree with them.

Here is a legal defense of the Fed

https://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyB ... /const.htm

To me this is the bottom line of the whole issue legally: Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Congress has the right to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18).

Done.

Not to say I wouldn't like to see the Fed Governors consist of more than bankers and macro economists...I do think something this powerful should have more on the board than vested money interests.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2283
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by Xan » Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:36 pm

Kbg wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:27 pm
Actually that's not how it works at all...a law is considered constitutional by the very fact it was approved properly by the Legislative branch. It is then up to an entity to challenge said law's constitutionality and then the Supreme Court can render a decision.
So it isn't unconstitutional until the Court declares it so? Or was it unconstitutional all along?
Kbg wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:27 pm
To me this is the bottom line of the whole issue legally: Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Congress has the right to make any law that is 'necessary and proper' for the execution of its enumerated powers (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18).

Done.
I'm not saying the Fed is constitutional or not, but just which enumerated power is the Fed supporting?
User avatar
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: A Fed Thread

Post by Kbg » Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:46 pm

If you just step back and think about the enumeration comment for just a couple of minutes you will realize what complete and utter nonsense it is. The way you are applying it is a literalist use of the term, supported by exactly no precedent, procedure or common practice.

I’ll help, there is congressional law, executive branch regulations and case law out the wazoo that you can find no direct tie to in the constitution. Yet it all exists, why? Because the constitution delegates and divides the details of actual governing to the respective branches.

And to be clear, yes, things are assumed constitutional unless challenged and overturned. No challenge or challenge and lose, constitutional end of story.

Perhaps a simple anecdote...we are watching football and a touchdown gets scored in the last second which causes your team to lose. Suddenly you start yelling at the TV/ref saying touchdowns are only worth 4 points. You can think that all you want but a TD is 6 points.
Post Reply