Quote :

"What's interesting to me is how destroyer, who is no doubt the person most upset about the Fed, makes no effort whatsoever to correct misinformation about them, instead calling the people who do "apologists". He seems all too happy to let patently false urban legends spread about it. As long as people are anti-Fed, it doesn't matter whether they are because they believe lies, right? Show an ounce of integrity and honestly please."

I'm not seeing too much that is patently false.

It's hard to even classify money returned to the Federal Reserve as "profit". The Federal Reserve doesn't create anything of value. Nothing is produced at the Fed. They dispense very cheap credit to a cartel of big banks. What we're talking about here is not a conspiracy - it's stated clearly on the Fed's webpage.

I'm sure that there's some shit going on behind the scenes that is even more disturbing, but the stuff that worries me is right out in the open.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/29/1040969/-The-Fed-Audit:-16-Trillion-in-secret-bail-outs!-Thanks-Bernie!

[Edited on January 27, 2012 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ]

1/27/2012 11:23:39 AM

You seem to have a disturbing habit of arguing based on what you've read in books that were printed 30 years ago.

Current events aren't that scary, you should look into them Mcdanger.

1/27/2012 11:45:39 AM

And the guys who don't understand daily operations at the Fed continue to say inaccurate, false shit

1/28/2012 4:43:28 PM

lol, yes i have NO idea what goes on at the fed. It's not like i keep up with it on almost a daily basis or anything

1/30/2012 9:33:47 AM

It's kinda funny how the guys most against fiat currency know the least about it

Or at least, have internalized the least about it

Keep tellin us how the fed uses those profits

1/30/2012 9:55:03 AM

Quote :

" It's hard to even classify money returned to the Federal Reserve as "profit". The Federal Reserve doesn't create anything of value. Nothing is produced at the Fed. They dispense very cheap credit to a cartel of big banks. What we're talking about here is not a conspiracy - it's stated clearly on the Fed's webpage. "

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Face made a statement about where the Fed profit goes that I corrected. You're trying to "correct" me by making up your own definition of "profit" to describe what it is they return to the treasury.

So, not only do you not correct Face when he says that those profits go anywhere but the treasury, but you also do not correct face on calling this money "profit", despite trying to correct me on it.

You could have corrected face on two counts (according to you) but chose to not say a single word about it until somebody (me) corrected somebody saying anti-Fed shit. As usual, you have no problem with people saying incorrect or misleading things about the Fed, as long as their message is overall anti-Fed. Show just a teaspoon of integrity, please.

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/30/2012 12:26:00 PM

Quote :

"lol, yes i have NO idea what goes on at the fed. It's not like i keep up with it on almost a daily basis or anything"

Yes, you do have no idea what goes on at the fed, perhaps you should consider using different sources to "keep up on it" that actually contain correct information.

1/30/2012 12:27:38 PM

Quote :

"This is exactly what I'm talking about. Face made a statement about where the Fed profit goes that I corrected. You're trying to "correct" me by making up your own definition of "profit" to describe what it is they return to the treasury."

No, you're missing the point. I'm saying the whole institution is a fucking sham. I'm not willing to refer to money coming back to the Fed as a profit, because there's no cost for bringing the Fed's "product" to the market. Every transaction the Fed participates in is zero risk, for them.

You (or McDanger) originally brought up profit being returned to the treasury. I'm saying it doesn't matter what they return to the treasury, because the Fed as an institution is basically skimming some off the top of every dollar transaction.

You fuckers that defend the Fed get exactly what you deserve for being so ignorant - a lower standard of living.

1/30/2012 12:32:14 PM

Mcdanger you are just ridiculous.

Most of the Feds profits are given in exactly the manner I said they were. It is impossible to argue that they aren't.

The Fed makes many secret transactions that I can neither prove or disprove. But the ones that have been done in broad daylight are inarguable. Just give it up.

You can't be serious if you are telling me the Fed isn't buying up assets constantly to take them off bank balance sheets. Are they just lying with their public disclosures?

[Edited on January 30, 2012 at 2:51 PM. Reason : a]

1/30/2012 2:50:06 PM

Quote :

"You (or McDanger) originally brought up profit being returned to the treasury. I'm saying it doesn't matter what they return to the treasury, because the Fed as an institution is basically skimming some off the top of every dollar transaction. You fuckers that defend the Fed get exactly what you deserve for being so ignorant - a lower standard of living."

We're not defending the Fed we're simply demanding you know something about it. You are defining your own terms left and right, claiming they do this and that, because you don't actually know what they do, or what fiat currency is. I'll let that sink in a moment or two since you like to get smug and talk about fiat all the time. You haven't internalized any of the properties of a fiat currency. It's obvious when you have to make up your own mythology for what goes on at the Fed, rather than simply learning about its operations and using that as the basis of an informed critique.

Quote :

"Most of the Feds profits are given in exactly the manner I said they were. It is impossible to argue that they aren't. The Fed makes many secret transactions that I can neither prove or disprove. But the ones that have been done in broad daylight are inarguable. Just give it up. You can't be serious if you are telling me the Fed isn't buying up assets constantly to take them off bank balance sheets. Are they just lying with their public disclosures?"

This entire post is conceptual gibberish. Might I suggest learning from someone other than Peter Schiff?

(Of course the Fed should be aiding transfers of private debt onto public sheets at the moment. The fact that you have no idea how the fuck it's done, or even how it COULD be done in this system is startling given that you spend a large proportion of your internet time ranting about it.)

[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .]

1/31/2012 9:09:35 AM

Quote :

"We're not defending the Fed we're simply demanding you know something about it. You are defining your own terms left and right, claiming they do this and that, because you don't actually know what they do, or what fiat currency is. I'll let that sink in a moment or two since you like to get smug and talk about fiat all the time. You haven't internalized any of the properties of a fiat currency. It's obvious when you have to make up your own mythology for what goes on at the Fed, rather than simply learning about its operations and using that as the basis of an informed critique."

Classic McDanger. You don't have a fucking clue - this is pure posturing.

1/31/2012 10:16:31 AM

lol you can say whatever you like but if you think i'm interested in "posturing" on the wolf web then you're pretty wrong

i mean i'm sure people posture in piles of shit time and again but come on

[Edited on January 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM. Reason : .]

1/31/2012 11:27:24 AM

^ ive actually met people like you in real life. I realize its best just to nod and move on. No matter how many time "The Google" proves you wrong you'll just be stuck in "your ways".

I have an Economics degree, I've heard all the Fed spew 100x over. I know how the Fed is supposed to operate and after several years of work in finance and more importantly after reading financial journals/news I know how it actually operates.

Based on Federal Reserve published statements all of my statements are factual and accurate.

If someone wants to argue what I think happens behind the scenes we can do that too. It seems apparent their news is for sale. You know, based on statistical studies and stuff...

2/1/2012 4:55:02 AM

Bill Gross is telling Mcdanger to eat a dick in his latest newsletter.

But what does he know, he only manages over a trillion dollars.

Quote :

"The transition from a levering, asset-inflating secular economy to a post bubble delevering era may be as difficult for one to imagine as our departure into the hereafter. A multitude of liability structures dependent on a certain level of nominal GDP growth require just that – nominal GDP growth with a little bit of inflation, a little bit of growth which in combination justify embedded costs of debt or liability structures that minimize the haircutting of or defaulting on prior debt commitments. Global central bank monetary policy – whether explicitly communicated or not – is now geared to keeping nominal GDP close to historical levels as is fiscal deficit spending that substitutes for a delevering private sector. Yet the imagination and management of the transition ushers forth a plethora of disparate policy solutions. Most observers, however, would agree that monetary and fiscal excesses carry with them explicit costs. Letting your pet retriever roam the woods might do wonders for his “animal spirits,” for instance, but he could come back infested with fleas, ticks, leeches or worse. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, dog-lover or not, preannounced an awareness of the deleterious side effects of quantitative easing several years ago in a significant speech at Jackson Hole. Ever since, he has been open and honest about the drawbacks of a zero interest rate policy, but has plowed ahead and unleashed his “QE bowser” into the wild with the understanding that the negative consequences of not doing so would be far worse. At his November 2011 post-FOMC news briefing, for instance, he noted that “we are quite aware that very low interest rates, particularly for a protracted period, do have costs for a lot of people” – savers, pension funds, insurance companies and finance-based institutions among them. He countered though that “there is a greater good here, which is the health and recovery of the U.S. economy, and for that purpose we’ve been keeping monetary policy conditions accommodative.” My goal in this Investment Outlook is not to pick a “doggie bone” with the Chairman. He is makin’ it up as he goes along in order to softly delever a credit-based financial system which became egregiously overlevered and assumed far too much risk long before his watch began. My intent really is to alert you, the reader, to the significant costs that may be ahead for a global economy and financial marketplace still functioning under the assumption that cheap and abundant central bank credit is always a positive dynamic. When interest rates approach the zero bound they may transition from historically stimulative to potentially destimulative/regressive influences. Much like the laws of physics change from the world of Newtonian large objects to the world of quantum Einsteinian dynamics, so too might low interest rates at the zero-bound reorient previously held models that justified the stimulative effects of lower and lower yields on asset prices and the real economy. It is instructive to mention that this is not necessarily PIMCO’s view alone. Chairman Bernanke and Fed staff members have been sniffin’ this trail like the good hound dogs they are for some time now. In addition, Credit Suisse, in their “2012 Global Outlook,” devoted considerable pages to specifics of zero-based money with commonsensical historical comparisons to Japan over the past decade or so. The following pages of this Outlook will do the same. At the heart of the theory, however, is that zero-bound interest rates do not always and necessarily force investors to take more risk by purchasing stocks or real estate, to cite the classic central bank thesis. First of all, when rational or irrational fear persuades an investor to be more concerned about the return of her money than on her money then liquidity can be trapped in a mattress, a bank account or a five basis point Treasury bill. But that commonsensical observation is well known to Fed policymakers, economic historians and certainly citizens on Main Street. What perhaps is not so often recognized is that liquidity can be trapped by the “price” of credit, in addition to its “risk.” Capitalism depends on risk-taking in several forms. Developers, homeowners, entrepreneurs of all shapes and sizes epitomize the riskiness of business building via equity and credit risk extension. But modern capitalism is dependent as well on maturity extension in credit markets. No venture, aside from one financed with 100% owners’ capital, could survive on credit or loans that matured or were callable overnight. Buildings, utilities and homes require 20- and 30-year loan commitments to smooth and justify their returns. Because this is so, lenders require a yield premium, expressed as a positively sloped yield curve, to make the extended loan. A flat yield curve, in contrast, is a disincentive for lenders to lend unless there is sufficient downside room for yields to fall and provide bond market capital gains. This nominal or even real interest rate “margin” is why prior cyclical periods of curve flatness or even inversion have been successfully followed by economic expansions. Intermediate and long rates – even though flat and equal to a short-term policy rate – have had room to fall, and credit therefore has not been trapped by “price.” When all yields approach the zero-bound, however, as in Japan for the past 10 years, and now in the U.S. and selected “clean dirty shirt” sovereigns, then the dynamics may change. Money can become less liquid and frozen by “price” in addition to the classic liquidity trap explained by “risk.” Even if nodding in agreement, an observer might immediately comment that today’s yield curve is anything but flat and that might be true. Most short to intermediate Treasury yields, however, are dangerously close to the zero-bound which imply little if any room to fall: no margin, no air underneath those bond yields and therefore limited, if any, price appreciation. What incentive does a bank have to buy two-year Treasuries at 20 basis points when they can park overnight reserves with the Fed at 25? What incentives do investment managers or even individual investors have to take price risk with a five-, 10- or 30-year Treasury when there are multiples of downside price risk compared to appreciation? At 75 basis points, a five-year Treasury can only rationally appreciate by two more points, but theoretically can go down by an unlimited amount. Duration risk and flatness at the zero-bound, to make the simple point, can freeze and trap liquidity by convincing investors to hold cash as opposed to extend credit. Where else can one go, however? We can’t put $100 trillion of credit in a system-wide mattress, can we? Of course not, but we can move in that direction by delevering and refusing to extend maturities and duration. Recent central bank behavior, including that of the U.S. Fed, provides assurances that short and intermediate yields will not change, and therefore bond prices are not likely threatened on the downside. Still, zero-bound money may kill as opposed to create credit. Developed economies where these low yields reside may suffer accordingly. It may as well, induce inflationary distortions that give a rise to commodities and gold as store of value alternatives when there is little value left in paper. Where does credit go when it dies? It goes back to where it came from. It delevers, it slows and inhibits economic growth, and it turns economic theory upside down, ultimately challenging the wisdom of policymakers. We’ll all be making this up as we go along for what may seem like an eternity. A 30-50 year virtuous cycle of credit expansion which has produced outsize paranormal returns for financial assets – bonds, stocks, real estate and commodities alike – is now delevering because of excessive “risk” and the “price” of money at the zero-bound. We are witnessing the death of abundance and the borning of austerity, for what may be a long, long time."

2/1/2012 4:26:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFe7k9_ESI8&feature=g-all-u&context=G2ad3447FAAAAAAAACAA

Rand Paul proposes Amendment 1490 to the STOCK Act. Any members of the House or Senate that become lobbyists after serving in office would be required to forfeit their pension and health benefits.

2/1/2012 10:53:24 PM

Quote :

"have an Economics degree, I've heard all the Fed spew 100x over. I know how the Fed is supposed to operate and after several years of work in finance and more importantly after reading financial journals/news I know how it actually operates."

If you got your degree from NCSU that is an utterly humiliating reflection on their program.

Quote :

"Based on Federal Reserve published statements all of my statements are factual and accurate."

Nope. Next thing we know you're gonna try to convince us the Fed is hiding its profits in pillow cases.

Don't give a fuck about reading your quote at the moment but I know before reading it that it doesn't include support for any of the erroneous statements you made about Fed operations and use of profits, because it doesn't happen. And since the guy you quoted is so important and all, I'm going to assume he doesn't make the same foolish, elementary mistakes you do.

2/1/2012 11:18:37 PM

So in McDanger's world...

If we were running a business together and were supposed to split the profits evenly.

I could take all the profits and spend 90% of it on whatever the hell i wanted and then split the remaining 10% with him and he'd pretend that was a fair course of action.

The Fed is now buying over 90% of long term treasury bonds. You don't see the problem here???

The dealers are oversubscribing these auctions by 30x the amount of bonds the treasury intends to sell because they know they can immediately sell them to the Fed for a PROFIT.

That's pretty scary, even the average american can see through that chicanery.

How big is the Fed's balance sheet of random crap now? $1.6 billion or something? What are they going to do when that blows up on them?

You realize eventually a shell game comes to a head right? Or is this entire discussion going over yours?

2/4/2012 2:16:19 AM

face you just don't understand

A man with an economics degree

no knowledge

no ability to track the discussion

the entire point is that you and destroyer don't know fed operations or central banking. evidence for this? the fact that this surprises you:

Quote :

"The Fed is now buying over 90% of long term treasury bonds. You don't see the problem here???"

lmao

2/4/2012 11:54:12 AM

This has been a cute discussion but I'm going to spend my time more wisely in general, especially on the internet. Educating you is beneath me.

2/4/2012 11:54:48 AM

Here's a link that's probably written at a level you can understand: http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system

Not that I'm a modern money theorist, but I do find their study of accounting identities and the actual, real financial mechanisms to be relevant to the discussion. Not that you're going to read this and learn anything, but I figured I'd provide it for lurkers or other members of the audience who are interested in actually learning something. Given that I don't have the patience to break down the absolute basics of the shit you pontificate on (and get wrong) almost always, this link should do for a brief, basic, coarse overview.

2/4/2012 3:22:10 PM

really? a double post in 30 seconds? what the fuck about "edit post" is so damned hard for you to click, douchebag?

2/4/2012 4:56:56 PM

Again you take a fact that I point out and then say I have no idea what I'm talking about.

How can you argue against facts?

Google "fed buys 91% " you fucking retard . You know nothing , bow down you little bitch

[Edited on February 6, 2012 at 2:07 AM. Reason : a]

2/6/2012 2:05:22 AM

Not really interested in engaging this troll.

Link above is informative to anybody who wants to check it out. Includes the facts that, for some reason, face claims I don't know. welp lol.

Of fucking course the Fed buys up long-term debt; your side of the ideological spectrum has been frothing about the arrival of the bond vigilantes any day now for years. The lameness of this prediction has been amusing me for about two years straight now, and is predicated on the fact you claim I don't know. Yeap okay lol.

[Edited on February 6, 2012 at 9:52 AM. Reason : .]

2/6/2012 9:38:03 AM

More posturing

2/6/2012 2:18:06 PM

Rand paul

11/16/2012 2:18:25 PM

So he wants to give back 500k yet wants to expand the size and money going towards military spending. Oh WOW, what a TRUE fiscal conservative. He ISN'T a HYPOCRITE at ALL!

11/23/2012 12:28:53 PM

^what are you talking about?

11/23/2012 5:04:51 PM

Quote :

"Sen. Paul Declares Victory for Americans’ Right to Trial by Jury Passage of Feinstein-Lee amendment underlines Constitutional right against indefinite detention Nov 29, 2012 WASHINGTON, D.C. - This evening, the U.S. Senate voted on Amendment No. 3018 to the National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and co-sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, which protects the rights prescribed to Americans in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution with regard to indefinite detention and the right to a trial by jury. The amendment passed, 67-29. http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=645 "

11/30/2012 3:15:56 AM

500k buys us 1 minute of war.

Great job Rand.

11/30/2012 7:30:37 AM

Rand Paul on hour 4 of a filibuster. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination-cia-direc/

Quote :

"“I will speak today until the president responds and says, ‘No, we won’t kill Americans in cafes. No, we won’t kill you at home at night,’” Mr. Paul said early on in the filibuster, which began at 11:47 a.m. and by early afternoon showed no signs of slowing down."

3/6/2013 4:15:46 PM

Rand Paul is da man.

3/6/2013 8:07:46 PM

He's not the worst politiciAn, but it's good to see someone being an individual.

Although I don't think he has a point with his filibuster.

3/6/2013 8:21:18 PM

Are you watching it? I think he's made some pretty good points.

3/6/2013 10:17:11 PM

He was reading alice in wonderland earlier, what's he talking about now?

3/6/2013 10:31:35 PM

haha, that's how filibusters go. that's better than reading phonebooks or dictionaries, I guess.

Interspersed, though, is his point that he isn't specifically opposed to Brennan, and doesn't necessarily believe that President Obama would abuse the power in question--his issue is with such a power being accepted and set as precedent; we cannot trust that future leaders would exercise such judgment or restraint. His goal is not even to prevent confirmation, and openly acknowledges that he would be doomed to fail in such an effort, anyway. He just wants to call attention to this issue, and make the Obama Administration and DoJ and/or Brennan acknowledge that there can be no Presidential decree of "targeted killing" of Americans on American soil with no due process.

His argument is that the legal justification for that, by the admission of, I believe, Brennan, is derived from the authorization for the GWOT, and the corollary that there is "no geographic limitation", to include within CONUS (and demonstrated precedent that we also are willing to target U.S. citizens). This is troubling due to the utter open-endedness of it--there is nothing really that constrains the GWOT...it's everywhere and with no foreseeable end. Having already killed American citizens, and furthermore claiming "no geographic limitation", we're now only constrained by the good judgment, goodwill, and restraint of whomever holds the office. That's not how our system works--we don't have legal protections to save us from the good guys.

Then there's the matter of the U.S. Constitution. Most people don't seem to give a shit about that in most other regards, but nonetheless...

3/6/2013 10:54:30 PM

I don't think Rand's question is very clear.

Drones are a tool IMO, and the federal government already has authority to use lethal force against criminals if necessary, drones are merely an extension of this (an "arm" if you will that the government has a right to bear). If Rand is asking if the President should be able to kill American citizens, this is already accepted as something that's allowed (under the right circumstances).

If Rand is asking if the President should be able to order assassination missions against Americans in the country, that should definitively be a "no," but Holder never said this would be allowed. And is already disallowed by EO 12333*. In the absence of a call for rescinding this EO, what reason do we have to believe domestic assassination is now allowed?

I guess it's a good question to ask, and considering the confirmation is expected to happen anyway, perhaps Rand should be applauded for this effort.

But I don't believe Holder's statement is saying what Rand is insinuating it's saying, nor do I think Brennan or anyone else intends to authorize assassinations of americans on american soil, without receiving approval from a court.

* http://www.cfr.org/counterterrorism/georgetown-journal-international-law-assassination-targeted-killing/p28105
http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2008/20080731.asp

3/6/2013 11:26:09 PM

I think he's pushing to have it explicitly stated that there is no authority to have targeted killings of American citizens on American soil.

3/6/2013 11:32:02 PM

But what does "targeted killing" mean?

Why isn't a lethal injection or electric chair a "targeted killing"?

3/6/2013 11:43:46 PM

Are there any cases where we're executing people without a trial?

That's the whole point of this. Does the administration have the authority to kill American citizens on American soil without due process. Any answer other than no is completely unacceptable.

3/6/2013 11:58:08 PM

3/6/2013 11:59:14 PM

Quote :

"Does the administration have the authority to kill American citizens on American soil without due process."

What do you mean "due process"?

What happens if the FBI is chasing a guy, run his car off a road, and he dies in the accident?

What happens if they're following a suspect, who then holds a gun to a civilian's head?

Are you saying the gov. doesn't have the authority to kill the suspect in those situations?

3/7/2013 12:01:18 AM

well this is gay, they're giving up

3/7/2013 12:35:36 AM

Rand Paul is a polarizing schmuck but this 13 hour filibuster is gold. He is dead on with this argument. I've been following the drone program closely since Anwar Al-Awlaki was first killed, mostly via democracynow.org and Salon because most other news sources purposely ignored the delicate nature of this story. I hope this filibuster is more than just obstruction this time, because I'm onboard with the message.

3/7/2013 12:42:02 AM

Quote :

"What do you mean "due process"? What happens if the FBI is chasing a guy, run his car off a road, and he dies in the accident? What happens if they're following a suspect, who then holds a gun to a civilian's head? Are you saying the gov. doesn't have the authority to kill the suspect in those situations?"

Your earlier replies have been quite valid, but now you're just being stupid.

3/7/2013 8:33:24 AM

how do you kill a guy who died in an accident? shoot his corpse?

3/7/2013 8:36:09 AM

^^

How?

There are clearly situations where the gov has to kill people without due process, and no one would mind.

Holder is an attorney, and rand wants him to answer a vague question with a yes or no answer. That's pretty silly.

3/7/2013 9:15:01 AM

Quote :

"What happens if the FBI is chasing a guy, run his car off a road, and he dies in the accident?"

Then the FBI didn't kill him. According to the law, you have to pull over when a cop flips on his lights and is following you.

Quote :

"What happens if they're following a suspect, who then holds a gun to a civilian's head?"

So they're following the suspect and the suspect then commits a crime right in front of them? You're being obtuse.

Also, go ahead and admit that if Bush were doing this, you'd be outraged.

3/7/2013 10:35:57 AM

Quote :

"But what does "targeted killing" mean?"

it means you can't blow someone up with a drone, it's not vague

3/7/2013 12:03:57 PM

It's the lawful fraternal twin of assassination.

3/7/2013 12:05:36 PM

Quote :

"Rand Paul is da man."

Also,

Quote :

"How? There are clearly situations where the gov has to kill people without due process, and no one would mind. "

Yes, the gov has to kill people without due process where no one would mind, like criminals threatening the lives of hostages, or crazy people that murder students at schools

But the gov does not have the right to kill people that are merely "suspicious" of doing harm. Like if a group of Occupy Wall Street kids march down the street are threatening to blow up a bridge

3/7/2013 12:37:07 PM