I have to +1 MM for this
"There is no "saving" the economy, it was designed to fail. An economy CANNOT be maintained when EVERY penny in the economy is DEBT owed to a private, for profit banking cartel. Our Republic has been fighting against what is effectively the Bank of England since it broke away in 1776.

Every "improvement" that we see in our economy is the result of the Fed printing money. It is analogous to giving a addict going through withdrawal another fix and saying, "gee look, they seem to be improving." It's been 100 years, and the US Dollar has lost nearly 99% of its true buying power. It doesn't appear that way to us as there is so much more crap to buy than there was 100 years ago, even 10 years ago. But, make no mistake about it, it will soon be 100%, and then the Federal Reserve will, by design, OWN EVERYTHING."

Before you can fix the problem you first have to admit you have one.

Draugnar:

How has Obama abused his power? Besides just doing things you disagree with, that is?

Without having read the previous posts, I reckon this is the best president you have ever had. He's real. (cf G W Bush)

Please listen to Frank everyone. He seems to be one of the only ones to understand the modern financial system. And so what if the dollar has lost 99% of its absolute buying power? All that matters is its relative buying power compared to other currencies. People really need to understand the function of a central bank before they attack it.

And as for Obama, I'm taking the opinion of a lot of Blue Dog Dems that he pushed the healthcare issue too early. If he had focused completely on the economy his first two years to help the Dems win the midterm elections, he could have easily passed it in his third year. My overall opinion on him is "meh" though. He's not bad, but there's certainly room for lots of improvement. I give him props for doing what he did in face of the House Republicans though. They won't even listen to Boehner (who isn't that bad compared to a lot of them). I mean, why would they not vote for Plan B to give them maneuvering room?

Goldfinger,

trust me my friend, I understand the function of a central bank. The fact that you state, "And so what if the dollar has lost 99% of its absolute buying power? All that matters is its relative buying power compared to other currencies," displays YOUR ignorance to everyone who has contributed to this thread.

I realize that Frank understands the modern financial system. But, as Nigee said, until you admit that you have a problem, you cannot fix it. Make no mistake about it, having a private, for profit central banking cartel control the supply of a nation's currency is a HUGE PROBLEM, and one that is known throughout history to FAIL.

Further, the American Dollar's buying power as compared to other currencies is based almost entirely upon the Dollar's position as the world's reserve currency. Unfortunately, that position is eroding, and will soon fall. It's all artificial my friend, smoke and mirrors, a dog and pony show. Read the history of the Bank of England. Read what it did the British crown and the people of GB with in only decades of its charter. There is a very well known formula that we're expected to just ignore, but it functioning perfectly behind the scenes, slowly, methodically devouring everything.

@nigee: "Having a black president really pisses off the white racists"

I don't doubt that for a second. I bet the neo-nazis and the klan are extremely pissed off about it.

however, don't for a second make the HUGE illogical leap to imply that therefore everyone pissed off about it are white racists!

There are racists everywhere of all ethnic backgrounds. In America they're allowed to express themselves openly. They're allowed to even preach it at their churches, like Rev Wright, who is as racist as any klansman who ever lived, imo. Maybe this gives the impression that there are more of them here than there really are. Or maybe it's the constant claims of racism that internationals see on American "news" programs, that make them believe it.

The fact of the matter is however, that there really aren't as many racists here as you might think. Most of the people pissed off about obama would have been just as pissed of at anyone who kept saying shit like "We gotta spread the wealth around" and still got elected. I know I would have been. It's just a convienient (and intellectually LAZY) way to dismiss people who don't agree.

Now, as far as him even being "black" ... ummm why is he black?
Obama is EXACTLY as white as he is black.

At what % ethnic traceabilty to Africa, does someone stop being black and start being the other %. More importantly, at what point will we stop caring?

@Timur: "Without having read the previous posts, I reckon this is the best president you have ever had. He's real. (cf G W Bush) "

Can I just modify your quote a little? I'll capitalize my modifications, for clarity, since I cant italicize or change the color or anything - sorry for the appearance of yelling:

Without having read the previous posts, OR A SINGLE BIT OF AMERICAN HISTORY, AND GETTING ALL OF MY INFORMATION FROM THE MEDIA WHO LOVES HIM COMING STRAIGHT OUT OF A PRESIDENCY WHO WAS HATED BY THE WORLD, I reckon this is the best president you have ever had. He's real. (cf G W Bush)

That I can accept. Your original one though just made you sound ... well pathetic, really. so, Your welcome for the improvement ;-)

@MM - no, you clearly don't understand it based on what you just said.

"Make no mistake about it, having a private, for profit central banking cartel control the supply of a nation's currency is a HUGE PROBLEM, and one that is known throughout history to FAIL"

First off, the Federal Reserve is not private. It is held accountable by Congress and has its Chairman appointed to it. Nixon famously manipulated the Fed to get himself reelected by having the Chairman do extra rounds of bond buying (I think....maybe it was a lowering of interest rates) to stimulate the economy, which contributed to the massive inflation of the late 70s.

Secondly, it is not for profit. You can read in its own charter that all "profits" made by the bank are returned to the Treasury. So yes, it makes money, but it gives 100% of what it doesn't spend to the government. The stated goal of the bank is not to generate profits, either, so I'm not sure what there is to worry about there.

And please, give me examples of how central banks throughout history have failed. First off, since the creation of many modern financial devices, and indeed the modern banking and financial system, didn't happen until the late 1980s, you can't really count anything before that. Before these inventions, investors didn't have any way to insure themselves properly against risk, because many of those insurance vehicles didn't exist. Also, the deregulation has allowed for interstate banking, making national banks susceptible to regional risks.

So, we have banks from the late 1980s onward. The Japanese Central Bank didn't cause the asset price bubble that led to the "Lost Decade" and if its measures had been properly supported on the fiscal side of the coin, the "Lost Decade" might never have happened. Next we have the ECB - which is hardly a fair comparison because its chained to what several nations collectively decide on doing and has very limited autonomy. The Bank of China has complete control over the whole banking system in China - unlike the Fed - and is facing massive losses.

So I really fail to see what central bank you are comparing the Fed to when you say central banks throughout history fail. Also, I fail to see an argument as to why absolute values of currencies matter more than relative. You say the dollar's status as a world reserve currency has held it up, but the pound has done just fine while depreciating in absolute value and its not a world reserve currency.

Goldfinger, there is no point in engaging with a conspiracy theorist.

What I learned from this thread is that Republican Americans tend to be conspiracy theorists.

That's mostly just the libertarians.

Amen to that, ghug. I love libertarians, their ideology sounds so great, until you actually talk to one of them, and understand the kind of wild stuff they propose.

Frank, it's actually kind of fun sometimes.

I once had a long argument with MichiganMan in which he made a claim, I countered with a number of questions, and then he he refused to answer them because I'm and ignorant sheeple. Great fun!

"And please, give me examples of how central banks throughout history have failed... the late 1980s, you can't really count anything before that."

Hilarious! Yup, just ignore all that history before my arbitrary date before all the imperfections in the system were fixed... because I say so.

But seriously, the Federal Reserve was created in the wake of the "Panic" of 1907. Its purpose was to prevent future "Panics". It failed. Unless you count renaming "Panics" "Depressions" or "Recessions", in which case it's been a fabulous success.

"And so what if the dollar has lost 99% of its absolute buying power? All that matters is its relative buying power compared to other currencies."

Perhaps, if you're an econ grad student with a huge student loan debt to pay off. Then inflation is great. But try being a retiree and living off a social security or pension check with annual COLA increases of 3% while the cost of food, gas, heating oil, etc. is going up 5-10% per year. Not so great then, no matter if it maintains its 'relative buying power' (which simply means that everyone's money is losing value at an equal rate - one of the great features of all this cooperation between central banks is that they can impoverish everyone in the world at an equal rate - neat!).

I am not a fan of Mr. Obama, because he has asserted the right to kill American citizens without judicial review. That's pretty much the definition of tyranny, no matter how light the yoke. Also, he's kind of a mass murderer for political convenience. We are accomplishing precisely fuck all in Afghanistan and have been for years.

But regarding Iran's nuclear program...

Here's a timeline of dire US and Israeli predictions about the imminence of a nuclear armed Islamic Republic: http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/422252

Some highlights...

1984: US Senator Alan Cranston claims Iran is 5-7 years away from making a nuclear weapon

1992: Israeli Knesset member Binyamin Netanyahu claims Iran is 3-5 years away from having nuclear weapons. However Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres says that Iran was set to have nuclear weapons by 1999, or 7 years later.

1998: Former (and future) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warns Congress of the likelihood that Iran will have ICBMs within 5 years.

^ +1
Fool me once, shame on... shame on you... fool me 19 times..........................................................................................................................................................................................

Ya get fooled, ya cain't get fooled agin'!

Anyone who still takes these perpetual claims seriously about Iran having a nuclear weapon by next Tuesday is an idiot.

"try... living off social security"
That's rich, coming from somebody who thinks that the government shouldn't be touching money.

I'm sorry but this OP reeks of 13-year-old.

Goldfinger & Frank,

I pity the brainwashed intelligencia who throw out the "C" word every time someone who won't swallow the blue pill points out the elephant in the room. You two obviously understand the game, but you're unwilling, or incapable, of looking BEHIND the game because you're so enthrall by its machinations.

If I'm a conspiracy theorist, y'all are coincidence theorists -- everything just happens, nobody, and certainly NOT governments nor banks, EVER collude and conspire to bring about an agenda. Is there is a greater level of delusion?!?

I think Obama is a good man but a poor politician as opposed to someone like Clinton who was a great politician but a lousy person.
Now he has been re-elected he needs to man-up, things need to get done.

He's actually a good man/father/husband (by all appearances), and a brilliant politician (he can push through his agenda...he accomplished health care reform - a seemingly impossible task, after all). His problem is that "Politician" does not equal "Governor" -- and he's a *lousy* governor, in that he has done little to nothing to solve the nations problems, i.e. primarily fiscal issues (which are skyrocketing out of control) but also foreign policy, etc.

We'll survive him as we survive all bad Presidents...but we will be worse for it, with more people suffering, and a significant loss of global prestige (which, basically, was his *stated* plan before he was elected the first time. Check the record...it's *IN* his speeches and interviews if you can find them...he *wanted* to knock the US down a notch or two!)

Tolstoy - a few quick things in response to your post.

I said 1980s not completely arbitrarily. The 1980s began a series of banking reforms that fundamentally changed how our financial system operated. The last of these deregulating laws was passed in the late 1990s, allowing commercial banks to dabble in investment banking. You're talking about massive differences in the levels of risk the average citizen with a savings account faced.

There are differences between panics, recessions, and depressions. I forget the exact number, but I believe a recession is a quarter of negative GDP growth, and a depression is three consecutive quarters of negative growth. Again, not entirely sure on the length for those. A panic, meanwhile, usually refers to bank runs, financial crises, etc. One certainly can lead to another, but they are not synonymous. Before the Federal Reserve Act, there was a panic a decade. Since then? Two banking crises over almost 100 years. That would be an improvement in my books.

And the saver vs borrower argument is a common - and valid - argument against inflation. However, if inflation were left to happen naturally, I think economic activity would slow, due to uncertainty. Loans, bonds, and other most other financial instruments use predicted future inflation in the calculation of their returns or interest rates. The Fed guarantees that these are fairly stable over time. If they weren't, the cost of conducting transactions would increase.

Even without that point, you are neglecting the fact that the saver (the retiree) can easily avoid this problem by investing money in something safe (such as a bond) that is inflation indexed, so it will always return a certain % above inflation, leaving his income steady. But the social security bit is again really a government problem, not the Fed's.