Straight Light
Bad New Year Wish For America: Abolish Federal Reserve And What -- Back To The Cave?
Edwin SumcadIs the Federal Reserve the cause of our troubles yesterday, today and tomorrow? Let’s find out. The time for a year-end accounting has come. We either do it with grace or disgrace.
The free-market will discover their the Fed's true value very quickly.
Are you on the payroll of the Bush administration? The Iraq war was an illegal war that against an "enemy" that had no threat to the United States. You sir, are a moron and no defender of our country.
He makes me feel good! LOLOL
A grain of salt.
Your comments on Sumcad's editorial interest me. Ernest, if by "Fed's monopoly on money" you mean control of the Q in the Fisher Equation, then you are right. Fed performs a badly needed governmental function. If private entities are free to barter value for value for as long as they want, monopoly results causing economic inequities. Fed regulates. Even Adam Smith suggests a form of control when corporations cabal to increase prices out of greed and destroy the free market system.
The comment of annonymouscitizen is too personal. Minds bankrupt of argument throw stones from the gutter at the messenger, not the message. Iraq war was approved by Congress. Right after 9/11 75%-95% of surveyed population endorsed the invasion of Iraq. It later on became unpopular. But it does not mean it was "illegal". When the enemy starts a war by launching a surprise invasion of our shores, do you call that an "illegal war"? I don't think you understand what "illegal war" means. There is no such thing, buddy. Ask a lawyer to enlighten you. I wonder in a life time how many times an emotionally disturbed activist could led a lynching crowd out of ignorance.
Brock, Sumcad, the author, is popular and his name is in Yahoo and in almost every website in the Internet. You seem to be a rabid follower of Ron Paul that shoots first before asking questions. If you surf the Internet, you will know that the author published an editorial in the American Chronicle touching on the "oddities" of Paul as a nuisance candidate for president. It is in public's interest to expose candidates people will vote. For example, he disagrees with Paul that 911 was NOT the fault of Al Qaeda terrorists but of the American people. In his article, the author found that rather "odd". Nothing wrong with that. But it hurt the candidacy of the Congressman from Texas, and a bunch of campaigners ganged up on American Chronicle to remove the article. It was at the time when a new leftist editorial staff has taken over AC. Conservative views were banned. They removed all Sumcad's articles that hit the highest marks in readership nationwide and worldwide, and in addition, libeled him to discredit his influence on the reading public.
American Chronicle allows authors to publish personal attack articles so long as these are written by leftist and radical writers as part of its political agenda. Sumcad, a lawyer, warned AC of a civil suit if management and editors will not remove hate-propelled libelous articles, and AC complied. All of these can be read in the article
"AmChronicle Truncates Piece, Eludes Suit" [click here Cached or click the author's name or the title of the article in Yahoo].
nominal interest rate = real interest rate + inflation
written: i = r + pi
The "Q" in the quantity theory equation is production, or more precisely, the produce consumed in a given time period. "M" is the quantity of money.
MV = PQ where:
M = money
V = monetary velocity
P = price level
Q = production consumed (generally GDP is used)
Remind me later to comment on the value of Mr. Sumcad. First I hope you all will continue the discussion.
This guy is sure some cad for belching the Machaivellian fascist-socialist lines.
Sign me I.P. Freely
Brock, your little knowledge on this esoteric subject is dangerous. To complement your little knowledge on this, I want you to know that MV=PQ I cited is the equation in the Quantity Theory of Money of which the key determinant is Ag. D. [Aggregate Demand].
The Fisher Equation is MV=PT. Do you understand what this expression means? M= Stock of money; V= is Income Velocity or Circulation of money; P= Average Price Level, and T= Measure of Flow of Goods and Services, i.e. the real flow of income.
Do you understand how this works? This is an established identity. The left side and the right side are equal by definition. You have measurement of total value of transactions over time MV. PT measures the total money value of goods sold. Fisher holds T and V constant [the subject of the critical dissertation I wrote in graduate school] which I concluded that it is only for the SHORT RUN. These features only change slowly over time. This being the case, in determining the stock of money [M], monetary economists rewrite the identity to M=T/V.P, which implies that that because T/V is a constant, changes in the stock of money are associated with proportionate changes in the price level. This relative relationship is the core of the Quantity Theory of Money.
From this core of the Fisher Equation, you can advance to MV=PQ equation where PQ is [PxQ] = total spending using a collateral equation of PQ=VxM. Remember, I advanced too far ahead of you. You are still at the fundamental MV=PT of the equation which I don't think you understand what it is either.
Ag.D. is the key determinant when you use the identity MV=PQ, which I don't think you understand either. If you understand this, it will bring you to the popular Harrod Domar model of growth measurement or to the Cobb-Douglas Function that does the same thing.
I read Sumcad's biodata which several websites published. I understand that he had an advance study in fiscal and monetary economics under the auspices of the UN-ILO-World Bank and as a development economist had served as deputy permanent representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific for more than a decade. He must be laughing at you by now. I doubt if he will waste his time to anyone who would lead a lynching crowd out of ignorance. I don't know about you, but this rather cryptic side of economics is our bread and butter.
By the way, in case you have a hard time locating "AmChronicle Truncates Piece, Eludes Suit" written by Sumcad, click on
Truncate [or at the "Cached" of the Conservative Voice if you print edwin sumcad in the Yahoo search engine which will bring you to the article].
You my friend, are out of your mind. The FED is totally responsible for this mess, as they control everyone and everything with their monetary policies. Even Greenspan finally bellied up to the bar acknowledging " I made a mistake" What was that mistake?" Deregulation and beliving the banks would police themselves. The FED runs the best Ponzi scheme ever devised, get real and do some real research. Or are you in their pocket as well. We need sound money, not green toilet paper!
We can disgust this issue well without casting aspersions or slanderous remark on the discussants. I appeal to freedomsphoenix.com steward Ernest to do something on this concern of mine. If commentators on this fine piece of published editorial written by author Sumcad are bankrupt of rational arguments and civil behavior because what they only have is an expertise in making defamatory comments, I will end my participation and retreat from this low down free for all mudslinging which apparently you are enjoying.
My respond to you Mr. Gardner is not to write down like you did, what I think of you. I will refrain from giving you a stomach crump. Besides, that's too far away from where I am now, and from what I have reached in education. In the academe, I taught students mental discipline. You cannot do that unless you mastered self-discipline yourself. I like the way Ernest made his comment … let's model this please, in this discussion.
In your comment, Mr. Gardner, I noticed that "Deregulation and beliving [sic] the banks would police themselves" is precisely my argument why we need regulatory guidelines or control which the Fed [interventionist] represents. Did they police themselves out there? Obviously not, hence the playing field is messy.
If you arrange your thoughts in order, it will spare your comment of obvious contradictions. Long time ago when I was young and rush, I also fell for this error. But years of experience make people mellow and mature, and more precise. Please don't get offended by this, but if it offends you, my apology. I always speak from my heart.
Your other comment that "The FED is totally responsible for this mess, as they [sic] control everyone and everything with their monetary policies" lacks a better understanding of what the Fed does. The Fed did not cause it, its role is to fix it. Just like what the opponents said that the Fed caused the dreaded inflation and stagflation of the 1970s. OPEC caused it, and our economy like that of the rest of the world, went loco. The Fed fixed it, in terms of monetary and fiscal policy measures taken to alleviate the problem. That's the role of the Fed in central banking. Greenspan was just the shell of a large team that works intricately with the Office of the President and Congress. It is hard to understand this if you are not exposed to the structural functions of the United States Federal Reserve.
Author Sumcad was right, greed of the Main Street and lack of fiscal discipline in the Wall Street caused this problem. Surf the Web and you will find this brilliant analysis at http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/736/2/ subtopic: What Caused This Problem: Greed And Lack Of Fiscal Discipline.
I HAVE to get a piece of this...
Ok Lolo - I'm a typical American Numnutz that hasn't been to a fancy 'academe' - please answer me ONE question.
HOW MUCH (in round 'dollar' figures, please) wealth has been (taken? stolen? appropriated? not sure of the exact word to use) from THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, since December of 1913 when THE POWER TO COIN AND PRINT MONEY was UNCONSTITUTIONALLY handed to a PRIVATE CORPORATION known as 'The Fed'!?!
Please don't throw a bunch of terms I don't understand being the hillbillie rube I am with my Bible in one hand and my gun in the other - just give me a NUMBER...
So that these are not all imagined, prove to all and sundry that [1] wealth was stolen … what wealth, and in what form, and how much? And when was it stolen? [2] who declared unconstitutional the power to coin and print money that was handed to the Fed?
If you cannot answer these, then you must be saying all of these out of anger, judging from the pride of holding a gun as if with a gun, that which is imagined or false can coerce people into believing that these are true. No way.