This is not understandable by me. Even if I were to try to make sense of this, I don't know how this relates to the Fed forgiving the Treasury's debt.

Also, Fed is an initialism not an acronym, and need not be in all-caps.

Video: Ron Paul on Yahoo Finance 7/18/11

Video: STAR TREK: The Search for Ron Paul



Ron Paul's latest money bomb fundraising day is today, July 19th.



Visit www.readyforames.com to donate and listen to the radio show.

what I'm trying to say is that if the Federal Reserve forgives the treasury debt, then the Federal Reserve has one less asset, and would be less able to print money. to be honest though, I don't understand the ins-and-outs of this either. also, I find contemporary use of english inhibiting and unapologetically ignore it as you can tell.

according to the article alluded to the Treasury issues bonds, the Federal Reserve buys some of them, fractional reserves off of it to the lower banks, turns a profit, and pays money back to the Treasury for selling the asset to them in the first place. this process would be called monetizing the debt. there's no real way to know exactly what is going on though without an audit of the Federal Reserve. I'd be very interested to know who the Federal Reserve has been handing money out to, and so would most people I imagine. auditing the Federal Reserve is such a sensible precaution, especially when you're talking about trillions of dollars, it stinks that audits get stonewalled and information is kept out of the hands of the people in what was supposed to be framed as a participatory government.

add: I strongly suspect that transparency is not forthcoming because the debt is being monetized.

BAM! Just donated!!!


Saw my name up on the website. So awesome. Got a screenshot of it but not gonna post it for obvious reasons.







everyone else GOGOGOGOGOGOGOGO on this money bomb!


GOGOGOGOGO!!!!!

BAM! AND just bought a shirt!


I'm gonna be doing something next week and I want everyone to join me. Stay tuned for my post!!!!

It depends?

I get it; the world is grey and mysterious and there's no way to know how much the dollar has been devalued by. (Just listen to the overlords, etc.)

So I wonder what you mean by:
Or how you're so sure RP's 50% statement is stupid.

What's a range of dollar devaluation that would be reasonable?

I was talking about toy problems... of course real inflation rates cannot be proved but can only be justified based on calculations. RP's statement is stupid because the dollars value is not a function of the price of gold alone. I do not think he calculated the 50% number based on anything else because I have seen no evidence that he has the basic skills to do that. What the actual inflation rate is doesn't matter unless you first agree on all of this.

Max Raker- you are the one itt that said economics is a hard science, and you can't come up with a figure or even a range that is 'acceptable' to you. it's clear by now that you have no idea what you're talking about and are way out of your league, and by now everyone's caught on to your MO, all bark and no bite. so give us a function, or stfu.

He didn't say it was, afaik.

I think maybe he cheated and just looked at the amount of dollars.

OK I agree -- the dollar's value is not a function of the price of gold alone, and Ron Paul lacks basic math skills or whatever. Now what's a reasonable rate?

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...flation-rates/

Took like 3 seconds on google. But as Sholar alluded to, basic concepts like inflation, value etc are not going to be familiar to you so giving magnitudes to ideas you don't understand won't really help much.

He actually said economics "was hard", i.e. difficult. Pretty good proof of that statement scattered throughout this thread.

pretty high levels of condecension for someone who doesn't discriminate a difference between price inflation and monetary inflation, especially in terms of a monetary policy debate.

max, how would you answer the statement posed to the Australian economists i posted?

"Inflation is caused primarily by a growth in the money supply"

you are correct, I misread that

And I remember the days when I was quoting your posts calling out your distorted views and rampant Obama fanboyism....what a change some years can make haha.

I would have prob put agree... depends on how nitty you want to get with "primarily".

Ron Paul is being interviewed live now.

www.readyforames.com/
Click Listen Live at the top right of the site.

good article (might be video too? idk) by the good doctor on cut cap & balance:
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...oor-statements

lol that's pretty funny if true.

imo

I was actually surprised Bernake didn't call Paul out on the silly estimate.... but he's probably had these conversations before and has just given up.

bad read imo

This doesn't make sense. The Federal Reserve tells the Treasury how much money to print.

But I won't belabor the point. If someone who thinks they understand Paul's position on the matter wants to explain how it makes sense, I'm game, but otherwise, this isn't so relevant to this thread.

Since you have stipulated in this forum many times that you are a mathematical genius and that RP is a tard your going to need to give the "right answer" or stfu.


I'm just catching up so if you have already done this then I apologize.