June 20th, 2009
The Federal Government should be in control of America’s money supply; not a banking ‘cartel.’ The Federal Reserve System is not a government agency, regardless of its name and appearance. Does anyone hear these words? After all, if the Federal Reserve System knew what it was doing, it is unlikely that the nation would be in such an undesirable economic position as it is currently. The Federal Reserve System has been in existence (in some capacity) for an excess of ninety-five years. How many years should the Fed be allowed practice its theories at the expense of our economic well being? Has much of the recent currency and deficit ‘jockeying’ (e.g. bail-outs, stimulus plans, etc.) been merely a plan to keep the Fed in business and to assure a continued and on-going market for American debt at the expense of the American citizen? The Federal Reserve System appears veiled in secrecy and apparently claims absolutely no fiduciary responsibility to anyone other than itself. As such, does the Fed seem like the proper entity to run our nation’s economy? Your comments in response are welcome.
AVT
PS. To be clear, I understand the peril the sentiment of this particular blog could invoke. It would seem to be between a banker and his money is not a safe place for anyone to find oneself. To verify such a statement, one would only likely need to ask the last two major populist politicians who did attempt to obstruct the bankers from the nation’s money supply: John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
U.S. Credit Rating Has Been (or is being) Downgraded?
6/16/2009.
U.S. credit rating has been (or is being) downgraded? Wha....???
Who do you suppose the U.S. Taxpayer may have to blame for such an occurrence? Notwithstanding the general inability of the U.S. public to maintain any significant, historically typical levels of personal savings; who would be in control of such assets that would allow for the legitimization any down-grading of our nation’s international credit lines (and, additionally, the devaluing of our currency)? Do you suppose those individuals and entities (who control such assets and who may have ultimately allowed for any down-grading of our nation’s international credit line) need to worry about any minimal levels of their personal savings? Not very likely, I would surmise. Concerning the matter of our nation’s financial health, it would appear that the ‘fox has been left to guard the hen house’ (so to speak) for too long.
U.S. credit rating has been (or is being) downgraded? Wha....???
Who do you suppose the U.S. Taxpayer may have to blame for such an occurrence? Notwithstanding the general inability of the U.S. public to maintain any significant, historically typical levels of personal savings; who would be in control of such assets that would allow for the legitimization any down-grading of our nation’s international credit lines (and, additionally, the devaluing of our currency)? Do you suppose those individuals and entities (who control such assets and who may have ultimately allowed for any down-grading of our nation’s international credit line) need to worry about any minimal levels of their personal savings? Not very likely, I would surmise. Concerning the matter of our nation’s financial health, it would appear that the ‘fox has been left to guard the hen house’ (so to speak) for too long.
Another Boston Tea Party?
6/15/2009.
I wonder, is the time nearly at hand for yet another nationwide ‘Boston Tea Party’ type of tax protest? I trust asking such a question or relaying such a satirical sentiment has not become an infraction of any ‘legal’ statute. Of course, given the current course of events over recent times, we may not need to fear any taxes on our ‘vices,’ as such ‘vices’ may soon be illegal – thereby seemingly following the path of the ‘right to speak freely’ into the state of bygone cultural relics.
I wonder, is the time nearly at hand for yet another nationwide ‘Boston Tea Party’ type of tax protest? I trust asking such a question or relaying such a satirical sentiment has not become an infraction of any ‘legal’ statute. Of course, given the current course of events over recent times, we may not need to fear any taxes on our ‘vices,’ as such ‘vices’ may soon be illegal – thereby seemingly following the path of the ‘right to speak freely’ into the state of bygone cultural relics.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke Testimony. U.S. Liquidity Trap & Crowding Out of Private Investors
Feb. 10th, 2009.
In response to today’s topics and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke’s testimony before U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.
Did Fed Chairman Bernanke testify or imply between the lines that the Fed would guarantee a flat Liquidity and Money curve to prevent the crowding-out of private investments that would otherwise likely be caused by the latest massive government-backed stimulus bill (/spending bill/TARP2 bill/TARP3 bill ...)? Of course, crowding-out limits the effectiveness of fiscal policy and is caused by excessive government expenditures – per any textbook on the subject of macroeconomics and the IS/LM economic model. However, crowding out is supposedly negated by maintaining low interest rates. (See any economics book on Investment and Saving / Liquidity and Money curves and economic modeling.)
And also possibly stated between Bernanke’s lines, are we now in a liquidity trap (as we similarly/supposedly were in the 1930’s)? A liquidity trap supposedly happens when interest rates are so low that the interest rates can do nothing but increase or rise. What does the textbook say to do in such a situation as a liquidity trap? In theory to remedy a liquidity trap, one is told to THROW LOTS OF MONEY AT THE ECONOMY.
Does this sound like a possible synopsis of the current U.S. economy?
Should the average American support such a ‘stimulus bill’ as the preferred and only policy for the nation to climb out of any possible current liquidity trap? Doubtful. Forgive me, but I will not say why such is probably not a good idea, as I dont want to offend anyone with this blog. Ask me why if you wish and I may tell you, or, you could wait for my anticipated [journal] paper relevant to the topic.
But, obviously, the bureaucrats are not the best at marketing and selling their economic plans to the public. Why is that, you might ask? This is most likely so because most of us no longer trust the average politician to act in our best interests or to act in the best interest of the nation. Forgive my candor, if you would be so kind. Please pass along your comments to the issues herein.
AVT
In response to today’s topics and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke’s testimony before U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee.
Did Fed Chairman Bernanke testify or imply between the lines that the Fed would guarantee a flat Liquidity and Money curve to prevent the crowding-out of private investments that would otherwise likely be caused by the latest massive government-backed stimulus bill (/spending bill/TARP2 bill/TARP3 bill ...)? Of course, crowding-out limits the effectiveness of fiscal policy and is caused by excessive government expenditures – per any textbook on the subject of macroeconomics and the IS/LM economic model. However, crowding out is supposedly negated by maintaining low interest rates. (See any economics book on Investment and Saving / Liquidity and Money curves and economic modeling.)
And also possibly stated between Bernanke’s lines, are we now in a liquidity trap (as we similarly/supposedly were in the 1930’s)? A liquidity trap supposedly happens when interest rates are so low that the interest rates can do nothing but increase or rise. What does the textbook say to do in such a situation as a liquidity trap? In theory to remedy a liquidity trap, one is told to THROW LOTS OF MONEY AT THE ECONOMY.
Does this sound like a possible synopsis of the current U.S. economy?
Should the average American support such a ‘stimulus bill’ as the preferred and only policy for the nation to climb out of any possible current liquidity trap? Doubtful. Forgive me, but I will not say why such is probably not a good idea, as I dont want to offend anyone with this blog. Ask me why if you wish and I may tell you, or, you could wait for my anticipated [journal] paper relevant to the topic.
But, obviously, the bureaucrats are not the best at marketing and selling their economic plans to the public. Why is that, you might ask? This is most likely so because most of us no longer trust the average politician to act in our best interests or to act in the best interest of the nation. Forgive my candor, if you would be so kind. Please pass along your comments to the issues herein.
AVT
Congressman Meeks, Re: Liquidity Facilities for States and Municipalities from the Federal Reserve
Feb. 10th, 2009.
In response to the topics before House of Representatives Financial Services Committee meeting today with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke.
Congressman Gregory Meeks [6th District of New York],
While your questions that you posed today to Fed Chairman Bernanke for the Fed to provide “liquidity facilities to states and municipalities” to help those local governments with the current economic difficulties experienced by all is very commendable, please don’t entice the Fed to buy, or the local politicians to sell, more of our birthrights as Americans. Whether such applies to you or not, many of us are well aware of Congress’ propensity to continually and repeatedly sell our birthrights as Americans to the Federal Reserve System. Please don’t allow for the states and municipalities to also sell whatever birthrights we may still enjoy as residents/citizens of our respective states, cities, and townships across the nation. Because we are all aware, the Fed will not likely put forth any such requested funding or liquidity sources to states and municipalities of our nation without expecting some beneficial return for so doing - or such appears by that System's history. If I am not totally clear as to my wording concerning the repeated selling of our American birthright, please contact me so that I may further explain my choice of wording.
AVT
In response to the topics before House of Representatives Financial Services Committee meeting today with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke.
Congressman Gregory Meeks [6th District of New York],
While your questions that you posed today to Fed Chairman Bernanke for the Fed to provide “liquidity facilities to states and municipalities” to help those local governments with the current economic difficulties experienced by all is very commendable, please don’t entice the Fed to buy, or the local politicians to sell, more of our birthrights as Americans. Whether such applies to you or not, many of us are well aware of Congress’ propensity to continually and repeatedly sell our birthrights as Americans to the Federal Reserve System. Please don’t allow for the states and municipalities to also sell whatever birthrights we may still enjoy as residents/citizens of our respective states, cities, and townships across the nation. Because we are all aware, the Fed will not likely put forth any such requested funding or liquidity sources to states and municipalities of our nation without expecting some beneficial return for so doing - or such appears by that System's history. If I am not totally clear as to my wording concerning the repeated selling of our American birthright, please contact me so that I may further explain my choice of wording.
AVT
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Pennsylvania Governor Rendell - Video Poker Machines
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009.
Honorable Governor Rendell,
In response to your speech today before the Pennsylvania Legislature and as one that often visits Pennsylvania, I would request that you do not pursue your plan to install video poker gambling machines in places of business throughout your state as a method of revenue generation for your state government (or for any other stated reason). Please don’t misunderstand my rationale for this request, I am essentially a true libertarian and I believe that any American should be entitled to pursue nearly any happiness as long as such poses no danger to any other. However, video poker gambling machines (and the likes) would only seem to provide a means whereby more money would often be taken from those that most-likely need to save their money or likely taken from those that should spend on the necessities of life. Such a sentiment [the preference for consumer spending on goods and needs for the necessities of life] would be opposed to spending such monies on a long-shot and unlikely dream of an immediate jackpot pay-out offered by a video poker machine. I ask you, can you relate to such a sentiment as that which I put forth to you here? Do you not realize the temptation such an installed video poker gambling machine would pose to a down-trodden individual who was reduced to his/her last five dollars? It would appear that you care not of such a temptation posed to those who must make vital decisions concerning where to spend one’s last few dollars. To be clear, I admired your success as Mayor in the city of Philadelphia, however, I would request that you not place such greedy machines in venues whereby those machines would likely prey upon the hopes, dreams, and psyche of those most in need of a few extra dollars.
Thank you,
AVT
Honorable Governor Rendell,
In response to your speech today before the Pennsylvania Legislature and as one that often visits Pennsylvania, I would request that you do not pursue your plan to install video poker gambling machines in places of business throughout your state as a method of revenue generation for your state government (or for any other stated reason). Please don’t misunderstand my rationale for this request, I am essentially a true libertarian and I believe that any American should be entitled to pursue nearly any happiness as long as such poses no danger to any other. However, video poker gambling machines (and the likes) would only seem to provide a means whereby more money would often be taken from those that most-likely need to save their money or likely taken from those that should spend on the necessities of life. Such a sentiment [the preference for consumer spending on goods and needs for the necessities of life] would be opposed to spending such monies on a long-shot and unlikely dream of an immediate jackpot pay-out offered by a video poker machine. I ask you, can you relate to such a sentiment as that which I put forth to you here? Do you not realize the temptation such an installed video poker gambling machine would pose to a down-trodden individual who was reduced to his/her last five dollars? It would appear that you care not of such a temptation posed to those who must make vital decisions concerning where to spend one’s last few dollars. To be clear, I admired your success as Mayor in the city of Philadelphia, however, I would request that you not place such greedy machines in venues whereby those machines would likely prey upon the hopes, dreams, and psyche of those most in need of a few extra dollars.
Thank you,
AVT
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Amnesty International
Jan. 22, 2009
Earlier this evening, I had a nice chat with a representative of Amnesty International. Amnesty International appears as a worthwhile organization and should be given our support. Here is Amnesty International's website:
http://www.amnesty.org/
Earlier this evening, I had a nice chat with a representative of Amnesty International. Amnesty International appears as a worthwhile organization and should be given our support. Here is Amnesty International's website:
http://www.amnesty.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)