Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Investing In Inflation
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 85 (485508)
10-09-2008 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Chiroptera
10-08-2008 5:33 PM


Re: Time To Buy Stocks?
Chiroptera writes:
Actually, I'm thinking that this is now the time to get into stocks, now that they have dropped so much. Buy low, then sell high, and all that.
I agree, but not before careful research and keeping in mind that the bottom may be down the road a spell. I would say, perhaps, begin to accumulate sound companies with good price/earnings ratio.
Perhaps call options on sound companies would be a relative safe strategy at this time so as to limit loss to the price of the option and so as to maximize the amount of gain in the event of a rebound by controlling a large block of a given stock.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Chiroptera, posted 10-08-2008 5:33 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 17 of 85 (485516)
10-09-2008 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
10-08-2008 8:46 PM


Re: Parsing Slipping Points
do you not understand what nationally means? Your sentence "it's not going to happen nationally" is non-sensical. There aren't individual parts of the country that can go onto the gold standard, because that would require them to have a separate currency, which they do not have the power to do.
So if the US goes back to gold, it will happen nationally. It can't be adopted in some states and not others. If we don't go back, then it won't happen nationally, but it also won't happen by state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 10-08-2008 8:46 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2008 9:25 AM kuresu has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 18 of 85 (485520)
10-09-2008 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
10-08-2008 9:07 PM


Re: Creation Of Money
quote:
...on Christmas eve, 1913 after most had left...
After most of whom had left what?
quote:
...ignored the Constitution...
Oh, this will be good. Pray tell, what provision of the Constitution did the Federal Reserve Act violate?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 10-08-2008 9:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2008 11:14 PM subbie has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 85 (485527)
10-09-2008 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
10-09-2008 12:12 AM


Re: Creation Of Money
Why then did the nation function quite efficiently as pre-eminent leader during the Industrial Revolution for 137 years before the Federal Reserve Act was signed?
Are you suggesting that America prospered as a result of economic panics (such as the one in 1837) rather than despite them?
That's what's nice about the gold standard, in that fluctuation in the currency value was not a major problem. Foundational precious metal limited the expansion and contraction of currency so as to keep economic conditions relatively stable.
And yet they didn't keep economic conditions relatively stable, as history shows. (The Long Depression and The Great Depression versus the Gilded Age and the Roaring 20s)
OTOH when private interests are placed in charge, the tendency is for private interests to enrich and empower themselves, as appears to be what happens.
I thought you hated socialism? Besides, when we put these things into the hands of politicians then the tendency is for their personal political interests to dictate their actions rather than the betterment of the people. This argument was had in the early 20th century, and it was decided to make it Quasi-governmental and demi-private.
Keep it simple.
If the US kept it simple, it wouldn't be a the financial powerhouse it is. If we keep the economy simple, the US would be broke and unable to spend anything right now. Who manages it, and how, and why, and the rules in place are going to be necessarily complex.
I'm not saying the system you guys have is the best, but it's hardly what you are trying to portray it as. If we want to stop the rich, private folk from making a lot of money from the system at the expense of everyone else then the thing to do is to regulate things via the government.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2008 12:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 85 (485529)
10-09-2008 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by kuresu
10-09-2008 5:44 AM


Re: Parsing Slipping Points
Nationally can be applied relatively to globally or applied to being relative to states. My usage clearly was relatively to globally as I have taken the time to reiterate.
Are you here to harass or are you here to contribute constructive dialog?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2008 5:44 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2008 10:35 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 21 of 85 (485533)
10-09-2008 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
10-09-2008 9:25 AM


Re: Parsing Slipping Points
Are you kidding? Nationally can be applied globally? Is your brain that far removed from your senses?
There is not one single definition or usage of nationally that can mean globally. Nation, at its core, is inherently anti-global if you understand anything about national movements. You know, primacy of the ethnic group? Exclusivism?
To be fair, global necessarily includes multiple nations, but acts common between them (such as the recent interest rate cut between Canada, chunks of Europe, and the US) are global acts.
You know, you couldn't define straight. Now you can't define nation either. Quit while you're behind buz. It'll stop making you look ignorant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2008 9:25 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2008 11:21 AM kuresu has replied
 Message 25 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2008 9:02 PM kuresu has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 85 (485540)
10-09-2008 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by kuresu
10-09-2008 10:35 AM


Re: Parsing Slipping Points
Are you kidding? Nationally can be applied globally?
He said relative to globally. As in: "rather than" globally
He isn't saying that when he wrote "nationally" that he meant "globally".
quote:
I'm not advocating a return to the gold standard as it is not going to happen nationally. However the possibility of a global monetary system....
He seems to be saying the return to the gold standard won't happen nationally as opposed to globally, as in, one nation isn't going to do it.
You know, you couldn't define straight. Now you can't define nation either. Quit while you're behind buz. It'll stop making you look ignorant.
You're just making yourself look like an ass.
You're trying too hard to find a way for him to be wrong instead of trying to understand what he is actually saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2008 10:35 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2008 11:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 23 of 85 (485549)
10-09-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
10-09-2008 11:21 AM


Re: Parsing Slipping Points
He seems to be saying the return to the gold standard won't happen nationally as opposed to globally, as in, one nation isn't going to do it
You're going to have to explain that further. Let me see if I get this straight. What buz means is this: the return to the gold standard will happen globally.
Oh, I already got that. He chose to make his point in as murky a manner possible. That's what I was pointing out. There's being obtuse and then there's using words wrong.
You're trying too hard to find a way for him to be wrong instead of trying to understand what he is actually saying.
I understand what he's saying. I don't think he does. I don't think he understands the entire point of my first post. I'm not sure you do. It's important to understand what people are writing. When people make it unecessarily obtuse, dense, or just plain wrong it's dangerous (if intentional) or a symptom of ignorance. I don't think buz was intentionally trying to confuse his sentence so I chalk it up to ignorance of how English is used.
It's just like using "constipation" for "consternation".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2008 11:21 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2008 12:14 PM kuresu has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 85 (485551)
10-09-2008 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by kuresu
10-09-2008 11:59 AM


Re: Parsing Slipping Points
He chose to make his point in as murky a manner possible.
You don't know his intentions. He later clarified what he was saying so I think it was accidental poor word choice.
I don't think he understands the entire point of my first post. I'm not sure you do.
Sure I do.
You misread his use of "nationally" to mean "as opposed to an individual state" when he meant "as opposed to globally".
All this now...
quote:
just shows your inability to understand you said something wrong
You can have the last word. I won't respond off topic in this thread again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2008 11:59 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 85 (485591)
10-09-2008 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by kuresu
10-09-2008 10:35 AM


Re: Parsing Slipping Points
Duh. Not national but perhaps globally. Nothing to do with states in my message in question. I was relating nationally to globally and not relating it to states in my message. Get it? Kuresu, if you don't get it, bloviate on to yourself but this is not the free for all. I've got other things to do.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by kuresu, posted 10-09-2008 10:35 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 85 (485596)
10-09-2008 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by subbie
10-09-2008 7:55 AM


Re: Creation Of Money
subbie writes:
After most of whom had left what?
Oh, this will be good. Pray tell, what provision of the Constitution did the Federal Reserve Act violate?
Answer to Subbie's questions:
In December 1913 while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and was later signed by President Wilson. At a later date, Wilson admitted with remorse, when referring to the “Fed” . . “I have unwittingly ruined my country”
We didn’t have nor did we need an income tax until we got the bankers. The income tax was only needed to pay interest to the bankers for our money that they loan to our government. Yes, you read that right, the Fed, mostly on paper and computer, creates money or pays the treasury a small printing fee for currency, and then loans this money to our government. Our taxes pay them interest on this loan that cost the FEDS virtually nothing to make, what a sweetheart of a deal they have going for them.
As of March 6, 2006, the national debt stands at 8.2 trillion dollars. The American taxpayers have paid the FED banking system $173,875,979,369 [that's billions] in interest on that debt in just five short months, from October, 2005, through February, 2006. No con artist or group of con artists in history has ever perpetrated a scam that even approaches the scope of this one.
/

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by subbie, posted 10-09-2008 7:55 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Modulous, posted 10-10-2008 3:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 10-10-2008 5:33 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 85 (485634)
10-10-2008 8:54 AM


Commodity Options
One strategy for cashing in on a possible rebound in stocks is to buy S&P future calls on the commodity market. You can buy them for the short term or long term. Like other commodities, you can control large blocks of stocks, again, limiting possible loss to the cost of the option. Also you can buy calls on stocks you sell so if the stock rebounds after you sell you can redeem some, all or even more than you lost when you sold. Adversely you can buy stocks and hold puts on the ones you buy.
Had folks kept some relatively cheap out of the market future puts on the stocks they held or on the S&P index, they would have protected themselves from loss from the crash.
This strategy would likely be more for folks holding a lot of stocks or mutual funds etc related to the market.
As well, options have always been available on currency, like puts on the $$ would protect from inflation of the $$. I'm not sure, but there may be a ban in place on shorting the $$ at this time.
This is also another strategy for getting into the precious metals market without buying the metals themselves. One can buy gold or silver calls which may offset further stock losses.
Be advised that I'm not advising anyone to get into the commodity market without previous study and professional advice, especially when buying the futures themselves rather than options where loss is limited.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Phat, posted 10-11-2008 2:29 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 28 of 85 (485675)
10-10-2008 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
10-09-2008 11:14 PM


Re: Creation Of Money
In December 1913 while many members of Congress were home for Christmas, the Federal Reserve Act was rammed through Congress and was later signed by President Wilson.
This statement is devoid of facts. Since I assume that you have checked the statement's veracity you can clear it up a little.
How many members of Congress were absent?
How many voted yea or nea?
If all of those that voted against, would it have failed to pass?
What does rammed through mean? Are you suggesting that there was little or no chance to debate the Aldich-Vreeland Bill, or the Glass-Owen Bill?
We didn’t have nor did we need an income tax until we got the bankers.
That doesn't sound right at all. Wasn't there an income tax during the Civil War? Wasn't there income tax during the 1890s? I'm assuming 'bankers' means the Fed: we had bankers long before any 'income tax' as we know it today and we had taxes long before we had bankers.
The income tax was only needed to pay interest to the bankers for our money that they loan to our government. Yes, you read that right, the Fed, mostly on paper and computer, creates money or pays the treasury a small printing fee for currency, and then loans this money to our government
Are you suggesting that the only usage for income tax when it was introduced again in 1913 was to pay interest? The Fed has to create money, inflation is essential to the economy. The government needs to loan its money from somewhere and someone will have pay interest on any of those loans as long as inflation exists.
As of March 6, 2006, the national debt stands at 8.2 trillion dollars. The American taxpayers have paid the FED banking system $173,875,979,369 [that's billions] in interest on that debt in just five short months, from October, 2005, through February, 2006.
If you think your government is borrowing too much, perhaps you should direct your ire at the administrations that have borrowed the money, not the institutions that they loaned it from?
. The American taxpayers have paid the FED banking system $173,875,979,369 [that's billions] in interest on that debt in just five short months, from October, 2005, through February, 2006.
Then the American taxpayers should stop borrowing so much money from the Federal Reserve bank via their representatives, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2008 11:14 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 29 of 85 (485691)
10-10-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Buzsaw
10-09-2008 11:14 PM


Re: Creation Of Money
You really don't have any critical thinking skills, do you?
This is from Wiki:
After months of hearings, debates, votes and amendments, the proposed legislation, with 30 sections, was enacted as the Federal Reserve Act. The House, on December 22, 1913, agreed to the conference report on the Federal Reserve Act by a vote of 298 yeas to 60 nays with 76 not voting. The Senate, on December 23, 1913, agreed to it by a vote of 43 yeas to 25 nays with 27 not voting. The record shows that there were no Democrats voting "nay" in the Senate and only two in the House. The record also shows that almost all of those not voting on the bill had previously declared their intentions and were paired with members of opposite intentions (See v. 51 Cong. Record, pages 1464, 1487-88)
Given that Wiki cites the Congressional Record as a source, and the nutjob who writes Elliot Lake News cites no source, I'm inclined to put more credence in Wiki on this one.
Thus, you were simply wrong when you said "most" had left. In addition, the claim that the Act was rammed through Congress is inconsistent with the facts, and the claim from Elliot Lake News that "many" had left is shown to be irrelevant to the passage of the Act.
I notice that you ignored my question about what makes you think the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional.
I'll take a second to response to some of the other tinfoil hat nonsense in your excerpt.
From How Stuff Works:
How does the Fed support itself?
In order to remain independent of the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve totally supports itself. It generates its income for the most part from interest. This interest comes from many sources, including:
* Government securities that it acquires through open market operations
* Foreign currency investments
* Bank/depository institution loans that the Fed makes using the discount rate
The Fed is also paid fees for services it provides such as funds transfers (Fedwire), check processing, and automated clearinghouse (ACH) operations. (ACH options are electronic alternatives to the paper-based check system. Examples include automatic payroll deposits and electronic bill paying.)
Any money the Fed has left over after it pays all of its expenses are sent to the U.S. Treasury. Since the Federal Reserve System began in 1914, about 95 percent of the Reserve Banks' net earnings have ended up being paid into the Treasury.
Information about the income and expenses of the Federal Reserve Board can be found in the Board of Governor's Annual Report.
My emphasis.
Thus, the suggestion that the Fed is scamming the country and making millions, billions or trillions of dollars from it is wrong.
In addition, I've been unable to locate any credible source for the quote from Wilson. It certainly doesn't sound like anything that any former President would say, so I'm skeptical, but can't rule out the possibility that he did say it.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 10-09-2008 11:14 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2008 9:45 PM subbie has replied
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2008 10:24 PM subbie has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 85 (485717)
10-10-2008 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by subbie
10-10-2008 5:33 PM


How The Unconstitutional Federal Reserve Swindles The Folks
The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional. I highly recommend a read of the whole page here which walks you through precisely how central bank systems empower the few bankers and impoverish the folks. By their power to raise and lower interest rates they position themselves to control the economy for their own profit, being in the insider position to prepare for the ups and downs of the markets and cash in.
I guarantee that you will be enlightened by a reading of this page if you're not aware of how the Fed Reserve which is private bankers gets rich. This is what enriched the Rockefellers, the Rothchilds and the Warburgs etc at the expense of the folks.
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.
Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.
Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
This UTube clip is also good.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by subbie, posted 10-10-2008 5:33 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by subbie, posted 10-10-2008 10:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024