Testing The Financial Apologists

In ten seconds, nobody could even critique what he said.Someone else asked me why I should take youtube videos seriously rather than Barrons or the Wall Street Journal, which is a valid point. Quite frankly, I don't think that the likes of Jerome Powell and Janet Yellin are ignorant. I DO think that they are very aware that what they say publically itself could spook the markets and not be encouraging to investors. Thus, I think that the public hears very little of what is actually happening.Perhaps the question is "do the YouTubers have any real education or training in economics or investing? I think that you error on the side of skepticism,(1) you trust what the mainstream investment papers tell you(2) and you tend to see such competing narratives as wither con-artist(101) or the theories of Republicans(3).To b e fair, I am under the impression(illusion?) that Democrats are more likely to see things from a global perspective and are not as worried about Fiat money being backed by nothing except the faith of the people. You know as do I that the US Middle class will take the hit either way if a hit is forthcoming, but it seems to be nowhere near as bothersome for you and the rest of EvC.Even if a middle-class individual has to pay more and save less, you would still advocate not only being taxed more to help the lower middle class here in the United States but would even go so far as to help the global poor more aggressively. I'm not being heartless by questioning your logic for it is not (or should not be) an emotional no-brainer. It should be viewed practically.Are all of you prepared to have maybe as much as 25% of your wealth value wiped out?

So much of this just displays your utter ignorance on finance, financial markets and economics. I don't have time for showing your errors just for you to ignore what I post.
Good luck with your continued financial endeavors. Follow these yahoos. Go for it. Obviously, this fills your need as you struggle with religion.

An excellent example of that would be young-earth creationists. Especially when their audience knows even less than they do and has already bought into what he's selling.OTOH, if you do know something about evolution, science, and the creationist's claims, then creationists are very hard to listen to. Kent Hovind is a prime example of that.I'm sure it's the same with financial conmen.

Conspiracy theory. Yes, many of us are ignorant of the "alternative facts."

You either didn't read or didn't understand my message. I never had or expressed any intent of critiquing Gammon. I watched 10 seconds to get an idea of his style of presentation to see if maybe that's what has you captivated, and I think that must be it, because you're unable to actually describe his ideas yourself. Schiff affects you the same way.I have told you many times that I won't watch videos, barring some compelling reason. I have asked you many times to stop posting videos, to instead argue for your position in your own words.You should go back and reread my message, with better comprehension this time. Jerome Powell and Janel Yellin are probably extremely infrequent contributors to Barron's and the WSJ. Both those publications have many contributors with knowledge and insight of economics and financial matters. Read these publications. Don't watch Gammon or any other self-professed experts. You're way off. The actual problem is that you're a rube extraordinaire, a fat chicken just waiting to be plucked. Schiff is plucking you one little feather at a time, but you're at high risk of someone taking you for everything you've got. You keep saying this. People keep correcting you, but you just ignore it and keep on saying this and things like this. When it comes to matters financial you're a hayseed, a yokel, a bumpkin who refuses to learn anything. I can see that you're trying to translate something I said into terms you can understand, but I never advocated raising taxes. What I believe (and what I said) is that it is worthwhile spending money improving the situations of the poor and homeless, because then we as a society are richer because instead of being a drain the poor and homeless will have become jobholders and taxpayers and homeowners.You can't see this because to you it is a zero sum game where someone can only become richer by someone else becoming poorer. You feel threatened by efforts to improve the situations of the poor and homeless because you imagine that that can only happen if you become poorer.I doubt you understand any of this, but we do have to do something for the poor and homeless. Borrowing on a Lincoln quote, "This nation cannot endure, permanently, half rich and half poor." You're a selfish little bastard, aren't you, but why are you saying it this way? We don't tax wealth, and no one here is proposing we tax wealth. We tax income. For myself, I'd be willing to make financial sacrifices if it meant meaningful declines in poverty and homelessness. We are all better off when beggars living on the streets become productive members of society, when those living on the periphery enter the mainstream.--Percy

I will try and study what many sources say Fiat Money is and what it means. Of course I will
compare what I learn to what I already adopted from the many financial apologists (economists and wannabe economists) and investors which attempt to convince me of their wisdom.This is as you all requested in that it is either in my own words or in words which I see no reason to disagree with...from others. Fiat money system means that a currency is no longer backed by physical assets, such as gold or silver. This means that USD 100.00, JPY 1,000, or other currencies are not equal to a certain weight of gold. Instead, the value of each currency derives from the reputation of a national central bank and economic stability.
I believe that I understand the following facts:

The Western Fiat Money System is by necessity a debt-based monetary system.

Over 50% of all dollars were essentially created since 2020.

Gold has always been stable. Throughout History since even before the United States, 1 oz of gold could purchase a mans suit--be it a suit of Roman Armor for a Centurion, a Zoot Suit from the 1920's, or a suit that a man of means would buy today. ($1600.00+)

​

Fiat currencies, as my quote suggests, are valued "from the reputation of a national central bank and economic stability."

​

Schiff, Gammon, and others whom I listen to (Rick Rule, Robert Kiyosaki, Ray Dalio, and many of the guests on Daniella Cambone, who works for Stansberry Research, an investment firm) all unanimously agree that the US Dollar has a limited time left where it holds its value relative to US commercial needs. They all agree that the Federal Reserve really can't and won't fight inflation but is trying to avoid a Depression. Jar always said that the bill would get paid and that people would get what they want (and voted for). What irritates me about jar and the rest of you Democrats, in particular, is that you don't seem to want to fight this.

​

The US has always had an advantage by the dollar being the primary Global Reserve Currency which has led the basket of currencies formed at Bretton Wood. Essentially, I have been told that the US is primarily a consumer and that we produce very little with which to exchange goods for goods. We exchange dollars for goods and simply inflate the currency in order to pay for what we consume. Now, as this abstract bill is getting paid, we find ourselves over 30 trillion in national debt. The other nations buy our US T-Bills because of our previous reputation for always settling our debts. China and Japan are two of the biggest purchasers of Dollar denominated financial assets.

What would happen if China lost trust in or no longer desired to finance our debt?

Why don't globalists care?
Finally...what is the fate of the US Middle class who is left holding the bag?

​

And why am I a "selfish little prick" for suggesting that we all will lose 25% of our asset values by paying this bill, which will only be the death of one global financial superpower and the birth of another?

​

Why are the BRIC nations creating a new global reserve system backed by precious metals and rare earth minerals? They seem to know that a debt-based fiat system cant dominate forever.

​

After World War II, nations agreed to back their currencies based on the US Dollar backed by gold as an underlying. The system is also known as the Bretton-Woods system. However, after 1973 the system collapsed mainly due to the imbalance between the massive supply of the US Dollar against the gold reserve. Therefore, the fiat currency system is the most suitable alternative in the modern economy to smooth transactions worldwide. However, like previous currency systems, fiat currency has some advantages and drawbacks.

​

The advantages of the fiat currency system

​

Fiat money is a sound currency if it can do the functions that a monetary unit must perform in a nation’s economy: holding value, providing a numerical account, and enabling exchange. It also has excellent seigniorage, which means it is more cost-effective to generate than a commodity-linked currency.

​

The country’s central bank plays a prominent role in the fiat currency system. Because fiat currency is not a scarce or stable resource like gold, central banks have far more control over its supply, allowing them to manipulate economic variables like credit supply, liquidity, interest rates, and money velocity. The Federal Reserve in the United States, for example, has a dual duty to keep unemployment and inflation low.
The drawbacks of the fiat currency system

​

In general, economists believe that excessive money supply increase causes high rates of inflation and hyperinflation. This is one of the disadvantages of the fiat currency system that enables manipulating the growth of the money supply in the economy. As such, the stable value of a currency will depend on sound national monetary policies and the central bank's reputation. There is more potential for creating a financial crisis with fiat money due to its unlimited supply. Alternatively, a currency tied to gold, for example, is generally more stable than fiat money because of the limited supply of gold.

​

So without watching my speculative convincing videos, explain why you see no problem with what the Federal Reserve is doing.

Edited by Phat, : corrected spelling

---

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).

Thanks for that explanation.In my opinion, you are wrong about almost everything. But I'm not an economist, so I'll limit my response to a couple of points. If we to back a few hundred year, then there was a time that currency was backed by "physical assets". Or was it?Wasn't it really backed by peoples whims and fads about jewelry? If people had stopped valuing gold and silver for jewelry, then the coins would have been worthless.Still, at that earlier time, you could have your gold and silver. And you would put the gold coins under your pillow while you slept. If somebody stole them, then they were gone for good.But then banking was invented. You could put your spare change in the bank, which turned out to be safer than putting it under your pillow.So now you take your $100 of gold coin, and deposit it in the bank. The bank gives you documents to prove that it is yours. And the bank then lends out $80 of that to some borrower.So now your $100 of gold coin has become $180 -- this includes your documentation and what the borrower holds. So the $180 in circulation already exceeds the $100 of physical assets. So all of the problems that you imagine with fiat currency already existed because of banking. The money supply had already been detached from physical assets.

How would you suggest we fight this? Spend more, borrow more, or save more? Oh, I know, tax cuts for the ultra wealthy and higher taxes for the middle class while you Republicans claim it's a tax cut!

Why on earth would I want higher taxes for the middle class, of which I (think I) am at the lower end? As for the wealthy, I am on the side that thinks that anyone making over $200,000.00 a year needs no tax cut.Taxes make no sense anymore. Why do they bother taxing people when they give us stimulus checks? It would seem that one cancels out the other.And I might ask why debt is in any way good when it seems mathematically impossible to pay back? Honestly I think we are checkmated. There is no way to pay it back.I fear that this whole debt thing won't end pleasantly.

Not as long as the Central Banks and foreign governments hold 20% of all gold ever produced as their backing. Dollars can be "whims" of the people. Gold IS money. period.And furthermore, what if the people disagree on what is valuable globally?One final thought along religious dogmatic lines:If the value is decided by the people, the people thus back the money. Which money?

Well the guys you listen to and support are always trying to lower taxes on the wealthy, them. And every single time they do that the taxes on the middle class and poor increase. Trump's tax cut expired for the non-wealthy after just a year or 2. Same thing with Bush's and Reagan's. Wait, you said:

quote

---

What irritates me about jar and the rest of you Democrats, in particular, is that you don't seem to want to fight this.
  —Phat

---

Implying that you had a fight strategy to make a positive change, and when I asked you what your fight strategy is it turns out it was empty rhetoric.But what you really wanted was an opportunity to take a cheap shot at the Democrats who oppose your fight strategy, that you pretended to have.

After reading ahead, it seems you're mostly just repeating baseless claims you heard on videos that have seen countless rebuttals that you almost always ignore. But you start by quoting from Investopedia: You neglected to cite the source, which is the What Is Fiat Money? article at Investopedia. What they say is true, of course. A better way of saying the same thing might be to say that fiat money is not backed by any commodity or package of commodities. Fiat money has no intrinsic value. Investopedia might be making too grand a claim when they deem the national central bank as a primary contributor to value. More accurate might be to say that competent management of the currency is necessary. I think most people would say that the value of fiat money derives primarily from the stability of the government and the strength of the economy. The only people who use the term "debt-based monetary system" are those hoping to get the reaction, "Gee, that sounds like a really awful thing." But in this context it's really just another way of saying "fiat currency," which probably also sounds really bad to the uninitiated.But as has been explained to you numerous times, fiat money is the only way modern economies can operate. All you're doing is finding different ways to say, "Fiat money is bad," but this has been refuted nine ways from Sunday. Please stop ignoring the refutations while repeating your original claim over and over. This is getting really old. I'm not sure what you're trying to say since most dollars don't have any physical existence, but M2, the most commonly used measure of the money supply, has risen dramatically over the past few years. Too many dollars chasing too few goods is one of the common causes of inflation. Decreasing the money supply can be accomplished by raising interest rates or by increasing bank reserve requirements, but the Fed isn't the only player that can affect the money supply. The velocity of money (the frequency rate of transactions) and the willingness of banks to make loans also have a significant effect on the money supply. Here's a graph of the money supply through the present from M2: The large and sudden increase at the beginning of 2020 isn't due to any actual change in the money supply but to a change in the definition of M2 to include time deposits less than $100,000. (M3 includes all time deposits, which are deposits that cannot be withdrawn until a previously specified date or a maturity date, such as a certificate of deposit.) You must have gotten this from one of your videos. This is just silly. By the way, here's how gold's doing when adjusted for inflation up through 2018: First, I doubt they all agree.Second, what does it matter what self-appointed experts think?Third, what does "holds its value relative to US commercial needs" even mean? The value of the dollar, known as the exchange rate with other currencies, affects the price of goods from other countries. Is that what you're talking about, that the value of the dollar will drop and make foreign goods more expensive, thereby putting further upward pressure on inflation. Again, I doubt they all agree, but even if they do, who cares? They're YouTube gadflies.The Fed has raised the fed funds rate somewhere around 2.25% this year. That will act as a significant restraint on economic activity, reduce the demand for goods, put downward pressure on inflation, and possibly cause a recession if we aren't already in one. Stagflation, which we last experienced during the Carter years when there was simultaneously both high inflation and a recession, is also a possibility. No one knows because economics is not an exact science. It *is* called the dismal science, after all. First, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent. More concisely, I'm a financial conservative and a social liberal.Second, fight what? You haven't convinced a single person here that you have any idea what you're talking about. Every person who's discussed this with you, almost to a man, has told you you have your head up your ass. You're Chicken Little sounding the alarm about a non-existent crisis. It's impossible to understand what your saying. There was no basket of currencies defined at Bretton Woods, and the world shifted away from a significant part of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1973 when the major currencies went to a floating exchange rate. Perhaps you meant to talk about SDR (Special Drawing Rights) which is based upon a basket of five currencies, although it seems unlikely that that's what you mean since it's fairly obscure. Whoever told you that is wrong. Perhaps you're thinking about the US shifting from a manufacturing economy to a services economy. That's not an absence of manufacturing, just a shift in what economic sectors dominate.What you say is also impossible because it contradicts reality. Have you noticed the US having any difficulty exchanging "goods for goods?" I'm not even sure what that means since it implies a bartering system. Again, this is contrary to reality. Meaningfully higher inflation is a recent phenomenon, only just starting this year. I was always surprised that the Trump deficits didn't cause inflation to begin sooner. The recent annualized decline of .9% in economic activity is small and the American economy is still very robust, but because our population is so large, a .9% decline will affect a lot of people. For example, let's say it causes a 1% rise in unemployment up to 4.6%. That would affect around 1.5 million people, which is a lot of people and a lot of misery. But it's still only a 1% increase.Also, trade with the rest of the world is very strong. They buy stuff from us, we buy stuff from them. I have rebutted this many times and you've never replied once, so I'm not falling for this again. I'll just say your alarmism on this is unwarranted and you're making discussion very hard on everyone else by making the same rebutted arguments over and over again as if they'd never been rebutted. You just ignore all the rebuttals. A decent human being wouldn't treat other people that way. A better question is why you think you've got a proper handle on the situation. Because you listen to some YouTube fantasists? Money is fungible, so revenue from all sources, including the American tax payer, will be making the principle and interest payments on the national debt. Your actual objection should be to tax policy, where the rich are taxed at a disproportionately low rate compared to the middle class. I never called you a "selfish little prick." I called you a selfish little bastard, and I called you that because of the clarity with which you expressed your determination to not help the poor and homeless. The BRIC nations are doing no such thing. When will you ever stop listening to those YouTube dingbats. They're just trying to get you all riled up so you come back and listen some more, and they're succeeding. Their goal isn't to tell you things that are true. Their goal is to keep you coming back. You neglected to read on to see what else Investopedia had to say about the gold standard:

quote

---

Why Do Modern Economies Favor Fiat Money?

​

Prior to the 20th century, most countries utilized some sort of gold standard or backing by a commodity. As international trade and finance grew in scale and scope; however, the limited amount of gold coming out of mines and in central bank vaults could not keep up with the new value that was being created, causing serious disruptions to global markets and commerce. Fiat money gives governments greater flexibility to manage their own currency, set monetary policy, and stabilize global markets. It also allows for fractional reserve banking, which lets commercial banks multiply the amount of money on hand to meet demand from borrowers.

​

What Are Some Alternatives to Fiat Money?

​

Virtually every country today has legal tender that is fiat money. While you can buy and sell gold and gold coins, these are rarely used in exchange or for everyday purchases and tend to be more of a collectible or speculative asset. Cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, have emerged over the past decade as a challenge to the inflationary nature of fiat currencies; but despite increased interest and adoption, these virtual assets do not seem to approach being "money" in the traditional sense.

---

As has been explained many times here, and as you've ignored time after time, you can't run modern economies using a commodity backed currency. It puts severe constraints on the money supply. The current US money supply (M2) is around $20 trillion. The current value of all gold throughout the world is around $11 trillion, so even if we sent out our military to confiscate all the gold that we don't already have stored at Fort Knox everywhere throughout the world, including here, we still wouldn't have enough gold to back our currency. You could back it at about 50%.But we don't have all the world's gold. We really only have the gold at Fort Knox, about $290 billion. That would back our currency at about 3%.So there you go, I've explained yet again why the gold standard is impossibly unworkable with modern economies. Please refrain from babbling about the gold standard again until you've addressed the explanations about why it's not practical.--Percy

Oh, the stupid. It hurts. It's impossible that you don't know the stimulus checks were temporary, so why did you say this? You've topped yourself. I'm speechless.--Percy

dThis makes no sense, and you clearly didn't understand nwr's point, which was that value is in the eye of the beholder. When Europeans first arrived in the New World they found that Native Americans assigned a high value to cheap glass beads and that they could trade beads for valuable furs and such. Once the Indians discovered that Europeans had an endless supply of glass beads their value dropped immensely.As long as gold is rare it will have a high value. If a mountain made of gold were discovered in Nepal the value would drop precipitously.
​ They do disagree. The stock market is where people who disagree on value buy and sell. Back in 1990 someone thought this painting was worth $82.5 million, but what do you think: You like videos so much, watch this one:
​ As Confederate fortunes began to wane the value of Confederate money declined (meaning the cost of goods rose, i.e., inflation) until finally no one would accept it. The defeated South must have had to rely on the barter system for a while after the end of the war.But at the beginning of the war Confederate money was based on a promise to pay six months after the war's end.In other words, money is worth what people think it's worth, and people can hold different opinions about that value. For example, as the Civil War came to a close there must have been some Confederates who refused to believe the South was going to lose and who bought up Confederate bonds that others were selling at a large discount.These are simple Economics 101 concepts, not rocket science, and you just don't get any of it.--Percy

Because that tax money could be used to raise up the ones who are lower on the scale than you - i.e. to create more taxpayers. In the long term, it would lower the burden on you.But as long as you fall for the right-wing promises of "tax cuts", you're just helping the rich to keep you down.