Phat's Bookshelf

Another book...

From Intro:

---

Central banking is magic. With a few words, the Fed can lift the stock market out of desperation and catapult it towards euphoric highs. With a few keystrokes, the Fed can conjure up trillions of dollars and fund virtually unlimited Federal spending. And with a few poor decisions, the Fed can plunge the entire world into a recession. The Federal Reserve is one of the most powerful institutions in the world, and also one of the most difficult to understand.

​

The Fed acts through its Open Markets Desk, which sits at the heart of the global financial system as the world’s ultimate and limitless provider of dollars. On behalf of policymakers, the Desk gathers market intelligence from all the major market participants, sifts through reams of internal data, and works behind the scenes to keep the financial system intact. It is responsible for all of the Fed's market operations, from trillions in quantitative easing to hundreds of billions in repo and FX-swap loans. The financial crises of 2008 and 2020 abated only through the emergency interventions of the Desk.

---

Stay tuned...

Instead of starting forty new topics, why don't you answer the multitude of rebuttals in existing topics?

First of all, it takes me time to address arguments. I need to hear arguments articulated in a disciplined format, such as a book can offer. Critics will say that the "Book" could be propaganda, but what would we rather have? An authoritarian regime that burns books for the "good of the people"? I am using the Book Nook to address each book that I actually read. Critics previously lambasted me for getting my information from YouTube videos. One of God's gifts that he has given me is the ability to read, and that's what I am doing. In fact, I have two new books to add to the list as soon as I finish them.I do note your point about answering previous rebuttals. In fact, as I look around the Book Nook, I even have several book topics which I never finished! I will attempt to address your endless stream of rebuttals but don't expect me to believe that your evidence in any way defines reality. If nothing else, I will challenge the "woke" culture and show them how asleep they really are.

Glen Beck has a new book out which I have listened to on Audible. Critics likely will dismiss him as "conservative propaganda" but I am unsure what does and does not constitute propaganda of either ideology.According to "Alexa", Glenn Beck is affiliated with the independent Conservatives.

But you're not addressing rebuttals at all. You're charging ahead to create new topics where you will inevitably just repeat the same old nonsense that has already been addressed.You're just diluting your nonsense by repeating it in so many tthreads. Stick to one topic and carry it through to the end. Are you saying that my posts are not articulated in a disciplined format? Nobody is suggesting burning books.What I'm saying is read the books and then discuss them. But you're NOT addressing them. That's my whole point. But you're treating the books the same way you treat YouTube - as absolute truth with no room for discussion. If you were actually thinking about the content, you should be able to discuss the rebuttals. Evidence DOES define reality, in EVERY way. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. By all means, DO that. SHOW us.

Critics previously lambasted me for getting my information from YouTube videos. This is a perfect case in point. Much lower standard of living coming for Americans.​Even though everyone was introduced to jars Source vs Content argument, there is a double standard. Schiff (the source) essentially argues, through the content (of the video) that the private sector will have to save the financial system nationally if not globally since the governments all inflated and thus debased the currency and are thus charging the public too much to utilize their product.The argument is well done and well presented. Too many people look to the government as the final authority of valuing money, for example. The counter argument, one which I wholeheartedly agree with and embrace, is that the people (private sector) and the marketplace should determine the value of a product. Hard assets provide a concrete value that data and hypothesis cannot nor should not provide.
Period.

You cannot even stay on topic on your own topics. How about you take a break and come back when you can concentrate on one or two of the OPs you started.BTW, the government does not provide a product.

I watched about 1 minute. I'm not going to watch the whole thing. Bullshit.The private sector has been buying politicians, particularly Republicans, to enable them to rip of the American workers. Those workers are as productive as ever, but most of what they have produced has been going to the top.No, the wealthy won't have to save America. Rather, Americans will need to take back those ill gotten gains from the wealthy thieves.As Percy said in a recent post, you are confused and gullible. You worship the thieves who are ripping you off.

How is it a case in point? You're still not addressing any rebuttals.

Who thinks the US government sets the value of the dollar????It is rather obvious that the marketplace already sets the values of products, and it does so in whatever currency is legal tender in their country. International markets also determine the relative value of currencies.

This whole book on Central Banking 101 does not even mention gold. I am convinced (so far, anyway) that the Central Banks want to promote digital currency and data/ethereal value based on the whim of the people rather than hard assets, which are in fact the bottom line. Anyone who doubts the bedrock value of hard assets (Land, Gold, Copper, Nickel, Oil, Natural Gas, etc) need only ask Europe what they think as they shiver this Winter.This is what the book *does* mention:
Section 1-Money and Banking

Central Bank Reserves

Bank Deposits

Treasuries

Fiat Currency

Common Questions- (which I will elaborate on)
Why don't banks lend out their reserves?
Will the stock market soar because of all the cash on the sidelines?

​

Fascinating theories and hypothetical situations! (and so pie-in-the-sky)
Everyone in global finance knows that Gold still backs the Central Banks. If not, why would they bother to own it?

Almost all of my transactions are already digital, so I fail to see the problem. Why would it matter if we pay with a debit card instead of with physical paper money?I have also never paid for something with hard assets. Strangely enough, the local grocery store does not accept pork bellies as payment for milk. They also don't accept gold bars. As it turns out, one of the nice features of hard assets is that you can trade them for dollars in a digital transaction.

WTF? What is this sentence trying to say? At best it is a non-sequitur at worst word salad.

One of the YouTube channels I do enjoy is Economics Explained. The difference here is that the videos are made by a real economist who also happens to be an Aussie. I don't know if those two things cancel each other out (just a bit of ribbing between countries), but it is a pretty good way of learning basic economics, at least in my experience.Based on those videos and some other reading, fiat currencies seem to be much better than asset based currencies (e.g. gold backed). First, a modern economy can only grow as fast as the available cash grows. This means our country's GDP could only grow as fast as the amount of gold that is dug up from the ground. That makes no sense. A zero sum, mercantile type of economy just doesn't work anymore. Second, a country has no control over world wide assets. It does have control of its own currency. This allows countries to influence markets in a way that benefits its citizens (hopefully). This is where quantitative easing comes in as a way of reducing the impact of recessions while trading it in for higher inflation. It also allows a country to aim for beneficial inflation rates, about 1-3% per year.It is sort of like the weather. Right now, we have no control over the weather. We just have to take what comes. If we could have some influence over weather, wouldn't that be beneficial? That's what modern central banking is. It's a way of having influence over the comings and goings of the economy, something that would be difficult to do with asset based currencies.

You guys are learning slowly. Remember what Nixon did in 1971?