Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[tokeprep]

Post 958 your post embrace it:

Lying is loose butthole man don't do it.

Your faulty reading comprehension doesn't render anything I said a lie.

My first post says that the constitution grants the federal government the power to print money; this constitutional power is the source of congress' ability to enact relevant legislation. The point was that that the constitution doesn't purport to list all of the rules--it often grants the congress power to make rules. See the coinage power--very light on specifics, with congress defining things more strictly in statutes, specifying exact materials, weights, etc.

The second post: you said something about printing money being the source of the government's power. I never said anything about that; what I said above has nothing to do with what you said. I agree that the source of the federal government's power is the people, and I never claimed otherwise. I certainly never said the source of their power was printing money. If you got that from the post you quoted, you just didn't understand what I wrote.

 

[twostrokenut]

I'm sorry, you'll have to explain this. Stamping out central banking produced the most wealth the world ever saw? The opposite is true. Central banking has produced the most wealth the world has ever seen.

Not playing your game. I have asked you for several things you fail to provide one of them being successful, sustainable fiat currency.......current fed notes don't count since you admit they are inflated yet claim there is no devaluation through central bank magic powers......game over.

 

[twostrokenut]

I read your source:

• If you want to know about the pre-1870 period, here's a list of dates derived from NBER: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States. The American economy was in recession approximately 45% of the time in the pre-1870 period.​
  
  

From your source:

Although the NBER does not date recessions before 1857, economists customarily extrapolate dates of U.S. recessions back to 1790 from business annals based on various contemporary descriptions.

In 1791, Congress chartered the First Bank of the United States to handle the country's financial needs. The bank had some functions of a modern central bank, although it was responsible for only 20% of the young country's currency. In 1811 the bank's charter lapsed, but it was replaced by the Second Bank of the United States, which lasted from 1816–36.[SUP][9][/SUP]

 

[tokeprep]

Not playing your game. I have asked you for several things you fail to provide one of them being successful, sustainable fiat currency.......current fed notes don't count since you admit they are inflated yet claim there is no devaluation through central bank magic powers......game over.

I never said there was no devaluation of individual dollars. Don't put words in my mouth. The devaluation is irrelevant because people have more dollars. Yes, the price of sirloin increased 2,600% or whatever; but wages increased by 3,000-something%, meaning that in real terms purchasing power for sirloin actually increased. Measure these price changes in aggregate with CPI and compare it to wage growth in the same period and you'll see that we've come out far ahead in real terms. It's not magic, as I've already explained. The supposedly magic 9 dollars created from the deposit of 1 that get loaned out are working to create new value; repayment of the loan results from this creation of new value. The pool of dollars is bigger, certainly, but so is the pool of wealth. That's the ingenuity of banking--you get a lot of something out of nothing.

You can't say that the dollar isn't successful and sustainable. It's been working ever since the gold standard was denounced; it's still working just fine today. All the commerce going on everywhere in this country is being conducted almost entirely in dollars every single day.

 

[tokeprep]

I read your source:

From your source:

Although the NBER does not date recessions before 1857, economists customarily extrapolate dates of U.S. recessions back to 1790 from business annals based on various contemporary descriptions.

In 1791, Congress chartered the First Bank of the United States to handle the country's financial needs. The bank had some functions of a modern central bank, although it was responsible for only 20% of the young country's currency. In 1811 the bank's charter lapsed, but it was replaced by the Second Bank of the United States, which lasted from 1816–36.[SUP][9][/SUP]

The pre-1857 recession numbers on that page are derived from the research of an NBER employee who presumably extrapolated in exactly that way.

This stuff about the bank makes the point I was making--it's not comparable to the Fed. It had "some functions of a modern central bank" and was only only responsible for 20% of the currency. This does not make it an all powerful force wielding absolute control over American monetary policy.

 

[twostrokenut]

From your source:

In the 1830s, U.S. President Andrew Jackson fought to end the Second Bank of the United States. Following the Bank War, the Second Bank lost its charter in 1836. From 1837 to 1862, there was no national presence in banking, but still plenty of state and even local regulation, such as laws against branch banking which prevented diversification. In 1863, in response to financing pressures of the Civil War, Congress passed the National Banking Act, creating nationally chartered banks.

There are 7 recessions during this free period and 48 total recessions or depressions on your source. 45% comes from Uranus.

 

[tokeprep]

From your source:

In the 1830s, U.S. President Andrew Jackson fought to end the Second Bank of the United States. Following the Bank War, the Second Bank lost its charter in 1836. From 1837 to 1862, there was no national presence in banking, but still plenty of state and even local regulation, such as laws against branch banking which prevented diversification. In 1863, in response to financing pressures of the Civil War, Congress passed the National Banking Act, creating nationally chartered banks.

Is this supposed to be making your point?

 

[twostrokenut]

• There are 7 recessions during this free period and 48 total recessions or depressions on your source. 45% comes from Uranus.​
  
  
  
  

 

[twostrokenut]

one depression in the free period from the civil war not from lack of bank from inflating currency. bravo.

 

[tokeprep]

• There are 7 recessions during this free period and 48 total recessions or depressions on your source. 45% comes from Uranus.​

Alright, let's break this down instead of playing this silly numbers game. We have 1789 to 1913, which is 124 years. Approximately 58 of these years were spent in recession, which means the economy was in recession around 46% of the time. You want to strip the central bank periods out? Alright. Each bank was chartered for 20 years, so that's 40 years to subtract from our 124 year period. We have 84 "free" years left. 38 of these free years were spent in recession; 38/84 = 45%.

I count 21 recessions in the free period. Evidently you shortened your free period by cutting more than the the central bank periods out.

 

[tokeprep]

one depression in the free period from the civil war not from lack of bank from inflating currency. bravo.

A great period of deflation that actually experienced the productivity increases you've discussed in this thread. The result of a fixed money supply with huge increases in the supply of goods? Prices fell. The same money bought more, which sounds great, except if your mortgage payment is dependent on selling crops at those lower prices or the hourly wage for your labor gets cut in half. Not so great then.

 

[twostrokenut]

Alright, let's break this down instead of playing this silly numbers game. We have 1789 to 1913, which is 124 years. Approximately 58 of these years were spent in recession, which means the economy was in recession around 46% of the time. You want to strip the central bank periods out? Alright. Each bank was chartered for 20 years, so that's 40 years to subtract from our 124 year period. We have 84 "free" years left. 38 of these free years were spent in recession; 38/84 = 45%.

I count 21 recessions in the free period. Evidently you shortened your free period by cutting more than the the central bank periods out.

I want to play a numbers game did I make up numbers from a "source"?

 

[twostrokenut]

Your source didn't say what you said it did you created a derivative from it and presented the derivative as the source.

 

[tokeprep]

Your source didn't say what you said it did you created a derivative from it and presented the derivative as the source.

What are you talking about? All of the data is attributed.

 

[twostrokenut]

Some specific words are irrelevant, like the provision for redemption that was much discussed in this thread. Substantively meaningless--a totally irrelevant artifact of an abandoned policy.

Otherwise you'll have to tell me when I said specific words were irrelevant.

Ya know, I could. I could go back and find at least 5 post where you just simply said something was irrelevant, something a judge said, something the Constitution said, something the UScode said, but I won't. I just simply have better shit to do.

Hey why don't you do it since you're the one that said it?

 

[twostrokenut]

What are you talking about? All of the data is attributed.

What you said it said was not there. I read the whole thing, 45% is not there. Furthermore the article plainly says how controversial what you derived from the article was....going on and on about how inaccurate everything is in the early periods. So argue with yourself on this matter. Learn the difference between legal tender and lawful money on your own....or just tell yourself they are the same, whatever.

Keep thinking original intent has no bearing on today because you claim the power to print paper gives absolute power over anything and everything. Whatever.

Keep saying all the definitions, codes and cases I presented had "irrelevant" wording lol wtf ever.

I have figured out what works for me but keep asserting the best thing is what did not work out for you, whatever.

 

[tokeprep]

Ya know, I could. I could go back and find at least 5 post where you just simply said something was irrelevant, something a judge said, something the Constitution said, something the UScode said, but I won't. I just simply have better shit to do.

Hey why don't you do it since you're the one that said it?

I certainly said the redemption thing was irrelevant. As for the rest--I probably called your interpretations of those things irrelevant, not the things themselves. Alternatively, you may have quoted something as if it were relevant to your argument and I may have called it irrelevant to your argument.

 

[tokeprep]

What you said it said was not there. I read the whole thing, 45% is not there.

Yeah, it's not there. I calculated it myself, using the data. You're free to do the same, and you'll get the same result.

Furthermore the article plainly says how controversial what you derived from the article was....going on and on about how inaccurate everything is in the early periods. So argue with yourself on this matter. Learn the difference between legal tender and lawful money on your own....or just tell yourself they are the same, whatever.

I never claimed that the data is as reliable as modern data. But it's a scholarly extrapolation and it's regarded as the best picture of reality back then that we have, so how can you ignore it? What's your answer, that we can't possibly glean anything from the data? Why should we believe the dollar was so stable if the data from the period is so unreliable?

Keep thinking original intent has no bearing on today because you claim the power to print paper gives absolute power over anything and everything. Whatever.

Where original intent is still relevant, I think it's properly invoked. Where it's irrelevant--slavery, women's rights, and everything of that sort--it's meaningless. I don't care about what the framers thought about slavery or women's rights because it couldn't possibly be meaningful in this modern world; likewise, what they thought of economics--at the dawn of the industrial revolution, shortly after Adam Smith was invoking invisible handjobs--is irrelevant. Their opinions were devoid of the product of hundreds of years of human study, experimentation, and knowledge; they were excusably ignorant in whatever they believed, but why should you proudly invoke that ignorance as you cry for original intent?

Never said the other thing. I said congress' money power in the constitution gives it the power to enact legislation about money.

 

[twostrokenut]

I certainly said the redemption thing was irrelevant. As for the rest--I probably called your interpretations of those things irrelevant, not the things themselves. Alternatively, you may have quoted something as if it were relevant to your argument and I may have called it irrelevant to your argument.

No you didn't you flat out said definitions and words were irrelevant not my interpretations....if the law says "the house must be blue" and you point it out as irrelevant because the house is factually red.....you said the literal content is irrelevant not the interpretation......the interpretation and reality you defend is contingent on the facts being irrelevant, which is why you assert it.

 

[twostrokenut]

Yeah, it's not there. I calculated it myself, using the data. You're free to do the same, and you'll get the same result.



I never claimed that the data is as reliable as modern data. But it's a scholarly extrapolation and it's regarded as the best picture of reality back then that we have, so how can you ignore it? What's your answer, that we can't possibly glean anything from the data? Why should we believe the dollar was so stable if the data from the period is so unreliable?



Where original intent is still relevant, I think it's properly invoked. Where it's irrelevant--slavery, women's rights, and everything of that sort--it's meaningless. I don't care about what the framers thought about slavery or women's rights because it couldn't possibly be meaningful in this modern world; likewise, what they thought of economics--at the dawn of the industrial revolution, shortly after Adam Smith was invoking invisible handjobs--is irrelevant. Their opinions were devoid of the product of hundreds of years of human study, experimentation, and knowledge; they were excusably ignorant in whatever they believed, but why should you proudly invoke that ignorance as you cry for original intent?

Never said the other thing. I said congress' money power in the constitution gives it the power to enact legislation about money.

Who the hell is talking about slavery in the modern world??? Economic slavery maybe. Sorry don't remember race or womens rights being mentioned in the original version.....although original intent was indeed the foundation for getting these unjust and common to the world practices undone.

Their opinions devoid of human study? I bet their libraries were much larger than yours sir.