     |
|
|
|
Detailed market commentary at The Market Ticker and Ticker Classics
(The Year 2012 In Review) Donations accepted; we offer GOLD ACCESS for enhanced privileges. T-Shirts, caps, coffee mugs? Click here. BlogTalkRadio - Mondays at 3:30 Central - Yes, TickerGuy has a radio show (kinda)  RSS available
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|
||
| MarketTicker Forums Single Post Display (Show in context) |
User: Not logged on
|
| Top | Login | Control Panel | FAQ | Register | Logout |
| User Info | When All You Have Is A Hammer (Economic Efficiency); entered at 2009-07-15 13:34:24 | |||
|
Genesis Posts: 130798 Registered: 2007-06-26 
|
SW: You wrote an entire ****ing screed and NEVER ONE ADDRESSED MY POINT. My point is VERY ****ING SIMPLE: If you hyperinflate the currency then the BANKS, who loaned out $100,000 that bought a HOUSE, get back $100,000 that buys a LOAF OF BREAD (that is, NOTHING.) This WILL NOT HAPPEN so long as the BANKS are in control of the printing press, AND THEY ARE. It happened in Weimar because THE BANKS WERE NOT IN CHARGE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. The government did it, and as soon as they did the banks shut off ALL lending, forcing the spiral to run to destruction immediately. EVERYONE who argues for The Fed to "hyperinflate" is arguing for THE VERY CONGLOMERATION OF BANKS TO WHICH THE DEBT IS OWED taking an action, ON PURPOSE, that will result in the DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THE MONEY THEY LOANED OUT. That is illogical AND unnecessary. If we DO NOT hyperinflate they get the COLLATERAL from those who cannot pay instead of WORTHLESS dollars. TELL ME WHY ANY BANK WOULD INTENTIONALLY DESTROY THE VALUE OF ALL THE MONEY THEY LOANED OUT TO PEOPLE AND I WILL CONCEDE THEY WOULD CONSPIRE TO DO SUCH A THING. Until you or anyone else does so I consider such arguments to be complete HORSE**** and any further attempt to run what is a totally-illogical tinfoil piece of trash will earn a permanent ban from the TICKER area. I have NEVER had a problem with a logical and reasoned argument. I have a MAJOR problem with an argument that amounts to a claim that an institution is going to INTENTIONALLY DESTROY ITSELF. Not on accident - ON PURPOSE! Last modified: 2009-07-15 13:36:02 by genesis
| |||