Peter Schiff schooling Congress
#22
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Schiff seems to be operating under the belief that there is "no money" to be lent. That is demonstrably false on multiple levels.
Sorry; I have monetary systems on the brain. When you said "no money behind the demand," you meant that "if there was no expectation of profit." I am with you now.
However, there can be expectation of profit and creation of product without actual demand. Again, it's nuance but worth disentangling.
#24
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Sorry; I have monetary systems on the brain. When you said "no money behind the demand," you meant that "if there was no expectation of profit." I am with you now.
#25
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
"It was bad enough that the Fed held rates far too low, but at least a fig leaf of uncertainty kept the most brazen speculators in partial paralysis. But by specifically telegraphing policy, the Fed has now given cover to the most parasitic elements of the financial sector to undertake transactions that offer no economic benefit to the nation. Specifically, it will simply encourage banks to borrow money at zero percent from the Fed, and then use significant leverage to buy low yielding treasuries at 2 to 4 percent. The result is a banker’s dream: guaranteed low risk profit. In other words it will encourage banks to lend to the government, which already borrows too much, and not lend to private borrowers, whose activity could actually benefit the economy"
He is saying that banks are borrowing money from the gov't at a low rate, then turning around and buying treasuries and making a guranteed profit from the same vessel they borrow from. If this practice stops, how will the banks have any profit since they've stopped lending to the ecomony. They are simply being propped up by debt and printing presses. This is hurting the recovery and benefiting a few at the cost of many.I like hyperboles. I will point out more form video:
“One of the riskiest things you can do in America is hire someone.”
“Demand doesn’t come from things that aren’t produced.”
“Regulations substantially increase the cost of employing people.”
“Infrastructure spending drains the economy of resources.”
“You can always see . . . the jobs government creates. What you can’t see are the jobs they destroy.”
“All the government can do is rearrange the resources, it doesn’t create any wealth.”
“You can always see . . . the jobs government creates. What you can’t see are the jobs they destroy.”
“All the government can do is rearrange the resources, it doesn’t create any wealth.”
I think this sums up the video nicely:
"Republican presidential candidates would be wise to watch the video of Schiff’s Congressional testimony. They could help put an end to the idea that government simply needs to pick the right winners and losers, and more importantly that more money is what this country needs. Stimulus is great for those who get to play with other people’s money, earned through hard work, creativity, efficiency, ingenuity, and innovativeness. It’s easy to sit on a committee and take wealth from the places that produce the most of it and pass it out to your cronies or dependent constituents, and then threaten to cut the services people rely on most, like police and fire departments, as soon as someone suggests cutting the size of government"
Last edited by Braineack; 09-23-2011 at 09:16 AM.
#26
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I think Schiff has a lot of broad concepts correct and I don't dispute his banking concept in its entirety, but he either glosses over (via rhetorical laziness) or misunderstands some critical elements of the way the current USMS actually works. From what I gather, he seems to think that bond auctions and taxes fund government spending.
#27
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Another lier that hates America:
Coca-Cola chief criticises US tax rules
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/071f9...#axzz1Z9usaTGu
Coca-Cola chief criticises US tax rules
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/071f9...#axzz1Z9usaTGu
#30
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I think Schiff has a lot of broad concepts correct and I don't dispute his banking concept in its entirety, but he either glosses over (via rhetorical laziness) or misunderstands some critical elements of the way the current USMS actually works. From what I gather, he seems to think that bond auctions and taxes fund government spending.
The government bond market, as it exists today, is a monetary tool used to control interest rates. We spend first, then issue bonds to affect the level of reserves. I do understand there is a Congressional mandate which utilizes this as an accounting tool, but operationally, under the current US monetary system, it is not a funding tool.
Likewise, taxes serve to regulate aggregate demand not as a fiscal funding mechanism. Again, we spend first and tax later.
I will try to come back to cite some specific primary sources for this.
#32
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
The money created by the keystrokes of the government. The USA today (and other sovereign monopoly fiat currency issuers like Japan, Australia, Canada, the UK) does not operate like a household, a business or other currency users (like the EMU countries or the US states) or an asset-linked or currency-pegged monetary system (like the gold standard days). These governments spend by crediting bank accounts.
They spend first and then bonds are issued to drain reserves.
When a currency user wants to spend money, they either use savings or credit which is obtained first. If you (as a currency user) want to buy a car with a bank loan, you have to obtain the credit first. You fund first, then spend.
The loan creates a deposit. which is a liability for the bank and the loan is an asset. You have an asset (the deposit) and a corresponding liability (the loan). Net new financial assets? Zero.
The USA does not operate the same. It's the difference between vertical and horizontal money creation.
When the USA spends, the Treasury credits bank accounts (transferring reserves from their account at the Federal Reserve to the recipient's bank). There is no corresponding liability at this point. This is an increase in net financial assets.
We do not ask China to approve our spending. We spend first. With China, Japan, et al, they send us real goods and services and we send them electronic 0s and 1s.
They spend first and then bonds are issued to drain reserves.
When a currency user wants to spend money, they either use savings or credit which is obtained first. If you (as a currency user) want to buy a car with a bank loan, you have to obtain the credit first. You fund first, then spend.
The loan creates a deposit. which is a liability for the bank and the loan is an asset. You have an asset (the deposit) and a corresponding liability (the loan). Net new financial assets? Zero.
The USA does not operate the same. It's the difference between vertical and horizontal money creation.
When the USA spends, the Treasury credits bank accounts (transferring reserves from their account at the Federal Reserve to the recipient's bank). There is no corresponding liability at this point. This is an increase in net financial assets.
We do not ask China to approve our spending. We spend first. With China, Japan, et al, they send us real goods and services and we send them electronic 0s and 1s.
Last edited by Scrappy Jack; 09-28-2011 at 11:19 AM. Reason: Added emphasis and additional detail
#36
When a currency user wants to spend money, they either use savings or credit which is obtained first. If you (as a currency user) want to buy a car with a bank loan, you have to obtain the credit first. You fund first, then spend.
The loan creates a deposit. which is a liability for the bank and the loan is an asset. You have an asset (the deposit) and a corresponding liability (the loan). Net new financial assets? Zero.
The USA does not operate the same. It's the difference between vertical and horizontal money creation.
When the USA spends, the Treasury credits bank accounts (transferring reserves from their account at the Federal Reserve to the recipient's bank). There is no corresponding liability at this point. This is an increase in net financial assets.
The loan creates a deposit. which is a liability for the bank and the loan is an asset. You have an asset (the deposit) and a corresponding liability (the loan). Net new financial assets? Zero.
The USA does not operate the same. It's the difference between vertical and horizontal money creation.
When the USA spends, the Treasury credits bank accounts (transferring reserves from their account at the Federal Reserve to the recipient's bank). There is no corresponding liability at this point. This is an increase in net financial assets.
To claim that printing more currency (via electronic deposits) actually increases financial assets is misleading. No wealth is being created.
#39
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
However, if the government does not spend the money in to existence first, there is no money for tax collection, bond purchases, etc.