Obama has less than 1% interest rates his whole presidency...

Obama has less than 1% interest rates his whole presidency. He also had 2 rounds of operation twist and 3 rounds of quantitative easing. Trump will have none of that + higher interest rates. Liberals will blame Trump because they don't understand keynesianism, they just vote for it.

Other urls found in this thread:

cnbc.com/2016/07/29/gdp-us-economic-growth-is-close-to-zero.html
youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)
cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf
fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?chart_type=line&width=1000&height=600&preserve_ratio=true&s[1][id]=RESBALNS
amazon.com/Killing-Host-Financial-Parasites-Bondage/dp/3981484282
save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html
youtube.com/watch?v=-KRi9nF8BiA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

That's the exact opposite of Keynesianism

Ironically Obama has been tanking the economy the last 8 years by propping up wall street while destroying the rest of the economy.

cnbc.com/2016/07/29/gdp-us-economic-growth-is-close-to-zero.html

wages are down, costs are up, GDP is stagnant, and inflation is flat

Trump (assuming he does it right) will introduce Keynesianism with his infrastructure spending plans (Obama cut infrastructure dramatically) such as the giant ass wall between us and wetback land

artificially setting interest rates is the opposite of keynesianism?

no

pumping money into the banking system is the opposite of Keynesianism

Under Keynesianism you are supposed to put money into the real economy in order to reach full employement not into the banking sector where it can sit in Goldman Sach's accounts.

Obama printed trillions of dollars and gave them to JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, etc as a "reward" for destroying the US during the sub prime mortgage crisis where those banks used fraud to sell shitty illegal hispanic mortgages to invested that were packaged as "AAA" rated investments.

To repeat giving the banks trillions of dollars is the opposite of what Keynes would promote.

Keynesian policy would be closer to any given Eisenhower economic policy, like building a national highway system or deporting all the Mexicans.

This is going to draw trumps attention, what can he do to the fed?

Obama, 8 years of him and the press blaming everything on bush.

Trump, 8 weeks in and the press will blame anything they can think of on him.

8:1 odds that Obama won't even stick to the 100 days of silence tradition for out of office Presidents (and blame Trump for "reversing all his achievements").

he can name his own fed chairmen and they can do whatever Trump wants them to do

Frankly the FED shouldn't even exist, all fiscal policy should be run by the Treasury directly under the control of the president. The way the FED is set up allows far too much chance of corruption since it is nominally "independent" and allows close relationships between the large banks and the FED chairmen.

The current system is a "inmates running the asylum" scenario

well he already broke the tradition of the president not commenting on the election for his replacement

youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfk

Why would he care about this one?

>Under Keynesianism you are supposed to put money into the real economy in order to reach full employement not into the banking sector where it can sit in Goldman Sach's accounts.
low rates allow cheap money which gets pumped into the economy. Or so the theory goes.
>To repeat giving the banks trillions of dollars is the opposite of what Keynes would promote.
Keyns thought not bailing out the banks during the great depression is what made it so bad. Thats what got him into econ

Trump will be able to name 6 out of 7 members of the federal reserve in his first year because of all the resignations and term ends

Call them out publicly on media starting tomorrow. If he plays it right, he can get the public to turn on the FED right now before the imminent (((crash))) happens after Trump's inauguration.

People don't trust the media anymore thanks to Trump. The Fed should be next.

TACTICAL AUTISTIC SCREECHING INCOMING, ITS OVER

Who ever he appoints has to be approved by the board. Most of which are just like yellen.

>Who ever he appoints has to be approved by the board.

I just can't imagine Trump waiting for anyone's "approval" for anything.

Yep. Fed is 100% political.

ABOLISH THE FED!

>low rates allow cheap money which gets pumped into the economy. Or so the theory goes.

But that's not how reality works. In reality banks just sit on the money Obama gave to them (multiple trillions of dollars as seen in the graph above) while not lending out anything.

The result has been 8 years of stagnation where no one invests in the real (productive economy while all growth is due to the parasitic (financial) economy constantly bidding up prices of financial assets. And hte only reason anyone has money to gamble on fiancial assets is because Obama gave the banks trillions of dollaras to "balance out" the toxic balance sheets the banks created by lending trillions of dollars in sub prime mortgages to Jose and Sancho.

>Keyns thought not bailing out the banks during the great depression is what made it so bad

It's the exact opposite

Keynes wanted to bail out the "worker" not the banks by stimulating economic growth through creating demand typically though some sort of infrastructure project.

The best example of Keynes working is ironically 1930s Germany and 1950s America (although both Germany and America had adopted Keynes like policies in the mid 19th century long before Keynes existed)

You should look up the American school of economics, otherwise known as the national system. It's the only non kiked school of economics in US history.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

Low rates set us up for a fiscal stimulus which never came. The public sector should have snapped up smart unemployed people when they would have taken low wages in 2008.

Low rates make the cost of servicing the debt very cheap. You increase rates and interest on the debt goes through the roof.

Ultimately, low rates are not a good solution. But they are the best solution we had because Congress was unwilling to strike a grand bargain. It was 8 years of oxycontin. And Yellen understands what she is doing much more than Bernanke did or Greenspan did during his last decade.

obama was essentially playing with infinite money activated thanks to the fed. now theyre slowly starting to tighten now that democrats are out of office and they can blame the inevitable correction on the republicans. of course all were going to hear is "LOL REPUBLISHITS ALWAYS CRASH THE ECONOMY"

democracy was a mistake.

It's my hope that Trump helps pass Ron Paul's audit the fed bill, and then takes the blame when there's a recession

Don't get me wrong - the bill is a great idea, but I'm much happier Trump is taking the short-term hit for long-term solvency, rather than the Democrats.

The bailout was the right thing to do. I think it was technically bush though while Obama was president elect. The wrong thing to do was for Clinton and Bush to start programs that forced banks to lend to people who couldn't repay the loans.

>Keynes wanted to bail out the "worker" not the banks by stimulating economic growth through creating demand typically though some sort of infrastructure project.

he sounds like a progressive. stimulating growth wouldn't be a big problem if the treasury didn't let the nations money supply drop by 1/3d. We had the power to coin more money since the beginning of the country. If you don't keep the supply relative to gdp then you're going to have a depression.

>Low rates set us up for a fiscal stimulus

low rates don't cause fiscal stimulus

that's neoclassical idiocy not Keynesianism

Keyesianism believes in direct policy actions either tax cuts or deficit spending not handouts to the banking system

>The bailout was the right thing to do

No it wasn't. The banks destroyed the economy and then were rewarded for destroying the economy while the real people who suffered from their debt policies and bad loans recieved no bailout at all

>The wrong thing to do was for Clinton and Bush to start programs that forced banks

Those policies were started by banking shills.

The initial pro sub prime mortgages policy change was by Robert Rubin a Goldman Sachs vice president and secretary of the treasury during the Clinton regieme editing the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) in the mid 90s so that banks could lend to anyone one with bad credit they wanted to.

The banks "wanted" to lend more because the more loans they make the more money they used their influence over the federal government to get what they wanted. This entire era of neoliberal deregulation began with Carter and came to it's real apex under Clinton when he repealed Glass-Steagall.

cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf

Anyone who justifies the bailout is a kike shill.

>stimulating growth wouldn't be a big problem

It's never a "big problem" assuming you are in a faltering economy

The only time "stimulus" is a bad idea is if you already have a good performing economy at which point stimulus becomes counter productive.

>If you don't keep the supply relative to gdp then you're going to have a depression.

No that's monetarism which is bullshit. There is no reason to limit the supply of money at any "ratio" at all. All that matters is wehter the economy is moving towards full employment/production or not

"money" is merely the oil of the real (productive) economy,

Parse my words:

Low rates make fiscal stimulus *possible*. Rates are monetary not fiscal.

>tfw the fed/dems know 90% of people are too dumb to understand the economy so they manipulate it any which way they want >tfw people get poorer under dems the dems come back offering help to the poor the created >tfw that offering of help will actually make the poor even poorer but also make them in need of more help so the dems can keep offering endless cycles of 'help' what the fuck do we do? Dems create suffering to get re-elected by the people who don't understand they (dems) caused the suffering.

And yet, Carter, a Democratic president, appointed Volcker, while Reagan, a Republican, appointed Greenspan. Take your partisan narrative elsewhere.

Are you saying it wasn't the government who created the CRA because the banks infiltrated the government so that they would fail and cross their fingers on a bailout that they had to repay + interest?

>No that's monetarism which is bullshit. There is no reason to limit the supply of money at any "ratio" at all. All that matters is wehter the economy is moving towards full employment/production or not

Yeah so I guess only having 1 dollar in circulation is fine as long as you have full employment.

>Low rates make fiscal stimulus *possible*

no they don't

that's not how money works

There is no giant pile of money just sitting in banks waiting to be lent out. Money is, essentially, created out of nothing by banks. That's the key point monetarist idiots fail to understand.

At any given time less than 5% of "money" is actually physical. The vast majority of "money" is digital/theoretical/conceptual.

Taking out a loan is no different than writing "i.o.u" on a piece of paper and handing it to the bank.

To repeat myself "low interest rates" are not fisical stimulus.

This should be obvious after the last 8 years of perpetual economic stagnation accompanied by low interest rates.

Loans are stagnant
M2 is stagnant
inflaiton is stagnant

The whole economy of he west has ground to a halt, and yet interest rates are near 0%. Hell in shitholes like Sweden they are in the negatives. You literally have to pay the banks just to keep your money in them.

When will you retards realize the obvious?

low interest rates are the exact opposite of stimulus.

Robert Rubin "edited" the CRA so you the banking system could make shitty loans and repackage the fraudulently m as AAA rated securities and make a killing.

The original CRA wasn't meant to allow banks carte blanche to defraud investors and create a mortgage bubble.

The banking system using credit bubbles to soak Americans in private debt is what has destroyed our economy (along with mass immigration, outsourcing and neoliberlaism, polices you no doubt endorse)

nice try, kike

>Yeah so I guess only having 1 dollar in circulation is fine as long as you have full employment.

You wouldn't have full employment (or much of anything) in a country where literally one piece of paper was the only currency available.

nice try, kike

Again, read the original answer. If you have low rates, cost of servicing the debt decreases. People will buy more government debt. That means you can deficit spend so you will get something other than novacaine to show for it. It's a 1-2 punch, we're not expecting rates to do everything.

Simply, the theory is that low rates drive asset price increases. Hopefully that translates into business risk taking, but you need federal fiscal intervention *as well* to improve business confidence and get investors off the sidelines.

I don't think the stagnation is caused by the rates. Stagnation exists despite rates, not because of them. There's simply not enough demand and speculation to cause runaway inflation, it's just been a slow creep.

Monetary policy on its' own is not the answer. Atleast, it doesn't help build the kind of economy we want: a robust and fair economy. Monetarism drives speculation and zero-sum finance, but sometimes that's what's needed for fiscal policy to be more effective.

The difference this time...

Is Trump has direct communication with the public through twitter and facebook.

More people will understand the Fed and interest rates than ever before after the next 4 years.... mark my words.

Carter was a neoliberal

so it makes sense he appointed Volcker

>cost of servicing the debt decreases

It's irrelevant if the entire populace is already soaked i debt. It's not the 90s anymore.

>People will buy more government debt.

kek

with what money? You think people in the modern US economy who are living paycheck to paycheck are going to be buying T-Bills? Kek you're so deluded. Go back to your Ivory tower, fuccboi where everyone lives off of mommy and daddy's trust funds. No wonder you lost the election.

>That means you can deficit spend

The government can (and should) deficit spend whenever regardless

>the theory is that low rates drive asset price increases

And that neoclassical "theory" is bullshit based on nothing but speculation and truisms.

>Hopefully that translates into business risk taking

It doesn't. See: reality

>Stagnation exists despite rates

Stagnation exists because academics take themselves seriously with their bullshit. First they say that flooding the economy with private debt is a good idea. THen they solution the "solution" to solving the private debt problem they created to be giving trillions of dollars to banks that they enabled to destroy the economy in the first place.

> There's simply not enough demand and speculation to cause runaway inflation

hurr I wonder why. No excuse me I have to go pay my rent/student loans/credit car bill/auto bill/mortgage/ whatever other bullshit that has skyrocketed in price since the 1980s because neoclassical economists are either drooling retards or jewish.

>Monetary policy on its' own is not the answer

Sure we also need some government spending

>Monetarism drives speculation and zero-sum finance, but sometimes that's what's needed for fiscal policy to be more effective.

That's retarded and you should feel retarded for saying it. You might as well say blowing your whole check at the blackjack table is what's nessecary to be a more "efficient"

>You wouldn't have full employment (or much of anything) in a country where literally one piece of paper was the only currency available.

Yeah that's my point.

>The original CRA wasn't meant to allow banks carte blanche to defraud investors and create a mortgage bubble.

Yeah socialist policies are always made with good intentions, doesn't make them right.

>
The banking system using credit bubbles to soak Americans in private debt is what has destroyed our economy

Never really cared for people in Miami who bought things they couldn't afford.

Robert Rubin "edited" the CRA so you the banking system could make shitty loans and repackage the fraudulently m as AAA rated securities and make a killing.

Every socialist policy has to be "edited" to keep it afloat. just look at the ACA. It's like you're blaming every bank for what someone did through the government.

The US economy (and by extension, all Western economies) are in the toilet with ZIRP or LIRP because the Fed pays interest on its reserves to prevent inflation. Without inflation the US economy is basically an asymptomatic carrier of an illness and this has allowed Europe, China, and Japan to avoid catastrophic market failure. No inflation means no reduction in US consumption which means Germany, China, and Japan are all still manipulating their currency to gain a trade advantage over the US.

fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?chart_type=line&width=1000&height=600&preserve_ratio=true&s[1][id]=RESBALNS

>he appointed Volcker

Implying the president or any elected representative really has any say in who the (((Federal Reserve))) board of governors offers as a nomination for chairman.

The system is permanently broken - the debt grows into perpetuity because we will never be able to pay it off. There is no organic growth in the US economy anymore. Real wage growth and home ownership have dropped substantially over the past decade.

We are fucked and nothing will prevent what is coming.

>Yeah that's my point.

You don't have a point. The correct amount of money would never be just one dollar unless you had some insanely small country, but I'm talking about the US (pop 320 million+) so that's irrelevant.


>Yeah socialist policies are always made with good intentions, doesn't make them right.

You're the one supporting socialism by saying banks should be "given" trillions of dollars as a reward for destroying the economy.

>Never really cared for people in Miami who bought things they couldn't afford.

The loose lending policies spiked the price of everything. You have to go into debt to afford just about anything. Fuck you if you think that's acceptable. Day of the rope when

>Every socialist policy has to be "edited" to keep it afloat.

It didn't need to be "kept" afloat at all.

What is coming?
Why did those who knew it would come do nothing about it sooner?
is there a single person we can point to and blame unanimously for the cause of 'what is' coming?

1. The idea is to get stimulus in while interest rates are low. It's like buying a house with a low mortgage rate. You are buying it with debt, but you lock in low rates. Stimulus -> growth (hopefully) -> tax revenue -> debt isn't hurt before interest racked up.
2. Nobody is asking the middle class to buy T-bills. The rich do. Who cares who buys them. People perceive, for right or wrong, that the US will never default.
3. We agree here.
4. I'm not an economist, an academic, or very rich. So I don't have "empirics." But. People ALWAYS look for returns. If they can't find them in interest rates, they will look to the stock market. I'm telling you things in as simple words as I understand it.
5. This is an open debate. People are still analyzing fx of various stimulus packages on private investment.
6. No, the problem with the banks is in upswings they pocket profits and in downturns they get a safety net and taxpayer bailout. There is clear asymmetry which drives shoddy risk taking. There were also several government decisions that contributed to this, such as Clinton/Rubin preventing price discovery for CDS, FNMA/FHLMC bailout, forcing companies to post collateral for MBS. You and I agree that economists are deluded.
7. I agree, economists are by and large fraudsters.

Do have any recommended reading material for a laymen to develop their understanding of economics?

again the banks had to repay the bailouts.

>The loose lending policies spiked the price of everything. You have to go into debt to afford just about anything. Fuck you if you think that's acceptable. Day of the rope when

We can't even reach our 2% inflation rate. Where is this "spike in everything"? Even gas has gone down.

>You don't have a point. The correct amount of money would never be just one dollar unless you had some insanely small country, but I'm talking about the US (pop 320 million+) so that's irrelevant.

The point is if you're not on a gold standard then how do you plan to stabilize the money supply? Could it possibly be the federal reserve or the treasury?

oh wait if you had the fed stabilize currency in circulation then I guess that makes you a kike, which i guess is an argument now.

WWIII is coming. Unemployment will spike, people will be furious, and Nazism will rise again.

It's clearly happening here already...

>implying that's bad
>NEVER FORGET, WHEEL BARROWS OF CASH FOR BREAD.

>The idea is to get stimulus in while interest rates are low

There is no point in doing that since the US government is the financial sovereign. Comparing the US government to a household is the most common economic mistake.

The US government has no reason whatsoever to give a shit about interest rates when it is stimulating the economy.

>Nobody is asking the middle class to buy T-bills. The rich do

Yeah good luck doing that while the government is actively giving them trillions of dollars to fund another stock bubble.

>they will look to the stock market

Yes. So why bother thinking they are going to finance government debt. You can make far more money trading currencies than on US treasury bonds.

>People are still analyzing fx of various stimulus packages

yeah well while all the (non?) economists are navel gazing about their pet theories whole generations of Americans are having their lives ruined. gg no re

>economists are by and large fraudsters.

I'm not sure why we're arguing that much then
amazon.com/Killing-Host-Financial-Parasites-Bondage/dp/3981484282

The TARP bailout signaled the end of free market capitalism. I wrote my thesis on this in college. Google "moral hazard" and investigate how many bankers were jailed for their massive corruption/fraud leading up to '08/'09. Read or watch The Big Short. The same thing is occurring again.

I'm in the industry. My friend at Goldman Sachs called me the other day asking me how to buy gold bullion anonymously. Cash out those pensions now and get liquid.

appreciated

Isn't the problem here that U.S. manufacturing is so dead that fiscal stimulus actually benefits the chinese economy? Keynesian policy didn't account for this situation.

>Where is this "spike in everything"

anything susceptible to financial usuruy/loose lending

can you even read a graph? education, healthcare, housing, transportation, are all spiking in cost while wages are either stagnant or declining.

We can only thank god that Walmart hasn't yet decided to start giving people loans so they can afford groceries.

>The point is if you're not on a gold standard then how do you plan to stabilize the money supply

Permanently stabilizing the money supply is a retarded idea. You are essentially giving all power over money creation to the banking system. When the US had this in the 19th century it meant people would loose their savings again and again thanks to bank instigated bubbles and crashes.

The problem is instead of adopting a stable Central banking system (like Germany) we adopted a system (FED) that was essentially run to cater to our banking system which is a terrible idea even on paper.

When you say WWIII do you mean civil war in the US with Russia and China meddling?

Otherwise I don't really see how WWIII could happen. Maybe if NatSoc rises in the EU.

(Obama cut infrastructure dramatically
Being this fucking retarded

It is bad - millions upon millions of people will die. It's unavoidable though. There needs to be a gigantic distraction away from the realization of who controls the Federal Reserve and what it has done to the average American citizen.

>who controls the Federal Reserve
?

>I'm not sure why we're arguing that much then
We probably agree on most things. Except: do you think the federal debt matters if we don't get it under control? Do you think the current trajectory is sustainable?

I have evidence to back up my claim libergtarian

can you say the same about yours?

WWIII will be a war of debtor nations against creditor nations. We will never pay China back the principal on the treasuries they own. Turkey will unleash hordes of refugees on Europe and nations will plunge into chaos. Europe will Balkanize and lines will be drawn.

Are you fucking idiots trying to summon ObamaLeaf? Because this is how you summon ObamaLeaf. And NONE of us want that.

There will be no blame to pass out

The Federal Reserve, if you pierce the corporate veil, is owned and controlled by globalist elites possibly spearheaded by the Rothschild family.

I LOVE ObamaLeaf. He's like a windup toy! Its gotten to the point where even thinking the phrase Rightwing Retards makes me giggle

Federal Reserve > Multinational banks (shareholders) > BlackRock/State Street/Vanguard/Fidelity > NM Rothschild Banking Conglomerate (hundreds of entities)

save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html

>can you even read a graph? education, healthcare, housing, transportation, are all spiking in cost while wages are either stagnant or declining.

Most of that has been happening before the crash. Education and healthcare should be obvious. But i can feel the burn and blame all of that on a bailout.

>Permanently
I said keep it floating. Not go all gold standard on it.

>The problem is instead of adopting a stable Central banking system (like Germany) we adopted a system (FED) that was essentially run to cater to our banking system which is a terrible idea even on paper.

I still don't get why, who and how you want to set the foundation on our currency.

its worth noting that 2 weeks after the rate hike last year the market collapse for a good 2 months

So the refugee crisis in the EU I can see sparking a World War. But from my limited understanding I don't get the impression China is really a military threat to the US. So how does them wanting us to pay debnts lead to warfare?

>do you think the federal debt matters if we don't get it under control?

No, seeing as we have a sovereign currency system.

>Do you think the current trajectory is sustainable?

Of which debt? Public debt is irrelevant. Private debt is what's killing the economy because it can't just be "paid off", unless you have some sort of "debt jubilee" which our banking system will never allow.

yes I know

But do you know who had a central bank that wasn't ruled by the globalist jews?

>All of Obama's failures are Republicard's fault
>Here look at this graph we've tweaked to look good for him

Seeing a thread on economics without him is a little disturbing. Did he die or something?

>tfw people unironically freakout about the blue line and not the red line

>Most of that has been happening before the crash.
Yes it has been happening since the 90s at least, but it has its roots in the neoliberalism started by Carter.

thanks for paying attention.

>I said keep it floating

Ok. So why would you think you need anything to stabilize it beyond nobrainer fiscal policies?

>foundation on our currency.

See this is where we are so ideologically opposed. The value of currency comes from the government's claim on said currency.

youtube.com/watch?v=-KRi9nF8BiA

Eventually, someone has to pay it back even if you can't default. Devaluing the currency by printing a ton of money isn't the kind of genius idea I was looking for, because it would be much more painful to have that sort of inflation than just fix entitlements now.

We borrowed money from them. Why would they not expect repayment?

WWIII will not be a ground war - it will most likely stem from cyber/economic attacks.

The US power grid isn't invincible, nor is our internet system. No power/internet for an extended period of time would disrupt the just-in-time supply chain to the grocery stores/restaurants and cities would begin to starve. The chaos would be unimaginable.

A large enough solar flare would be worse. Think hell on earth.

actually we could use some inflation, a trade surplus, and GDP growth these days. You know the exact opposite of what we've been doing the last 8 years that has got us into this mess

>fix entitlements now

yeah by increasing them and getting all the fucking boomers to finally retire

but you still need to kick out all the Mexicans in order to raise wages as well. And end outsourcing.

>We borrowed money from them. Why would they not expect repayment?

>I put my money into this slot machine
>why isn't it paying out?

It's a mystery

>Ok. So why would you think you need anything to stabilize it beyond nobrainer fiscal policies?

I guess most would argue that congress is too inefficient and takes forever to be trusted with it. But I'm not opposed to letting the treasury/us mint handle it. So long as there's oversight and we don't just stop caring about the money supply all of a sudden.

>The value of currency comes from the government's claim on said currency.

Yeah i don't even know what you're trying to say. Seems like over simplified it. I'll just watch the video.

If the fed fuck with Trump like that then that's just an excuse for him to destroy them.

Stop arguing - it's pointless. It cannot be fixed. We are fucked, there is no way out unless we hit the singularity and AI is benevolent.

It's way past your bedtime kiddo.

>I guess most would argue that congress is too inefficient and takes forever to be trusted with it

That's why the executive branch (Treasury) should be running any hypothetical "Bank of the US"

But Obama leaf is fun. The lengths a man has to go to deny the facts in front of him like Obama leaf does is nothing short of impressive. Like a guy who can suck his own dick, it's not something particularly enjoyable to watch because of what he's doing, but because of the effort you know that goes into being able to do it.

>We borrowed money from them. Why would they not expect repayment?
Well of course they want us to repay them. But I can't imagine them suddenly calling in the debt working out in their favor. Correct me if I'm wrong but they know they can't beat us in a conventional war or economic war (yet). So if they know that why would they put themselves in that situation by demanding the US do something it has no intention of doing?

speak for yourself. this timeline has been fascinating and the current conversation seems to have some real merit.

are you saying there should be no national bank? And if we have to have one it should at least be through the treasury? It's like you came as a keynesian and left an austrian. I don't even know how to argue here.

...

Thanks to Trump's cabinet, all the middle men have been eliminated now

I hope he strikes a deal with China lol

I'm saying there "should" be a national Bank

Okay if we shouldn't keep the money supply relative to goods and services produced then how should we regulate it?

>is there a single person we can point to and blame unanimously for the cause of 'what is' coming?
>is there a single person we can point to and blame

Why do you ask this?

w-why is the fed buying so much stuff?

why not?

I'm not planning a 2nd amendment rampage Mr. FBI.