International China declared Currency Manipulator

[adam199]

One thing I don't understand is why we don't just punish China on a smaller scale. For example, just stick with the Huawei ban until they go under or change. Then move on to another company that steals IPs egregiously. It seems like that would be a lot more poignant and less economically devastating on a large scale than an all out trade war.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Why do you think they wanted to gain control of the country's money supply in the first place? Because they are such nice guys that they will happily manage our money for free?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/business/fed-profits-treasury-2017.html

The Fed Delivered $80.2 Billion in Profits to the Treasury in 2017

The Fed’s bond holdings comprise federal debt and securities issued by the government-owned mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. By diving into the marketplace, the Fed created more competition, forcing investors to accept lower interest rates — and thus reducing the borrowing costs paid by businesses and consumers, as well as the federal government.

The interest that the Fed collects on its investments is paid by the federal government, and then returned to the government. But this wash cycle still saves money because those interest payments would otherwise be made to the outside investors who would have purchased the bonds.

“It’s interest that the Treasury didn’t have to pay to the Chinese,” Ben S. Bernanke, then the Fed’s chairman, told Congress back in 2011, when the annual windfalls were still new and surprising.

Since the 2008 crisis, the Fed’s earnings have saved the government more than $700 billion.

 

[SaiWa]

Did they ever truly really stop being currency manipulators?...

 

[Last Samurai]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/business/fed-profits-treasury-2017.html

Right, but the owners still get paid through a combination of dividends and interest payments

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.” The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Right, but the owners still get paid through a combination of dividends and interest payments



https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

Nothing's for free. Unless you can show a huge difference in cost between how it's run now and the government taking over, I don't see the concern.

 

[Last Samurai]

Nothing's for free. Unless you can show a huge difference in cost between how it's run now and the government taking over, I don't see the concern.

The way it's run now is so convoluted, that I really don't wanna get into it.

However, I can point you to a recent article in the New Yorker called "The Invention of Money". In it they explain how and why the world's first Central Bank came to be:

Before long, England and France were involved in a new phase of this dispute, which now seems part of a centuries-long conflict between the two countries, but at the time was variously called the Nine-Years’ War or King William’s War. This war presented the usual problem: how could the nations afford it?

King William’s administration came up with a novel answer: borrow a huge sum of money, and use taxes to pay back the interest over time. In 1694, the English government borrowed 1.2 million pounds at a rate of eight per cent, paid for by taxes on ships’ cargoes, beer, and spirits. In return, the lenders were allowed to incorporate themselves as a new company, the Bank of England. The bank had the right to take in deposits of gold from the public and—a second big innovation—to print “Bank notes” as receipts for the deposits. These new deposits were then lent to the King.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/the-invention-of-money

While banking institutions have evolved since then, the fundamentals remain the same. The Central Bank lends money to the government which in turn has to pay that money back (with interest).

This burden of debt falls on future generations. The founding fathers understood this, which is why they did not want to fall victim to the same old scheme.

 

[Javelina]

I dont know about you guys but I've been making a point to buy local any time I can.

Let's raise up our towns, our local businesses, our local business owners and get off this tit.

i we go to amp's in the usa, does that count?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The way it's run now is so convoluted, that I really don't wanna get into it.

Me neither.

The Central Bank lends money to the government which in turn has to pay that money back (with interest).

But when I see this, knowing almost nobody understands how the fed works, I speak up because it's so misleading. When almost all of that interest paid goes back to the government it paints a far different picture.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This is all so confusing uggh. Can’t we go back to a time where we exchanged a deer hide for some beads and feathers?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Me neither.



But when I see this, knowing almost nobody understands how the fed works, I speak up because it's so misleading. When almost all of that interest paid goes back to the government it paints a far different picture.

I think the point is why do the banks get a zero interest fed rate, but the government doesn't.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think the point is why do the banks get a zero interest fed rate, but the government doesn't.

I don't know. What's the official narrative?

 

[VivaRevolution]

I don't know. What's the official narrative?

That when you free up capital for bankers it grows the economy, but when you do it with government spent capital it doesn't.

It doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny, but it sounds good.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That when you free up capital for bankers it grows the economy, but when you do it with government spent capital it doesn't.

It doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny, but it sounds good.

I bet there's more to it than that.

 

[7437]

This is all so confusing uggh. Can’t we go back to a time where we exchanged a deer hide for some beads and feathers?

No one is stopping you from doing that.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I bet there's more to it than that.

Not really.

Think about it.

Does increasing capital to a economy grow it?

Yes, many more times than not it will.

Do we have a academic economic, business, and political ideologies that says government spending is bad?

You have a very real disconnect in logic here, but if we talk about MMT, which says that we should measure the rate if return on government spending, instead of the amount of debt, you get called a loon, despite the fact that you haven't said anything different then expanding capital for banks to loan, to consume shit in the economy, and invest in business growth, creates growth.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not really.

Think about it.

Does increasing capital to a economy grow it?

Yes, many more times than not it will.

Do we have a academic economic, business, and political ideologies that says government spending is bad?

You have a very real disconnect in logic here, but if we talk about MMT, which says that we should measure the rate if return on government spending, instead of the amount of debt, you get called a loon, despite the fact that you haven't said anything different then expanding capital for banks to loan, to consume shit in the economy, and invest in business growth, creates growth.

What do you suggest?

 

[VivaRevolution]

What do you suggest?

That we stop talking about what things will cost, and start talking about the rate of return.

The best example of that is free college.

The rate of return on a educated workforce is through the roof.

I guarantee it creates more jobs then defense spending.

 

[Amerikuracana]

It's been time we stand up and decide that the first world shouldn't lower itself to compete with slave labor.. People with self-worth and basic values decided tgatvwasnt how production should occur.

China has lowered the bar long enough. Lower than low standards cannot be the big winner in the pkanet. That doesn't mean the UAW didn't go to far, or that everybody working in a factory deserves a large boat etc... there are limits.. But what China did screwed EVERYBODY other than their repressive government, and that includes rich people who had to battle unions.

We should have kept trade between nations with a decent standard of living, and made the battle about QUALITY.. We screwed up, and yes, they think we are stupid and laugh at us.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That we stop talking about what things will cost, and start talking about the rate of return.

The best example of that is free college.

The rate of return on a educated workforce is through the roof.

I guarantee it creates more jobs then defense spending.

Is there an actual plan in here?

 

[Whippy McGee]

America and The West has been abused by China economically for a long time. We finally have someone actually looking out for our interests. This had to happen sooner or later... OR we would simply have to forfeit power to Communist China and Authoritarian nation. Trump needs to explain this to the American people and that it's going to leave a mark, but in the long run, if successful, we are all much better off.

In short, Trump needs to share his plan and gain confidence from, "We the People".