The insurance companies didn't want to take on the pre existing conditions. However, it could of been all show. Ultimately, now everyone has to pay a tax to the big insurance companies for life, or pay the government more money. Federal Reserve on the other hand is based on nothing. They make the US dollar worth on a whims. It is backed by nothing. The crash in 1929 and 2008 could of be slowed or prevented or recovered faster had the Reserve taken some measures. The top 1 percent does get out of paying a lot of their taxes through putting their money off shore and by their companies themselves being taxed in different ways. Fed Reserve can take credit in the economic growth rate because of the US being on the winning side of WWII and the fact we kinda told every other country this is how business was going to be conducted in the future.
If more people want to buy gas from one place then the price of gas will go up. That has nothing to do with the dollar. The inflation rate just makes the dollar more or less valuable. I know you already know this, but the issue with Russia isn't an inflation issue, its a supply and demand issue.
Federal reserve bases the dollar on supply and demand. You are absolutely right that the great depression coudl have been fixed if the federal reserve used it's power, but i'm not sure that's an argument against the fed existing. quite the opposite. they did quite a bit in 2008. the top 1% pays 50% of the taxes in this country. if they are getting away with not paying taxes then they are doing a rather terrible job at it. russia was on the winning side of WWII as well. i can't say that worked out all that well for them.
I'm not following you. You said "Expect it to go up if sanctions on Russia continue. The more money they print, the less valuable it becomes. " that indicates that you think the gas price and printing money are related.
there's a lot more people making $40K a year than there are people making $1 billion a year. It doesn't have to count as much.
It was in correlation with two different posts you made and is two different point. Not the initial Fed Res one.
So you thought that paper was legit as a statistical analysis? You buy his predictive ability relative to policy? How about in election year? Why ignore voter blocks? Why compare the individual to a multinational corp or someone who can buy voice or lobbying? Grouped individuals have enormous power. We have a litany of shoddy economic history steeped in buying votes from individuals. Does that fit? Almost every free cheese and govt union decision is ain't oligarchy, but each is unassailable. Why?
Gold, land, etc. I may be mistaken, but I don't automatically equate wealth with cash. Wouldn't they're be an inverse relationship between wealth and cash the more cash there is?
Ok. Fine. There is no wealth without liquidity or trade value. Inverse? More cash equals more wealth, regardless of total available.
And yours are unpredictable? Since you're the puppet master, why didn't you bother with laughing at the silliness of that paper with everything it ignored and correlated to reach its conclusion?
If you can't convert your wealth into cash it's kind of useless no? The funny thing about printing money is that as long as you are the biggest baddest mofo out there you can pretty much print what you want without any real problems. Theoretically there should be a tipping point, but we are well beyond any economic prediction of what that tipping point should be.
I love arguing it's an oligarchy when his own study shows 2/3rds of all laws are supported by the majority. Shouldn't it be 2/3rd of all laws are only supported by the rich aholes if this guys theory is correct?
So scarcity doesn't apply to cash? I'm being serious. I really can't see how it doesn't apply. If more cash equals mire wealth, just start printing the shit out of some Benjamins. Everybody's rich.
