• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should be the main focus of the Presidential Election of 2012

kylestephens123

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
14
Reaction score
5
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I still am confused as to why the so called "likely" Republican nominee Mitt Romney and the Incumbent Obama are somewhat silent on what should be the main focus of this election, that being Monetary policy.
I'm not talking about budgets and deficits, I'm talking about the Debt and the Federal Reserve. Whatever way you want to spin it, our debt is a result of the Federal Reserve, just as most of our economic issues. Whenever you have a central bank (public or private) you have a nation indebted to it, perpetually. I think it's about time we adress the issue of the Fed, and that's why I support Ron Paul.
Before you write me off as a "PaulBot" or anything, let me plead my case. A common misconception is that the Federal Reserve brings about stability to our economy. Well, anyone that knows anything about Economics knows that business cycles (booms and busts) are inherent to an economy, and it is literally impossible to avoid them. Ironically, the Fed was created to stop boom/busts, but it actually amplifies them.
To prove my point, in the 1920's, 7 years after the Fed was chartered, we had the roarin' twenties. The Fed manipulated interest rates down to nearly 0%, and our country went on a CREDIT FRENZY! Man, things were great. What people didn't realize is that towards the end of the decade, the debt began to catch up to the borrowers and lenders, and the economy collapsed. With the low interest rates and inflation, the Fed created a credit bubble. Then, to make the situation worse, the Fed then detracted the money supply, which had created the economic growth of the twenties, which plunged the the economy into a Depression.
The housing bubble of the 2000's followed the same framework. Alan Greenspan as Fed Chairman continually lowered interest rates to the point that banks were lending to any man that had a mouth and a hand to sign the loan. This fueled an excessive expansion in the housing market, and started the creation of the Credit default swaps, which precipitated the collapse of the market 2006-2008.
What do you guys think? Should monetary policy and the Federal Reserve be at the forefront of the election debate, or are there other topics that you think are more pertinent?
 
I think one or two spurious anecdotes do not prove your point. Like many libertarians, you make simplistic conclusions about extremely complicated situations. The idea that you can point to any singular thing as a cause of a boom or bust is just absurd.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'm making a "simplistic conclusion[] about extremely complicated situations." The Federal Reserve held interest rates very low as a response to the 1920-1921 depression; they saw the need to "save the economy" and thus tried to expand the money supply. What this actually did was send signals to banking institutions telling them that the time to give out credit/debt/loans was good, when it actually was not. And this persisted throughout much of the 1920's, leading to the eventual collapse of the stock market. Many comparisons can be drawn between this time and the housing bubble of the 1990's and 2000's. Sure, there were many other factors in both, but they can all be linked to the fact that the Fed manipulated interest rates.
 
I don't think I'm making a "simplistic conclusion[] about extremely complicated situations." The Federal Reserve held interest rates very low as a response to the 1920-1921 depression; they saw the need to "save the economy" and thus tried to expand the money supply. What this actually did was send signals to banking institutions telling them that the time to give out credit/debt/loans was good, when it actually was not. And this persisted throughout much of the 1920's, leading to the eventual collapse of the stock market. Many comparisons can be drawn between this time and the housing bubble of the 1990's and 2000's. Sure, there were many other factors in both, but they can all be linked to the fact that the Fed manipulated interest rates.

I'm not even going to pretend to know what the Great Depression is all about. I've read about it, tried to come up with a theory, read all the theories, tried to combine all the theories (maybe a little of everything), but it makes no sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom