What can be done to realistically make the FED vanish?

Why hasn't that been done already?

They're not "getting away" with anything if they're employing individuals at a rate that the two consenting individuals agreed on. Just because you and the state decide to interfere with that agreement to say that the payrate isn't high enough doesn't mean that the owners are "getting away" with something.

Wrong. Only union members earn more. And even that depends on the job they're doing. Compulsory union membership at grocery stores means that minimum wage workers have to sacrifice a chunk of their paycheck to union membership, which harms both minimum wage workers and employers, as well as raising unemployment.

For the benefit of the union, of course.

I can't see the picture. Can you please post it as an attachment instead of as an outside link.

What constitutes a "fair" salary is not for you or the state to define. It's between the employer and the employee, period.

That doesn't change the fact that compulsory union membership denies workers their right to choose union membership.

Wrong. See above.

I don't follow. Please elaborate.

Wrong. In 1979/80 when inflation was the most rampant, Congress was overwhelmingly Democratic, and there was a Democrat in the White House. They didn't raise MW to keep up with inflation.

So much for your theory.

Neither is it the liberals' goal, otherwise they would have raised taxes on the rich when they had the opportunity to from 2009-2010. Nor in 1979/80 when they failed to raise MW to keep up with inflation.

Sure it does. If the inflation rate suddenly hits 14% when Congress was only expecting a 7% rate, then MW workers are screwed for at least 6 months to a year until Congress can raise MW again.

Depends on how high the inflation rate is. Any effect period is robbery as a result of central economic planning.

What do tax rates have to do with inflation?
What does SS have to do with inflation?

Why hasn't that been done already?

You asked no question. You made a statement that was irrelevent to the point I was making.

But if they don't have to worry about the long term goal of staying in business because they will get bailed out by the Federal Reserve, they can simply focus on short term rewards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

Moral hazard, Econ 101.

That doesn't answer the question. I asked:
Do you deny that the Fed keeping rates down during times of high velocity of money artificially encourages more loans to be made than otherwise would have, by driving down the cost of capital?

Why is demand low?

There was only one monetary system from 1913-1971. A fractional reserve gold standard. After 1971 was pure fiat.

 

Feel free to elaborate on this vague statement.

Depends on what powers they are reducing.

What incentive does an employer have to pay an employee more who isn't a member of the union?

How does it benefit the worker if his net pay is lower than it would have been without the union?

Household income means absolutely nothing. Try again.

So the employee is too incompetent to know what's good for him and we need the nanny state to baby him and force his employer at gunpoint to raise his pay?

I disagree with your violent methods of forcing your opinionated morality on people.

Wrong. A fair salary is whatever the employer and employee agree is fair. It's not fair to either party if the state interfers with that agreement.

Easier said than done. You sound like our conservative friends. Tell the unemployed to go get a job.

Not a viable solution.

Now you can explain what makes the state qualified to judge the worth of labor better than the employer and employee.

Your claim was that conservatives were in power the year before we had 14% inflation, which was 1979. That is false. Liberals were in control and they did not raise MW either.

Diverted for 2 years? I don't think so.

And that doesn't explain why they didn't raise MW to keep up with the radical out of control inflation in the late 70s/early 80s.

I'm not aware of any time when Congress was expecting a 7% inflation rate and got a 14% inflation rate instead.

What does benefits have to do with this point?

What did you mean when you said, "They've been doing it with SS and tax rates and all sorts of other things for years."

Feel free to elaborate on this vague statement.

Inflation had nothing to do with the point I was making.

It was a major contributing factor to banks engaging in reckless lending practices.

Which Goldman Sachs execs will be able to do, no thanks to the Federal Reserve and the federal government bailing them out with taxpayer money. Which is the system you support.

We don't have high velocity of money right now. I'm asking you if demand for loans was at a healthy level, do you agree that the Fed lowering rates would encourages banks to lend at even faster rates?

The Federal Funds Rate influences the rates at which banks make loans.

It was the same way when demand for bank loans was high. Try again.

Your source does not disprove the point that the dollar was linked to gold from 1913-1971 and fiat after 1971. And was never on a receipt gold standard.

 

when you say you've proven something without actually doing it, that's a pretty good indicator that you don't know what the word 'proved' means

 

Then feel free to explain how I didn't prove anything.

 

what in the world do you think could replace it? Ron Paul and some gold miners, a safe and a copy of the constitution?