Federal Reserve Orders Two Trillion Dollars To Be Printed And Put Into Circulation!

Please tell me this is BS? If the USD fall so does my income, it's low enough allready

forgive me if i wrong , but from my understanding , the amount the dollar is worth isn't based on how much is in circulation or printed but much rather ,the ecconomy itself , stocks, bonds ,debt , risk factor , investments etc

-edit-
ok my mistake , after a bit of research found that

The real value of the dollar is determined as dollars are exchanged (bought, sold, and traded) with other currencies. These ratios are called exchange rates.

If too many dollars enter into circulation, their value declines relative to other currencies.

The dollar is vulnerable to a decrease in its value, or purchasing power. Inflation occurs when people spend more and more dollars to buy the same amount of goods. Inflation makes the price of goods rise, so that each dollar buys less and less.

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...le_21569.shtml

No shit

Not sure on the amount at $2 Tril, but yes the Fed just did a bizarre policy shift and said they will no longer tell the public the amount of currency being printed.

This is called M3 in economics.

Which is pretty much admitting, they're put the printing presses into overdrive.



And yes, Gold and Silver and other metals are at all time recent highs.

Logging into my forex platform now.

The Iran tie in is interesting below. Things that make you go Hmmmm . . . .


"The Fed has stopped publishing this data for public analysis, and DownsizeDC is not alone in its suspicions about the reasons why. There have been a spate of articles on the 'Net recently speculating about the Fed's fairly dramatic move, some linking it to a possibile Iranian commodities bourse that will offer an alternative to the so-called US petrodollar. "The Fed is planning to do a lot of 'legal counterfeiting,' and wants to hide it," the release concludes.

The release also notes that Congressman Ron Paul [R-TX] has introduced legislation to require the Fed to resume reporting the M3 statistic, and Downsize urges taxpaying citizens to contact their own representatives to support the bill called The Sunshine in Monetary Policy Act. - ST"

sweet more money!

Normal situation for a Kingdom

yea, the $ is down about 30% here in sweden if you compare to a couple of years ago. If the $ falls say 10% more my income will also drop 10% since I need to excnage the $ to the swedish currency

Ah well, we all knew this was coming.

Just when I thought all Republicans were completely useless.

Two trillion was just the beginning. As the spiral continues so will the pouring of dirty dollars into the economy. Don't worry though, after a rought patch the US adopts Canada's currency. The US is then affectionately referred to as "Canada's Bitch" by Canadians, and "The United States Under Canada", by the media. US citizens don't care what it's called, all they know is they are going to destroy Canada.

Interesting add-on, Bill Gates is worth only 17 million by 2014.

Without M3 people like me and you cannot know if huge stock sell offs are happening so if there's going to be a huge market crash then the big boys can sell out without letting anyone know.

The US economy has been temporarily propped up by the low interest rates creating high home prices. This trend cannot continue and soon the economy will crash hard from the over extended push. The administration knows this but has been hoping to hold off the down turn until after the elections.

The administration needs to buy some more time in order to keep control in November. We also will need to fund a war with Iran but China won't lend us moeny to do that and in fact, we can't even pay politicians without borrowing money any more.

This, like the over inflated property market is the only short term solution. Of course it will have long term devistating effects but by then Dubya will be gone and he and his buds will own the country so who the fuch cares who runs it.

Holy Shit!

Silver is at $11.41 a troy ounce. I think its time to make a trip down to the safe deposit box and sell part of my position.

Double Holy Shit! My eGold account's balance (when valued to US Dollars) grew by $300 in the last two days since I was in there. Bring on the economic collapse, I'm starting to like this!

I wonder how many grams it will take buy a loaf of bread?

If your egold account grew $300 but you are cheering for economic collapse, you either make no money or have no grasp of ratios.

Interesting article:

The Issing link

Mar 23rd 2006 | FRANKFURT
From The Economist print edition
Money still makes the world go around. For some policymakers, anyway

TWO events in the past week highlight the huge divide in monetary policy thinking between Europe and America. On March 16th and 17th, a conference was held in Frankfurt to honour Otmar Issing, chief economist of the European Central Bank (ECB), who retires in May. Most participants agreed that central banks still need to watch the growth of the money supply. A week later, America's Federal Reserve stopped publishing M3, its broadest measure of money, claiming that it provided no useful information. Who is right?

Mr Issing was the architect of the ECB's monetary-policy strategy. He built it using a design taken from Germany's Bundesbank, where he was previously the chief economist. He holds two controversial beliefs that challenge prevailing monetary orthodoxy. First, he thinks that central banks must always keep a close eye on money-supply growth. Second, central banks sometimes need to lean against asset-price bubbles.

Consider the role of money first. Ask non-economists, ?What is economics?? and they will often reply that it is ?all about money?. Yet the odd thing is that the standard academic models used by most economists ignore money altogether. Inflation instead depends simply on the amount of spare capacity in the economy.

Nor does the money supply play any role in monetary policy in most countries, notably America. Alan Greenspan's last ten speeches as chairman of the Federal Reserve contained not a single use of the word ?money?.

Yet Milton Friedman's dictum that ?inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon? is still borne out by the facts. The chart plots the rate of inflation and broad money-supply growth in 40 economies over the past 30 years. In the long run, countries with faster monetary growth have experienced higher inflation. So why are central banks (except the ECB) paying so little attention to money?

The problem is that over short periods the link between the money supply and inflation is fickle, because the demand for money moves unpredictably. The Bank of England's early days provide a good example. Uncertainty over exactly when ships laden with valuable commodities would arrive in London could cause unexpected shifts in the demand for money and credit. The uncertainty was caused by many factors, notably changes in the direction and the speed of the wind as ships came up the river Thames. The bank's Court Room therefore had a weather vane (still there today) to provide a surprisingly accurate prediction of shifts in the demand for money. Sadly, no such gauge exists today. Financial liberalisation and innovation have also distorted measures of money, making monetary targeting?all the rage in the early 1980s?unworkable.

But it would be foolish to conclude that money does not matter. Throughout history, rapid money growth has almost always been followed by rising inflation or asset-price bubbles. This is why Mr Issing, virtually alone among central bankers, has continued to fly the monetarist flag.

The ECB's monetary-policy strategy has two pillars: an economic pillar, which uses a wide range of indicators to gauge short-term inflation risks, and a monetary pillar as a check on medium- to long-run risks. The monetary pillar has attracted much criticism from outside the ECB; it is often dismissed as redundant, if not confusing. It was originally intended to guard against medium-term inflation risks. More recently, Mr Issing has justified the pillar as a defence against asset bubbles, which are always accompanied by monetary excess.

Mr Issing's model is at last starting to win friends abroad. Julian Callow, an economist at Barclays Capital, sees strong parallels between the Bank of Japan's (BoJ) new monetary policy framework and that of the ECB. The BoJ has said that it will track the economy from two perspectives: price stability and growth one to two years into the future; and a broader assessment of medium- and longer-term risks, which is likely to include the growth of asset prices and credit. In his time at the podium at last week's conference, Kazumasa Iwata, deputy governor of the BoJ, seemed to confirm that the bank's new framework owed much to Mr Issing's legacy.
Pick your monetary metaphor

Unlike some central bankers, Mr Issing loves to be challenged, so he invited Don Kohn, a governor of the Fed, to tackle the ECB view that a central bank should sometimes ?lean against the wind? to prevent an asset bubble inflating, by tightening policy by more than inflation alone would require. Mr Kohn argued the usual Fed line: because of huge uncertainties, it is too risky to respond to bubbles and therefore it is safer to ?mop up? by easing policy after a bubble bursts. He tried to present the Fed's approach to asset prices as the neutral one, ie, less activist than the ECB's. But that is misleading. There is no such thing as ?doing nothing?. Under the Fed's approach, unfettered liquidity sustains a bubble.

This link between money and asset prices is why the ECB'S twin-pillar framework may be one of the best ways for central banks to deal with asset prices. A growing body of academic evidence, most notably from economists at the Bank for International Settlements, suggests that monetary aggregates do contain useful information. Rapid growth in the money supply can often signal the build-up of unsustainable financial imbalances, as well as incipient inflation.

Charles Goodhart, a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, mused in his speech to the conference that it would be deeply ironic if Mr Issing's departure coincided with a demonstration of the underlying worth of the monetary pillar. In other words, this may be precisely the wrong time to dismiss monetary aggregates: in these days of asset-price booms and imbalances, their informational content may be becoming more, not less, valuable. Will Mr Bernanke please take note?

http://www.economist.com/finance/dis...ory_id=5662647

Neither. My eGold account balance represents a very small portion of my net worth.

I use eGold and Liberty Dollars (libertydollar.org) to pay people far more than FRNs. My balances in those accounts are used similar to the way most people use a checking account. I still have some of those too but I really only use them for people who are still fucked up and think FRNs have value and for paying the government, which of course, prefers to be paid in accordance with is own ponzi scheme. Most people don?t keep their entire balance of money in their checking account.

I always gave friends and family eGold or LDs for holidays, birthdays and graduation where most people put worthless $100 bills in cards. They did the same for me. Before eGold and LD, we gave actual metals, usually a one ounce gold bar on Christmas and a 10 ounce silver bar for b-days. We always joked that we may as well give a gift worth giving.

For the first couple years of my working life, I invested damn near all of my spare money in silver and I continued until about a year ago to invest heavily in silver. I have tapered off the investment in silver because the price has went up. I always took actual delivery of metals, never accepting warehouse receipts or other ponzi-scheme-like operations. All of that silver and gold was put into two bank vault boxes for safe keeping.

I have never bought a stock of any company and I never trusted the government to make good on bonds. Why should I? Its money is worthless, why would its bonds be any different?

If gold and silver keep going up - which in an economic collapse they will - I'll be just fine and I have more than enough to live on for at least a couple of years.

You could say its MY strategic stockpile.

I thought there was only $800 Billion USD curently in circulation

M2, in economics refers to the amount of cash in circulation, the amount in checking or demand-deposit accounts plus savings accounts, money market accounts and small Certificates of deposit. This is basically real cash plus all the virtual digital cash.

M2 is currently $6.758 Trillion Dollars.

Actual physical cash in circulation is $758.8 Billion Dollars as of 2005.

A MUST SEE! http://www.infowars.com/video/interv...ister_wmbb.htm

Gold is breaking out, 578! Not sure if it's related to this rumor, but whoa..

Ok so why would they go from $759 Billion to $2.8 Trillion? Thats a huge jump. That article must be wrong. The reserve banks will be blowing the dust off new money because there is no need for it.

Can't you just pretty much write it off as being not true, based on this idiot's record for finding truth?

The 2 trillion figure is bullshit.

Another thought. The more dollars they print, the less all that oil actually costs us. It is all relative.

Our big problem is the trade deficit. Why attack the US when you can just buy it? Kinda sad when we're selling the Chicago Skyway, ports, farmland, buildings and all those things that make America what it is.

Selling ourselves out for cheap oil. Heaven forbid that we drill for oil in Alaska or the Gulf! Why put up another nuclear power plant when we can run it on gas? We seem to be a bunch of dumb fucks.

As for Canadians, don't be so smug!!! We're gonna run that pipe line from Alaska right through your wilderness areas.

No matter what the specifics are, something's up. We are in the dark about some major shit going on right now.

Sure ... That is why they also stop reporting ... or is that also BS ????

The decision to stop disclosing the information has been in the works for some months now. This isn't a surprise.

You're right, that makes everything ok.

Time to start using e-gold.

Just forget about dollars.

The original source of the article already retracted the $2 Trillion figure, saying they were not able to substantiate that number after checking with other sources.

I can't imagine a tripling either. That would devasting economic consequences on the world economy.

yea isnt it great!

strange as it may sound , just as i was reading "watch for gold prices to skyrocket" the guy on cnn says " wow gold is really jumping today " lol he must read gfy

from alaska to where ? washington ? i supposer its possible but , not very likely . do you have any idea how big that area is ?

You annoy me.

First of all, there are two reasons why they stopped publishing the m3. The first is that they don't believe it supplies useful information, or rather, that they fear it provides "misleading" information, that is, information that might be interpreted in a way not consistent with their (mistaken) beliefs on economics. The second is that not publishing the m3 takes away some public scrutiny, which provides a certain amount of leeway in monetary policy (something that can, and perhaps will, be abused to a certain extent).

Secondly, the 2 trillion dollar figure is bullshit because actually printing 2 trillion dollars just would not make sense. Increasing the money supply might make sense, but there's absolutely no reason why it would have to be printed.

invest in wheelbarrow manufacturers

Here is the offical release from the FedGov.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/discm3.htm

Sure ... That is why they also stop reporting ... or is that also BS ????

Yes!!! One fucking long pipe. I'd have to try to find the link to the news page again. In any case, how do you get to Alaska without going through Canada?

As I recall the line headed a bit east, it just didn't hug the coast line. Not to worry, I'm sure there would be a tax on every drop through the thing. No Canadian will ever have to work again. Plus you'll have free health care.

My personal opinion is that every US dollar that goes to Canada for porn should be taxed and directly reduce my taxes. Oh, that's right, Canadian sponsors have to have a US presence to get the credit card transaction... Affiliates get a free ride.

Of course you know my real opinion is that porn should NOT be taxed. Exit pages should!

You also posted this very same reply in this very thread, and I answered your reply. Read it.

Why would you guys believe even one word of something who's authorship is attributed to "Special Report". Your first day on the internet?

Worst fake nick ever.

In the short run may be, in the long run thats complete bullshit. The reason why is that more dollars = the dollar is worth less. Thats the reason why the UAE and those other countries are moving toward the euro. It may not happen over night, but the US is heading straight toward a massive energy disaster if they keep up the easy money policy. The only other alernative is for the US to increase interest rates to prop up the dollar.

Higher interest rates mean slower economic growth, which means less tax revenue (unless they crank tax rates up further, but thats economic suicide), and it makes the cost of existing debt more expensive.

Printing more dollars might help the trade deficit by dropping the price of US goods and making us more competative. In exchange for that, all our imports will be more expensive, including gas and oil. The US's problem is that we are a debtor not a creditor. The US government requires $2 billion of foreign money a day just to keep running.

Its an ugly fucking picture, but thats what happens when a government uses easy money to create economic growth. The value of the stock market and real estate rises, its easier for people to borrow so they can spend more, they can cash out of their homes value for spending money, the government gets cheap credit so they can spend more on social programs or fighting a war. But, at the end of the day there is a cost that has to be paid.

oh shit. the sky really is falling.

Buy as much as you can.

hmm i doubt that will ever work , even the best area between alaska and washington would be tough to say the least , they would have a much easier time running a pipeline through the prairies like alberta. Even then it seems very unlikely , i would think it much easier to send it by rig from alaska to washington.. but then again nobody ever said the government was smart