There is nothing offensive about correcting Fox News’ mistakes.

I’m sure that it feels like an attack because you don’t have an adequate rebuttal, but let’s remember that you asked for someone to identify some factual errors and I complied with your request. You could thank me for helping you by providing you with a fact-based reply, but I suppose that such gratitude won’t be forthcoming.

The definition above speaks for itself.

I think that we’ve established that they are different, albeit related.

So, tell me, what makes M3 better than M2? As I stated previously, I want you to tell me **why** the absence of M3 poses a problem.

Again, since this is **your** stated belief, I’m trying to get you to clarify and explain it. Since you believe so strongly in this position, it should be easy for you to explain it, shouldn’t it?

The definition above speaks for itself.

If you don’t know the full picture then you have no basis for declaring anything sound or unsound…financially speaking.

That’s enough…you don’t need to go any further, my friend. If M3 is bullshit and is totally irrelevant, then why grace it with such a lofty title? Why even identify it? All those “others” cease to exist…we can just sweep them under the rug, right?

But only for the U.S. Government…as GAAP only applies to corporations, right?

Ok,…please…go stand in front of the mirror and calculate its coefficient of reflectivity with you in it….drinking your favorite brand of vodka.

But of course, be sure you have a dimmer switch available so you can integrate your initial finding (at say, 100 watts) over the various levels of luimens from 0 to 250 watts.

When you are finished, please report your findings in a scientific journal and submit to the CARB…they would love to hear from you.

You are just their type…perhaps you can apply for the Chief Engineer role.

First, you didn’t understand your own link. Now, you’re misinterpreting me.

You claimed above that the Fed’s decision to stop reporting M3 was a big deal. My response: “If you are going to tout the alleged benefits of M3, then you should explain what information that it provides that is so vital that can’t be derived from M2.”

I didn’t say that you could calculate M3 from M2. Obviously, M3 has more stuff in it than M2.

Instead, I posed a question to you — tell me why M3 is such a big deal that the Fed can’t just use M2 to get the job done. You must believe that M2 isn’t adequate, and I want you to tell me what’s specifically wrong with it, since you obviously are hung up about it.

You obviously didn’t address that point, and I frankly have my doubts that you could.

But only between 10am and 2pm…after which we will see a liner decrease in the overall penalty up to and including 6pm

We can thus integrate this function from -45 degrees latitude to +45 degrees latitude.

PCH, stop it already, ok? I’m through with this debate. You said you can derive M3- so please…do so and leave it at that.

Your energy is better suited (in my opinion) dealing with the real issues at hand.

April 15th is right around the corner. Please give…and please, give some more. Those with an agenda need your contribution. It’s all for the best.

I know what M3 is. I didn’t ask you to define it, but to provide some insight about what is allegedly so important about it. You failed to do that.

The point is that M1 and M2 provide adequate statistical data to manage the money supply. M3 doesn’t provide any clarity that helps in setting policy.

So, in your own words, explain why the loss of M3 is such a tragedy. Since you brought it up, you may as well (try to) explain it.

M3: M2 + large time deposits, institutional money-market funds, short-term repurchase agreements, along with other larger liquid assets.[11] M3 is no longer published or revealed to the public by the US central bank

So, if knowing M1 and M2 you can “derive” M3…then you are doing quite well, there PCH.

Gotta love the term “conspiracy theory”. I especially love the term “other larger liquid assets”…that really helps to identify the real picture.

To be honest, this is how government acts…much like you are acting now. The idea is to get people to debate nonsense…much like glass reflectivity and black paint…as an attempt to divert attention away from the real issue.

It’s not working. The real issue is this: The debt being placed upon people’s backs is ENOUGH.

Now you can debate conspiracy theories, M3, M1, Glenn Beck, the Federal Reserve, etc. all you want. If a posting is incorrect, say so, point out where it is incorrect..and leave it at that.

Easy.

Things are not as difficult as you make them out to be….they are actually pretty straight forward. Individual families deal with budgets all the time. But to listen to the television, politicians, people like you…well, it’s enough to make the Pope turn to vodka. Anything and everything to avoid dealing with reality.

Now- how about those “collateralized debt obligations” and “equity swaps”, there PCH??

“Well, we owe such-and-such amount to this group of investors”….

When all you want to know is the TOTAL debt on record….

…you would not be able to sign off on your audit (legally) because you would NOT have an accurate picture of the true financial conditions of the company you were investigating. Of course, if you were in the mood for a legal battle, then go right ahead.

If you are going to tout the alleged benefits of M3, then you should explain what information that it provides that is so vital that can’t be derived from M2. I realize that there are conspiracy theorists on the internet who think that the elimination of M3 is some nefarious plot, but like a lot of amateur internet politicos, they just can’t separate fact from fantasy.

So, again, please take a moment to correct me.

That’s 100% correct. Whereas once a dollar represented positive value (gold or whatnot), a store of wealth, it now represents debt?

That is true. You can look it up, search “money as debt” and you may come across this link:

http://www.moneyasdebt.net/

This is not some wacko conspiracy theory…it is the system we currently operate under.

What a complete reversal, huh? Money is debt?

If we had no debt, we would have no money in circulation.

So, if you wish to perform a little more research on the subject, you may come to the (correct) conclusion that “money supply” and “debt” are the same thing.

Absolutely- I guarantee you, 100% true.

Now, isn’t that something to ponder…you work..and as compensation, you are paid debt certificates.

That’s how truly convoluted our system has become. Take something relatively straight-forward…that is, you work and are compensated with something of value…and completely turn it on end.

Money supply is debt.

Er, it’s published once every week! The last release was on Thursday: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/

Your statement is clearly false. Just during 2009 alone, the Fed has released thirteen reports on the subject. If you’re going to talk about the economy, it helps to get your facts straight.

Because **you** posted a link about the **money supply.** We’re talking about the content of something that you chose to post.

I have made specific comments on the alleged data that you posted in your link. Since you wanted examples of factual errors, I gave them to you.

The facts are what they are. Your link blew it completely on the facts. I’ve proven just one example of that error quite easily, and could provide more if necessary.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that you did not understand Beck’s comments in the first place. He’s talking about something else, and you don’t evidently follow that.

You want me to confess my sin to you? For what reason? For me to acknowledge you as somehow my superior? Will that boost your ego…is that what you are looking for?

I asked a very simple question: What is the total National Debt? If Glenn Beck is wrong..then what is it?

Fine…I found that out from other sources.

Yet somehow I owe you something? Ummm….okay…

Why do you think I’m against you …and that I wish to butt heads with you?

You don’t know the money supply…because it hasn’t been published in years. If you wish to write Beck and point out his errors, please do so…I’m sure he’d love to hear from you.

You may wake up one day and realize the debt you owe to society has absolutely NOTHING to do with me, ok? …and that any forthcoming confession will not change a thing.

I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.

Take care.

You obviously don’t understand that Beck was discussing the money supply. I quoted him verbatim in the previous post, just in case you missed it, yet you continue to misinterpret what he said.

You also refuse to admit that Beck got the facts wrong. The data is what it is, and he clearly blew it.

If you want to make this an argument about your failure to understand what he is saying, then you’ll have to find another sparring partner. I can’t really help you if you can’t distinguish between deficits and money supply.

And to answer “my” question…I guess I have to do it myself:

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032001820.html?hpid=topnews

Now, consider this: The US Government is bankrupt- anyone or anything which has this amount of debt hanging over it’s head is bankrupt…by definition. The only thing propping it up is their “full faith and credit”…ie, their ability to tax their own citizens…and since most people are so fortunate to “own” their own homes…ie, they “own” a mountain of debt in the form of a mortgage….if per chance this debt were to be called in …we are in (as Pete DeLorenzo would say) a “whole lot of not good”.

So, if in this quest for a “good society”…why are we rewarding the minority…and instead why are we not concerned with the majority?

I guess it all depends upon what your definition of a “good society” really is. I guess in some sick and demented way, homelessness would be considered a good thing. Non-representing Representatives are indeed good. The voice of the people not being heard is good.

I guess I just need to get with it and embrace the ideals of socialism and move to Finland…where I can buy a UAZ and motor till my little heart is content.

A change in the money supply is not an opinion, it’s a statistical fact. Either you get it right, or you don’t.

At about 1:01, he says while pointing at the chart, “This is billions of dollars, this is how much money that we print and have in the system at any given time.” Clearly, he is talking about the money supply, not the deficit.

He then goes on to compare 1929 to 1941, claiming that we “haven’t pumped a lot of money into the system” during the 1930’s. He shows a flat line — no change — between the two periods.

Now compare this to data from the Fed. Take a look at the right-hand column of pages 24 and 25 of this study: http://research.stlouisfed.org/aggreg/apphisdata.pdf

Total money in circulation, 1929: $4.74 billion
Total money in circulation, 1941: $9.61 billion

Obviously, not only is Beck wrong, but he’s wrong by a huge margin. Contrary to his assertion, not only was the money supply not flat between 1929 and 1941, but it more than doubled during that period.

There’s obviously a huge spread between 0 and 100+%, but I suppose that we shouldn’t allow facts to get in the way of a good argument.

Thanks PCH, you’re a real straight arrow.

If the error is so blatant, and someone asks for a simple numerical figure which would set the record straight…and doesn’t get it…all the while being ridiculed from a person espousing honesty and openness…then I can’t say I respect your opinion. You see…the truth is not so convoluted…the truth is the truth.

No, the truth must be woven behind a web of tangents, diversions, deceit and anything else you can think of to avoid spitting it out.

Besides, the M3 money supply (which supposedly is comprised of both M1 and M2) is no longer published. It is now a “secret”…so if you know something I don’t, please…again, spit it out.

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

Please see “M3″.

I did. Let’s try this again -

-You asked us to point out inaccuracies.

-I indicated that his money supply chart was wrong, based upon the actual data available from the Fed.

Your response — you want to misinterpret the chart, and claim that it is about something else, even though it would be wrong, even if you were correct.

Go back and watch the link. He’s discussing the money supply.

Once you’ve done that, go to the Federal Reserve website and look at the M1 and M2 money supply figures. Compare those to the Faux News chart. Notice the big difference.

Then, use that revelation to acknowledge Fox’s blatant error, and learn to be more cautious next time in citing them as gospel, when they can’t even get the basics right. It’s one thing to be ideological, it’s quite another to be blatantly wrong on the facts.

By God, if it is wrong, then please …someone please clarify.

I come to you like a lamb….sweet and innocent. I just want an answer to my silly question.

This Bailout Nation is becoming quite a burden to the average working citizen.

It’s only fair that each citizen knows how much “he/she owes”, right? How can you pay off your debt if you don’t even know what it is?

Please. What is it? What is our cumulative National Debt, and what is it per person (based upon a conservative estimate of 350 million U.S. citizens).

Thanks for being so straight-forward…people appreciate that in conversation.

Pch, you know better.

Glenn Beck is not a journalist. You can’t blame the Fox News team for his rants. Otherwise, all the news teams are bad.

Wait, maybe you are correct…

Then you apparently didn’t watch your own link, nor did you read the title of the video post. (The poster on You Tube apparently did — he referred to it as the “monetary base.” Most of us would call that M1 or M2.)

And if it had been about the deficit, then it would have also been wrong. Surely, you must know, for example, that the US ran substantial deficits during WWII to finance the war. As a percentage of GDP, those deficits were far higher than anything we’ve had since.

Is this a battle of ideology?

It’s a delicious blend of Fox’s ideological taint and penchant for really bad reporting, including blatantly bogus information.

Get your data from better sources. If you want to get hard data, then use your favorite search engine to get it from the original sources, which in this case would be the Fed. It’s not a state secret, and the results fly in the face of the blatantly inaccurate information provided by the unfair, imbalanced op-ed cable franchise.

I don’t recall him saying anything re. money supply.

So, PCH101, show me some figures which pertain to National Debt, please.

Is this a battle of ideology? Is this what its about? Liberals vs. Conservatives?

No…Let’s just stick to “debt”, shall we, please?

What is it PCH101? What is out National Debt, and if you are so bold, why not divide it by ..let’s be conservative (I know that goes against your grain)…but let’s divide it by 350,000,000.

Thanks buddy…and thanks for the truth.

I’d find fault in his analysis, but that would take all day, and I don’t want to go any further OT than we already are.

There are more than enough errors to crash this server. Here are a few of them -

-The money supply has been growing over time, including before 1965. His chart is just flat wrong. Since the data is readily available from the Federal Reserve, then I can only conclude that the Fox News team is dishonest or stupid.

-Increasing the money supply is not necessarily a bad thing. If you’ve been paying attention to recent news, then you should know that deflation is just as bad as inflation, as deflation creates depressions.

If someone is going to bang on about the alleged benefits of the gold standard and a stagnant money supply, then that person should explain exactly why those are supposedly good things. I have yet to find anyone who understands what money really is who supports a gold standard. It’s nonsense from economic ignoramuses and kneejerk populists who should learn something about what they’re talking about before getting onto TV.