The only money printing company nationalized

henryb

Registered
It looks like nationalization did not stop on YPF. Ciccone, the only local company that is technically capable of printing money was declared of "public interest" and nationalized yesterday. It will be rebranded as South American Securities Company (CVS) . The company management was accused of corruption and incompetence. Apparently this particular combination is absolutely inacceptable: if you are corrupt, you should be at least competent in what you are doing. And if you are incompetent, you should at least be honest and everything is going to be OK. Now government says that despite of being a company of public interest it will not be printing money after all. What do you think about it? A new wave of inflation is coming?
 

jago25_98

Registered
You guys really are the most negative bunch of trolls I've ever seen.

Inflation is at 30%. I don't think there's much scope for even more inflation without tanking the economy.

Btw, the FED & BoE are both private. The profits from the printing go to them, not the gov.
 

nicoenarg

Registered
jago25_98 said:
You guys really are the most negative bunch of trolls I've ever seen.

Inflation is at 30%. I don't think there's much scope for even more inflation without tanking the economy.

Btw, the FED & BoE are both private. The profits from the printing go to them, not the gov.
Don't know about the BoE but its funny when you and others like you create facts, then believe them and spread them around as if they were the eternal truth.

First of all, the Fed is both private and public. Second of all, apart from 6% or less in profits that are paid out in dividends, everything else goes to the US treasury. In 2010 for example, when the Fed had a profit of $82 billion, $79 billion went to the treasury department.

These numbers differ in the years of economic downturn.

Now one has got to be an idiot to not know that the treasury department is the government's.

I understand, from reading other posts by you, that you are against the Fed and think its all a Rothschild family conspiracy to control the world, but I think your BS would sell a little bit more easily if you actually did some research and put in some factual details and not just crap that you believe is true.

Here are some links on how the profits were distributed:

2009: http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/12/news/economy/fed_profits.fortune/

2010: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/business/economy/23fed.html?_r=1&ref=business

2011: http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/20/news/economy/federal_reserve_profit/index.htm

Anyway, I realize that conspiracy theory nuts won't change and won't let the facts stand in their way, so all of this might have been for naught, but I think there are others on this forum who are actually intelligent.
 

nicoenarg

Registered
jago25_98 said:
You guys really are the most negative bunch of trolls I've ever seen.

Inflation is at 30%. I don't think there's much scope for even more inflation without tanking the economy.

Btw, the FED & BoE are both private. The profits from the printing go to them, not the gov.
As for the above line in bold, the Argentine government can and will do either of two things:

1) Use a company within Argentina to print money.
2) Ask Brazil to keep on printing money for Argentina.

There is no third, utopian option that says "no money will be printed".

Cristina is on a public spending binge to buy votes, support and sainthood for herself, it is not going to stop.
 

bradlyhale

Registered
It's not private or public. The word "independent" might be better suited. It's decisions are its own and need no approval from the U.S. Congress. The Fed is quick to say that it answers to the U.S. Congress, but as this video shows, Mr. Bernanke can flat out refuse to respond to a senator's question. And I don't know how many of you watch Mr. Bernanke address the financial committees (I generally watch the senate Q&A), but most of the questions handed to Mr. Bernanke are pretty weak. In fact, the questioning sessions generally prove that you don't need to pass an IQ test to be a U.S. lawmaker. Think Kathie Lee interviewing Albert Einstein.

Perhaps it's not the Fed that's the most troubling; the fractional reserve banking system seems quite scammy to me. With that system in place, the banks create money out of thin air, and loan it to us at interest. Thus, the money supply is created through debt. How can a debt ever be paid off if the money to pay off the debt was created with debt? In other words, if there's no debt, there's no money, and because there has to be money, there has be debt. Money is debt, debt is money.

And as the money supply grows, so does the debt, and so does the interest. The CBO projects that the U.S. government will have to pay ~$800 billion just in interest on the debt -- that's about 30 percent of the US government's current revenue.

In short, the debt can't be paid off... and I guess that's how they meant for it to be?
 

nicoenarg

Registered
Of course it can be argued whether the practices of the Fed are acceptable or moral or not. That comes down to opinions. There are economists who think that debt creation is the only way to go in the current modern economic system and there are economists that are against this whole thing.

I won't argue about that here because I am not well equipped to do so (I'm sure expatinowncountry could do so better than I), but the fact remains that the Fed's profits, largely, go to the US treasury department.

Anyway, this thread being about the Argentine money printing system, even though I think it'd be bad to print more money, period, if the government were to float more money, I think it'd be better to print that money at home rather than in Brazil.

Now even that has huge risks. No accoutability probably but who's to say getting money printed in Brazil would provide that. Either way you look at it, you have no way out of this mess here.
 

nelaursen

Registered
Going back to econ 101, though we say in the context of inflation that the government is just "printing money", the truth is that governments are always printing money. In the US the reserves that are collected by the Fed are burned and reprinted. The monetary system is not the gold standard - governments print and also take money out of the market in order to achieve a desired money supply. And anyone familiar with the ideo of the money multiplier of banks, a US institution, knows that it goes beyond this yet the US still has very low rates of inflation. So printing money does NOT cause inflation and is an every day affair... printing too much money: yes, it is inflationary. Furthermore, these crazy allegations of Kristina trying to print more money to buy votes is more than a bit outlandish. The government, while trying, at times via coercion (= not cool), is trying to downplay inflation, as speculation and distrust plays a huge role in increasing inflationary tendencies, but also has obviously realized that its a huge problem and are attempting to do what they can, in line with their economic model, to safeguard the future - cutting state subsidies, etc... But at the core of it, the omnipresent idea on these boards that the government whore themselves out for votes is very very offensive to the argentine people. when you spend time in temperly or lomos de zamora - outside of recoleta and palermo - you see that people don't get on buses to go to kirchnerista rallies for a choripan or a stipend, like everyone ALWAYS insinuates here, but because they are animated by the political movement. I imagine that a lot of people on this board hire cleaning ladies - why don't you ask them what they think of the government, and then refrain from attributing it to uneducation or misunderstanding. And lets face it, class interests are different throughout the country. Can we drop the "christina buying votes" thing, because if we follow that line of cynisism we're going to have to start saying, obamacare was simply buying votes and political pandering and, on the other side, saying that bush and the wars abroad weren't genuine and were only to buy votes. Or that politicians who oppose abortion in the US don't care about the subject but instead recognize the popular sentiment and capitalize on the electoral pool. Its too simple to reduce it to such an extreme - "the Kirchners have no political or ideological values and simply do what is most pragmatic to stay in power" - its absurd.

Having said all of this, I by no means am convinced by the Kirchnerist movement, but we have to try to understand it as what it is in its full extent - not using cynicism and class interests to completely negate or nullify it.
 
Top