Would someone please riddle me what the fuck is so awful about the federal reserve?

And I don't mean this as "What is wrong with Ben Bernanke?" which is a question that has been answered quite well. What I mean is that I'd really like to see an articulate critique of how the Fed is to blame for apparently every woe under the sun. But instead of seeing that kind of explanation, I usually see things like the following

1. The Fed is a PRIVATE organization!!!

Technically it's not. The fed is a government organization, but one made in such a way that it can act autonomously to fulfill (or some would say to balance) the three goals of its charter (stable currency, economic growth, low unemployment). This autonomy is important when you consider the next point.

2. The fed isn't accountable to the congress!!!

That's because central banks that aren't autonomous to do their thing without the interference of political interests really suck! If you want to see instability hand the levers over to a bunch of assholes who really don't know what they're doing but who know that they want the economy booming by November every other year. Think long and hard about the kinds of congresscritters we have.


3. They're not fixing the economy.

Ok, this seems fair enough. But the Fed only sets monetary policy. If you believe in monetarism (Milton Friedman's school of economics) then monetary policy should be enough to fix the economy. Most at this website don't buy into monetarism, and instead believe that monetary policy and fiscal policy must be used to fix the economy. Fiscal policy is a matter to be determined by congress and the president. From where I sit, the fed is doing it's part on this but the fiscal policy is lagging.


4. Hurr durr gold standard!

If you think liquidity problems suck now, just look to the 19th century to see how awful they were using gold.


Seriously, what's the big fucking problem?

demonize. :shrug:

These are POLITICAL decisions which must be made by those we elect and

whom we can UN-ELECT!!


PS -- An economy is based with the people -- we don't need private banks or

insurance companies or hierachies of power to run it -- they manipulate and

exploit it -- that's all.

or what we used to call the Democratic Party pre-DLC funded by Koch Bros. who

influenced the party for more than 20 years -- and its candidates!

Seems the poster only wants ONE answer. :eyes:

Republicans to control Congress.

to do so?

When you advocate those powers going to congress, that means congress as it is, not some fantasy congress.

We were bertrayed by Obama -- and, in fact, looking at some of the info he willingly

gave to us, we should have known better!

Obama picked a Wall Street team -- the very same people who gave us the meltdown --

and they certainly haven't come up with anything more than what Hoover would have done!


Congress is corrupt because it is under the control of elites/corporate/fascists --

That has been accomplished by candidates who sold themselves and our government.

But it has also been accomplished by the too frequent trust that voters have had in

government post-FDR and New Deal.

Voters now understand that the New Deal has been completely overturned and that

unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime.

This whole system is going down -- capitalism is finished - we just haven't buried it yet!


And, I'd also suggest that the message of the OWS -- and masses of 99%'ers occupying their

public areas in many states now makes clear that the "2-party-duopoly" is also finished.

We now have a Democratic Party no longer under the influence of DLC/Koch Bros. --

we have control now in the hands of the Third Way!

According to Third Way, Pres., Jonathan Cowan on C-span early one morning last week, their

policy/stance is that "the base of the party is to be ignored" ---

and that populism or populist debate/discussion is "the equivalent of Karl Rove propaganda

of extremism." :eyes:


Try to find even one "Obama 2012" sign carried by an OWS protester!!

We would be seeing some people prosecuted! (Newflash courtesy of MSNBC!)

Of course, if there really was an investigation that looked at who the Biggest Perps were, it would start with Getithner.

He has lied to Congress, an impeachable offense, and he has been the Big Manipulator that saw to it that so much of the loot from the New York Fed went to his special friends over at Goldman and at AIG, while he was the Head of the Nww York Fed.

So I am not holding my breath!

...than I ever would a bunch of uneducated morons in Congress that, for some of them, can't even grasp the simple stuff. Congress controls the vast majority of things as is, but some things can not be left to a committee of people that is prone to being taken over by a pack of intellectually uncurious fools. Go ahead and let Congress have real power over monetary policy and then watch a bunch of tea bagging mental midgets get enough control to completely run our entire economy into the ground (for real this time) with all their unfounded ideas.

As I said, I may have detested Alan Greenspan and Bernanke isn't my favorite person or anything like that. But both of them are men that actually understood/understand what the hell their job was/is and all the information and details that one must understand to make those kinds of decisions. Congress, although full of plenty of smart people (mostly Democrats), is subject too entirely too much stupid on a regular basis. I simply can't imagine how worse off we would be had Tom Delay's house been able to control something so vital, let alone the nightmare it would be with Boehner's.

let's stick with that!


Further, banks don't make economies -- people do. And people don't need

hierachies of power to create economies or keep them going.

Which is something we should keep in mind in bringing down these banksters --

they exist because we are keeping them in business. We go out every day and

create profits for them every time we use a credit card!!



Other than their drug money laundering, of course -- :evilgrin:

We elect and unelect our leaders NOW.

The existence of the fed does not nullify that. We elect the Presidents who are responsible for appointing the board that heads the fed and these people are subject to Senate approval, whom we also elect. The GAO has the power to audit the fed. I think the terms are far too long for those appointed to the fed, but I also think that terms for Congress are too short. Term length is not enough of a reason for me to want something destroyed.

If you think that banks aren't a vital part of this economy, then you truly don't understand this economy. They need to be regulated into the ground, no doubt about that. But their existence is practical and useful and there are good reasons for it. You should not let a poorly regulated banking system turn into hatred for the very existence of banks. That would be about as dumb as letting George Bush's awful performance translate into a movement to get rid of the office of President. Its pretty crazy.

I have my own ideology but I never allow it to trump my own sense of practicality. Allowing a beast like Congress to call the shots on monetary policy would turn out to be the stupidest move in American history.

We have a depression right now and over at least the last year --

Politics effects your life every moment of your life --

FED officials/Board are NOT elected -- Bernanke is appointed by politicians like

Bush and Obama and we've seen how his team works for the rich --


Democracy is the concern -- it is embedded in Congress -- not private banks!


And --

Allowing a beast like Congress to call the shots on monetary policy would turn out to be the stupidest move in American history.

Here you seem to be making clear that you have no appreciate for democracy or economic

democracy.


The problem isn't with Congress -- the problem is with corporate/fascism and their control

over our Congress.


We also have a Goebbels' style press under the control of the same families and corporations

which gave us Hitler/Nazi's.

First off, I've no problem with more restrictions on the fed to deter them from making too many of these types of "political decisions" that you are alluding to, just as I've no problem with more restrictions on Congress to deter corporate influence. There are flaws in the system that need serious adjustment and they touch just about every branch and institution of government, Congress, the fed, the pentagon, what have you.

But when you say something like "The problem isn't with Congress -- the problem is with corporate/fascism and their control... over our Congress.", yet you insist that this same kind of political influence is also the same problem we have with the fed, you are really contradicting yourself. You still insist on handing the feds power over to Congress, where the same kind of influence problems exist, thus not solving the actual problem, at all, whatsoever, and now you've just handed the keys to the monetary powers of our economy to people who are both corporate influenced and have absolutely no clue what they are doing.

Your "no appreciation for democracy" bullshit is a really pretty strawman. Again, I made it clear that I believe Congress should exist. I also believe Congress should have the power to pass budgets and write law, just as it does now. I believe Congress and the Senate and the President should remain offices with term limits and subject to periodic elections, just as it is now. You can't possibly claim that I've no appreciation for democracy when my point of view are those that I just stated. In order to not appreciate democracy, I'd have to actually advocate getting rid of the democratic process of elections and equal representation. The next time you accuse someone of not appreciating democracy, I suggest you determine their point of view on how the process of governing should work before making such a foolish accusation.

I firmly believe that monetary policy should be governed in such a way that there is a high likelihood of people that actually know what they are doing are the ones handling that area of the economy. Like all institutions, the Federal Reserve may need more restrictions in certain areas, it may need improvements to the way its being oversaw, there should probably be shorter term limits for those that are appointed to it. But having a national bank or something like a national bank, that operates in this way, is a necessity for our style of government and our style of economy. There is no getting around that.

are controlled by elite/corporations --

And I see that you agree with me ...

There are flaws in the system that need serious adjustment and they touch just about every branch and institution of government, Congress, the fed, the pentagon, what have you.


except suggesting that "these are flaws in the system" is like saying that Hitler was a

"flaw in the German system" -- !!

What we are facing is fascism in America.


The New Deal addressed the problems we're seeing again with the "banksters" -- and with criminal

and predatory capitalism -- and JFK began to address problems with the FED returning power to

the Treasury. However, there are dishonest men among us as our Founders warned -- and money

does corrupt -- and we do have candidates/elected officials who are SELLING themselves and our

government to elites, which btw is the other side of the Citizens' United coin which must also

be acknowledged and addressed. "Who did you sell yourself to today, Senator?"


You still insist on handing the feds power over to Congress, where the same kind of influence problems exist...

The source of your confusion seems to be that you think the FED represents legitimate power

vs our Treasury and Congress. Again we have no power to appoint or un-elect either the head

of the FED or its board. We do have the power to appoint and un-elect our members of Congress.

FED doesn't even pretend to be a democractic institution --

Our Congress does continue to keep up the pretense, however!




Re this --

Your "no appreciation for democracy" bullshit is a really pretty strawman. Again, I made it clear that I believe Congress should exist.

Once you make a comment like this --

Allowing a beast like Congress to call the shots on monetary policy would turn out to be the stupidest move in American history.


It doesn't matter what more you add --

Congress can be changed -- the FED isn't a democratic organization nor can voters change it.


As for this --

I firmly believe that monetary policy should be governed in such a way that there is a high likelihood of people that actually know what they are doing are the ones handling that area of the economy. Like all institutions, the Federal Reserve may need more restrictions in certain areas, it may need improvements to the way its being oversaw, there should probably be shorter term limits for those that are appointed to it. But having a national bank or something like a national bank, that operates in this way, is a necessity for our style of government and our style of economy. There is no getting around that.

You mean you put your faith in "experts" -- whether or not they are committed to democracy or

economic democracy? And, does the last two years suggest to you that the FED "knows what it is

doing" because even Bernanke seems to be getting nervous? How about the last 30 years -- that

look good to you, as well?

Again, we don't need HIERARCHIES of power -- the people and their representatives in Congress are

not only capable of making these decisions but they are the LEGITIMATE sources of this power.

And what you should understand is at this point is that the "experts" are more often than not

working for elites.

The very fact that anyone would even think of supporting a FED system suggests that this needs

to be counter-addressed -- and presumably at some point we'll see a new OP up. Many here are

familiar with the issue.

do you think it would be possible to re-charter the Fed into a kind of national credit union (owned by taxpayers) and folded into the Dept. of Treasury? The only reason I ask is because, right now, it seems that that bank can hand vast amounts of National Currency over to just about anybody they want, and they don't have to tell us a damn thing about it, and that seems democratically kind of wrong...

I'm not a Ron Paul guy, and I think the notion of a Fiat currency as a MEANS to free-market generated wealth for the many (rather than an END to wealth of the Corp. few) is an ingenuous idea; it's worth what we SAY its worth, the problem seems to be that WE don't get much say...

Just wondering if there is a DU type solution we could come up with that would serve the interest of all interested parties...tell me what you all think...

Peace,

It would be a mess in no time with the know it all freshmen tea partiers who have no clue.

with the looming question being just why they were appointed --

however, the history of Obama's presidency suggests it was simply to do more of the same!

The OWS is sending a message that not only is capitalism finished --

but the "two-party-duopoly" as well --

OWS knows that Obama is Wall Street --

"The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise or evade truth, not to reveal it."

I think much of what concerns people about the fed is that man behind the curtain functionality.

Would love to see James Galbraith in a new liberal administration!

Thus, when the economy is NOT expanding, we suffer. That is not compatible with conservation. Nor is it humane.

"stable currency, economic growth, low unemployment".

Our currency is unstable, our economic growth is tepid at best (besides going to the top 1%) and unemployment is rampant.

Generally hard currency is at odds with both economic growth and low unemployment

In a situation with low growth and high unemployment (the recession) and in the wake of a market shock that is deflationary (the mortgage bubble), the logical thing to do with monetary policy (remember monetary policy is the only instrument at the fed's disposal) is soften the currency. This is what they've done.

It's congress and the president's job to do fiscal stimulus.

The fact is that the Fed is failing at its stated purposes.

But they damn sure managed to funnel a hell of a lot of money to the banksters.

Most of the appointees to the Fed in the last 30 years have been Milton Friedman followers and it is not a good economic policy. Congress for the last 30 years has also been devoted to the same ideas.

Greenspan certainly was as vicious as they come in the war on the 99% for the

benefit of the rich --

He played a primary role in moving the FICA tax burden onto the shoulders of the

middle class and poor to create a larger slush fund for Bush ---

after the public shock at the original suggestion that Poppy would send the IRS

after the poor to raise funds!

is the one that shifted the FICA tax burden.

and evidently moved in the middle of the night on that one -- with

Greenspan present. See Wm. Greider on that --

Or over a few decades?

so as to create continuing surpluses. Greenspan was right at the heart of things.

He is not an honest player. When Clinton ran budget surpluses, he was out there saying we needed tax cuts. When Bush ran deficits he was out there saying "OMG, deficits, we need some fiscal discipline here!"

Greenspan is evil.

none of the instruments at his disposal had anything to do with pursuing the policies he advocated. All federal taxation schemas are from congress, not from the federal reserve bank.

What the hell did we have a Congress for?

We need to return to usury laws, for one!


And, if Greenspan was as bad as you suggest ...

WHY DIDN'T WE UN-ELECT HIM?

:rofl: --- :rofl: --

It was not his authority as chief of the Fed.

as many other vile deeds did --

Again, you seem to have no clue that Greenspan/FED are in service to elites --

they are not democratic institutions -- nor do they pretend to be.

for advice in crafting legislation it would be THEIR fault for deciding to do so because he isn't the boss of them. The same thing goes for Greenspan, who incidentally could have easily not been re-appointed but Poppy, Bubba, and Dubya decided to re-appoint him. The chairman of the fed has no authority to set tax rates.

your'e up one more lame post!!

ALAN GREENSPAN NEVER HAD AUTHORITY TO SET ANY TAX RATES.

and he was present in Congress as it happened in the middle of the night ---

Greenspan is obviously a greenskeeper for elites -- and not doing badly for himself.

But neither Greenspan nor the FED has anything to do with democracy -- nor

economic democracy. It's an elite institution serving the elite.

And, one more disingenuous post and you go on ignore --

Greenspan ≠ Fed

When Greenspan changes interest rates or minimum reserve rates, that is relevant to a discussion of the fed.

When Greenspan fucks Andrea Mitchell, that is not relevant to a discussion of the fed.

When Greenspan is consulted by politicians about taxes, who then enact his dumb fucking idea on taxes, that is not relevant to discussion of the fed. That's the fault of those champions of democracy known as our elected officials.

And your charges of being an elite institution serving the elite is applicable to any institution. That's what institutions do. So, why should I give a shit about the fed in particular or the foaming at the mouth of a bunch of Ron Paul Tinfoilers etc. who are not able to even suggest a credible alternative form of central banking?

And you're on IGNORE -

Bye --

But trust others here will continue to work on just WHY this humorous attempt

to try to salvage the FED's reputation -- !!!


:rofl: -- :rofl: --

http://www.ssa.gov/history/greenspn.html

The National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the Greenspan Commission after its Chairman) was appointed by the Congress and the President in 1981 to study and make recommendations regarding the short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time. Estimates were that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund would run out of money possibly as early as August 1983. This bipartisan Commission was to make recommendations to Congress on how to solve the problems facing Social Security. Their report, issued in January 1983, became the basis for the 1983 Social Security Amendments which resolved the short-term financing problem and made many other significant changes in Social Security law.

isn't it possible to just set interest rates at zero and leave them there? that way, if the Fed makes a loan, the following happens:

1 The Fed prints (lets say) a billion Dollars to loan out to the economy at large.
2 The loan gets paid back over a set period of time (at zero interest, so no GAIN, but also no net LOSS)
3 The repaid actual currency goes into the shredder, and the net effect is that you have provided funding to grow new and different sectors of the economy, WITHOUT the problem of inflation, or the hording of liquid capital..you have effectively turned a national currency into a fully recyclable economic gasoline, (isn't that what it's supposed to be ANYWAY?)

Also, if you wanted to begin the practice of re-valuing the Dollar, you just set interest rates at say, 1% and take out a little bit extra, that way, each dollar left is worth more (I would NOT put that 1% in the shredder, I would give it to the Pentagon and mandate that it go in a vault somewhere, NOT get counted as part of the the general economy, and require that it be used to actually PAY for wars and stuff...any other possibility is equally viable)

Treasury could manage this kind of operation, (I think) and it seems to me that it would make WORK more valuable than the accumulation of currency, because the purpose of work as applied to a free-market is to turn labor into wealth (like houses for your family and stuff) and Fiat currency is the MEANS by which that transaction is facilitated; should not the Fed ALSO believe this as a standard operating principal?

If I've lost my mind, please tell me...

Seems that the stink of the FED is becoming too well known, perhaps?

The Federal Reserve licenses member banks to create money. The RESERVE REQUIREMENT is the amount a member bank needs to deposit with the FED in order to lend. If the requirement is 1 to 10, that means that a bank can deposit $1000.00 and lend $10,000.00 simply by writing it into the borrowers account. There is a re-lending amount as well, so that under a 1 to 10 requirement a bank can deposit $1000.00 and effectively lend just under $100,000.00.

So the problem is that the United States Government no longer creates money. The FED has the power to authorize banks to lend money. If the our government wants to do something it can't just create the money it must borrow it from member banks and then pay interest.

In June of 1963 JFK authorized the US to start creating money. Look at your money and you will notice it says Federal Reserve Note. For a short time in 1963 United States Notes were distributed, but six months later JFK was dead and the order was quickly rescinded.

The only bank that should be able to do this should be a National Bank.

This is the only issue I agree with Ron Paul about. OK.

A bank cannot lend money that it has not received by way of deposits, proceeds from bond sales, etc.

A bank's assets have to equal its liabilities, just like any other corporations books.

The reserve requirement is the amount it must keep available so that it can satisfy short term demands by depositors for their money back, since a major way that a bank makes money is by gathering short-term or demand deposits on which it pays low interest rates, and by lending to borrowers for longer terms at higher interest rates.

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

Now they are coming for us.

i.e. the reserve requirements are determined by the banks liabilities (deposits and other money the bank has borrowed), not by the banks assets (loans that the bank has made and which it expects to be repaid).

and this is simply false.

The only check the US government has is that the FEDs governors must be approved by Congress or just the Senate. There is no other check. How governmental is that?

in principal, supreme court justices can be impeached and removed from the court, though in fact removal has never happened (samuel chase was impeached but not removed). similarly, a fed governor can be removed by the president "for cause", though this has never happened either.


so would you say the supreme court is only quasi governmental?



oh, and, like any other part of the federal bureaucracy, an act of congress could wipe it out entirely.


sounds like part of the federal government to me.

JFK was right on moving printing of money back to the Treasury -- !!

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm


and a little more of the history --

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.

Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.



and ...

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in
Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government,
specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and
issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal
Reserve Bank.

President Kennedy's Executive Order11110 further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority:
"to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or
standard silver dollars in the Treasury."
This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the
government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver
bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United

States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10
and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by
the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious
that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the
purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United
States of America. "United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and
debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury.
In the illustrations below, a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the
private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a
Federal Reserve System), is compared with a "United States Note" from the
U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost
look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the
other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green
seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and
serial number.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6237629/President-John-F-Kennedy-vs-FRB-fiat-money-1963-JFK-contra-mafia-sistemului-bancar-privat-FRB


Federal Reserve Notes VS. United States Notes - YouTubeAbe Lincoln and John F. Kennedy both had United States Notes issued in order to save the American People a fortune in interest payments that shouldn't even ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tr5BbH6X8s - Cached.Play Video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tr5BbH6X8s



http://www.opendemocracy.net/john_f_kennedy_vs_the_federal_reserve


Many of these TREASURY NOTES are still in existence featuring the RED SEAL quite different from

the Federal Reserve Notes with the green seal --

Here's someone commenting on having some in his possession --

I have several $2 and $5 United States notes as well as one $100 United States notes. They look cool with the red seal and the star is at the beginning of the serial number rather than the end as it is on Federal Reserve notes. A star means the original bill was destroyed and this bill is a replacement.

Helpful hint: it's specifically about Executive Order 11110. And a United States Note is not a Silver Certificate; a United States Note had a red seal and said "This Note Is Legal Tender For All Debts, Public and Private" on the obverse; a Silver Certificate had a blue seal and the wording "This Certifies That There is in the Treasury of the United States of America _ Dollars in Silver Payable to the Bearer On Demand" and "This Certificate is Legal Tender for All Debts, Public And Private". Observe the difference in wording; a note is not a certificate, a United States Note is not a Silver Certificate, and Executive Order 11110 has nothing whatever to do with United States Notes. Kennedy issued the order to end issue of Silver Certificates because the value of silver as a useful metal outweighed any reason to use it for money (as you will see in his own words in the text I quoted) and because the government-set value for monetised silver was actually somewhat below the market price. Please note also that Federal Reserve Notes were not issued in the denomination of one dollar until 1963...to replace Silver Certificates withdrawn from circulation.

Rather, I'd suggest that you read what I posted to you --

they're "United States Notes", which had been issued in varying denominations since the 1860's and which were printed until 1971. And United States Notes were never backed by silver bullion; they were fiat money. The information you posted is incorrect.

JFK's TREASURY NOTES said ---

'TREASURY NOTE' --

with a Red Seal


-- and what's the push behind trying to deny this?


:rofl: -- :rofl: --

I know this because I have one, series of 1963, in fact. There has never been any sort of currency issued bearing the name "Treasury Note". I'd like to know why you're trying to insist that Executive Order 11110 authorised the issuance of currency backed by silver when it did no such thing and in fact Kennedy was on record on the side of demonetising silver completely? And why if Kennedy was so anti Federal Reserve the first one-dollar Federal Reserve Notes were printed in January of 1963?

Again, since you're apparently slow:

Again, since you're apparently slow:


Right -- I'm slow --


:rofl: -- :rofl: --

You don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

:rofl: -- :rofl: --

or $10, for that matter. Again you don't know what you're talking about. No currency called "Treasury Notes" has ever been issued by the US government; treasury notes have been issued, as debt instruments, but not as currency.

Edit: see also here. http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

Will you verify for this poster what the first words on the face of the $20 bill are?

"FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE" -

Thank you!

You're on IGNORE for disingenuousness --

Bye --



And trust everyone who posted on this thread will be mulling over just why the

Fedeal Reserve Bank's reputation stinks so badly that there's an effort being

made to deny it!


:rofl:

cannot legally "outsource" its Constitutional obligations to other branches/entities (like it did when it handed the printing of Currency over to the Fed, rather than Treasury where it had always belonged....)

Was trying to research that, but we have a lot of storms coming thru here in NJ

and internet is very slow --

But -- highly agree, while rather surprised I'm agreeing with Scalia!


IMO, that also holds true for passing responsibilities off to panels, "Cat Food Commissions"

and/or a Super Congress to deliver "immaculate conception" decisions where representatives

aren't held entirely responsible!


JFK was strong on democracy -- something we haven't seen anything of lately -- !!


Thank you for the info --


:hi:

He wrote the Majority Decision on the DC gun ban case, I think it was brilliant, and it doesn't matter a whit that I might disagree with it, which DOES tend to happen more often that not; Being WRONG a lot of the time does not mean that one isn't SMART, thats the category I tend to put Scalia into....

And you're right about JFK, and "super-congress'.

decisions in recent times -- but it's a good thing to do.

from member banks and then pay interest..."

This is the crux of the problem. They are a cabal of private banks upon which we are utterly dependent and who profit from everything the government does. They profit when the US goes to war, because we must go to them for the loans that fund the adventures. They have great incentive to push for policies that grow the military industrial complex. They have great incentive to push policies that will create government debt and private debt, because the more we borrow, the richer they get.

All the money that is printed and issued as loans must be paid back with interest. We must pay back MORE than is printed. And the fractional reserve system allows them to create money out of thin air in order to collect interest on it. We become hamsters in the wheel, trying desperately to work and grow the economy enough to create real value to pay back imaginary money at interest. Then they come repossess our homes, cars, and futures when there is not enough money in the system to repay.

And, yes, JFK tried to end this system. They were not happy with him.

of what the Fed is, does and what is going on with money system and how it works. They like it that way. Your attacking their illusion.

Rather queer attempts to try to redeem the FED -- !!

Question really is WHY --

Think the Occupy Wall Street forces are calling attemption to this --

think it's hurting them -- too many people talkin' about politics!!!


:evilgrin:

While Main Street was waiting for the money -- !!

Treasury made a $4.5 billion profit on Bank of America and $12 billion on Citi. I could go on but you won't believe it.

ProPublica.org has a bailout/profit scorecard. Look it up.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has often discussed exactly that - and they did this

rather than lending out the money!!


Meanwhile, if you're talking about any repaying of bail out money -- that would

be something entirely different!

Federal reserve banks do pay interest on privately held moneys in their trust, but that's pretty much the only thing they have in common with commercial banks.

Doing away with central banking is one of the Ron Paul/looneytarians nutty ideas, and while it may or may not be the nuttiest of their nutty ideas, it certainly would make the top ten list.

This isn't just a Ron Paul deal --

Again -- not too much different from the Super Congress idea --

moving power into hiearchies takes control away from the people.

...for at least the last 15 years?

Sorry but Greider didn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about back then, and I have no confidence his opinions have improved much. Furthermore, I'm sure you could singularly take just about any nutty idea the looneytarians have and find someone on the left who somewhat agrees with them for their own reasons, nutty or otherwise, but that hardly makes a consensus view.

Thanks, but no thanks.

i read "secrets". it's not nut-baggery.

They have crossed over!

Actually, I think it's time for me to re-read it !!!


:hi:

and certainly any policy they put in play is ELITIST!!

And -- right -- no one has the "slightest idea of what they are talking about" --

except YOU! :rofl: --

Especially re how our nation has been thriving over the last 30-40 years -- !!!


:rofl: -- :rofl: --


Preposterous --

I am always pleased to add a Rec to common sense.

Bonus points for "Hurr durr gold standard!" :)

Really uncalled for.

Really uncalled for.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Guns don't kill people, left alone a gun would never harm a single person. The FR is the same way, a tool used by humans to either help the economy or hurt the economy. Lately it has been all hurt for the working class. Used properly, with oversight and regulations, it is a great tool for capitalism.

and certainly those Obama has kept in place were responsible for the meltdown --

and for keeping this depression going!


Government and its agencies are kind of like a typewriter -- it depends on who is

doing the typing --

but that has nothing to do with GUNS which are created for one sole purpose -- to

do violence!

of our societies values. The FR used properly (like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) is a great tool for a capitalist system. Currently it is the abuse of the selected few we see year after year and now the blowback - the OWS rally. If you use a gun to murder people for money then you are vilified. If you use a gun to defend the life of the innocent then you are a hero in the eyes of the people. It is all in how you use the tools civilization has adapted for human growth...or hindrance. The choice is not really ours, but the ruling elites.

but seemingly you need to ignore reality.

Time to end the paranoia created by the RW and gun industry --

as crime rates drop, still gun purchases increase.

GOPs/NRA is highly effective at selling guns.

The irony here is that it is YOU who ignores reality and your NRA/RWing dogma has nothing to do with my post. Sad you cannot READ, just post whatever reactionary garbage is in your mind. :eyes:

Or maybe you think screw drivers were manufactured to knock someone's eye

out with?

Or cars are intended to knock out pedestrians?


You've reached the point of being disingenuous -- and that puts you on ignore --


Bye --

how typical of you. You can kill people with any of those items and they are all tools. Not my fault you are totally ignorant about civilization.

Flee you coward.

is something futile. Guns are NOT tools... Orwellian shit

Not my fault you are ignorant about society too. Guns are tools, stop being so reactonary about a word...it is sad.

If the US printed its own money, we could spend our taxes on other things like health care and the environment.

although Fed sources claim otherwise, there's a great rundown of how this happens in the documentary film America: Freedom to Fascism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism

It's unfamiliar to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism

here's a link to the full film on google video--it's a bit shrill but lots of good info there.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+facism+duration%3Along

has a great rundown of the role of the Fed in our govt. That's the best source I have for what I said, actually, I'm sure it's available elsewhere by googling

When I look up the Fed using govt sources they seem to be a lot more worried about the fact that so much of the Fed's money is invested with foreign banks, they spend alomost all of the FAQ on that.

for .04c a note over the face value.

"Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.<8> The Federal Reserve Banks pay the BEP not only the cost of printing the notes (about 4¢ a note), but to circulate the note as new currency rather than merely replacing worn notes, they must pledge collateral for the face value, primarily in Federal securities." (Wikipedia)

The Fed pays the Treasury (taxpayers) interest. In 2010 over $78 billion.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/01/federal-reserve-2010-record-profit-financial-crisis-intervention.html

And F-to-F is an uber Ron Paul video.

A complete whiff on your part.

I couldn't find any. Love to see some.

We need a Central Bank, we do not need the Federal Reserve.

Putting private banks in charge of issuing our national sovereign fiat currency is utterly absurd on every level.

the Fed creates money and lends it to the government. That money has to be paid back with interest.

the Constitution gives the power to create money to the Congress. If the Congress creates money, no interest charges accrue.

currently creates it? I submit there would be no difference whatsoever because money (NOT CURRENCY) is created when banks lend money to borrowers. You go in to your local bank and apply for a loan. If you are deemed credit-worthy and approved, the bank then deposits the proceeds of the loan in your account, funds that were not there before, i.e., creating money out of thin air. The Fed can restrain this lending activity by raising banks' reserve requirements or the inter-bank interest rates banks must pay to borrow from one another to keep their reserves at sufficient levels.

I see criticisms of the Fed as the psychological outcry of the disempowered who cast about wildly for a villain to explain their disenfranchisement and alienation. One reason among several that I like OWS so much is that it seems to be swinging the focus back where I think it belongs: the top 1% that control 40% of the wealth of this nation and (to a lesser degree) the 10% that controls 80% of the wealth.

At least our Congress tries to keep up the pretense they're part of a democracy!!

it is situated. I would actually argue that the FED is under the control of technocrats who often perform far worse than the anonymous "elites," because technocrats substitute ideology for real-world experience. Thus, the Fed since 1981 has exhibited a weird fixation with controlling inflation . . . at the expense of other equally valid societal goals like full employment, reductions in poverty, and so on. Former Fed chair Paul Volcker, a hero to many on DU, broke inflation on the backs of the working class, a fact that is often conveniently forgotten here at DU. Take a look at the unemployment rate in December of 1981 and today's unemployment rate, while horrible, starts to seem not so bad by comparison.

controlled by elites -- it's part of the elite hierarchy --

And when you're talking about "Democrats" I think you have to make clear which ones ...

Are you talking about Koch Bros. funded DLC Dems or New Dems or Third Way Dems -- ?

Paul Volker is a here here?


:eyes:

many posts here touting Volcker's pedigree (usually by contrasting it with that lickspittle Greenspan's). But Volcker is no friend of the working class, broadly construed. In 1981-82, IIRC, adult unemployment reached almost 12% nationally while Volcker was chair of the FED. (As an English and History major about to graduate, I remember those days well as the only organization hiring History majors on our campus was the fucking CIA! So it was off to grad school for me. But that's a story for another day. :)

That's debt. Banks are currency users, not currency issuers.

US Dollar money is only created when the government spends it into existence.

see if I can give you a good hypothetical example of how banks 'create' money.

My best friend banks at Bank of America. He keeps a balance there that varies between $10 and $100. I run a small business and need a loan to finance physical plant expansion. As it happens, the loan I need is for $1,000. So I go to BofA and fill out a loan application. BofA vets my application and business plan and decides I am a good credit risk. All along, the Fed has said that banks must maintain reserves of 10% of outstanding loans. Now, as it happens, at the time I fill out my loan application, my best friend has $100 on deposit with BofA. So BofA has me sign a promissory note and then credits my checking account with $1000. BofA can do this (loan me $1000), because it has $100 in deposits, thereby satisfying the 10% reserve requirement.

That is $1000 I have to spend and it is $1000 of money that DID NOT EXIST until BofA credited my account. In other words, in my hypothetical example, BofA created $1000 of money that did not exist before i signed my promissory note and BofA credited my account.

The next day, my friend withdraws $50. Now BofA has only 5% on reserve against its outstanding loans. So BofA must go to the Fed or some other financial institution to borrow money ($50) to bring its reserves into line with regulations. The day after that, my friend deposits $50 bringing his total on deposit back to $100. Now BofA has $150 in reserve (my friend's $100 deposit and the $50 BofA borrowed from the Fed) and can turn around and repay the Fed, lend $50 to other financial institutions or create another $500 of money by making a loan against the excess $50 in reserves it now has.

I hope this clarifies how it is that banks create money. My original point was that, were Congress to take over the bank's role and create money, Congress would have to do it exactly the same way, by making credits to demand accounts. It's really that simple.

Banks make transactions using money issued by the government. They are only leveraging government money, not creating money.

In the scenarios you describe, banks create a credit, which is offset by the debt of the borrower. Net new financial assets added to the economy totals to zero.

Only the government can create net new financial assets, typically through crediting accounts when they spend. When the government credits an account, there is no IOU generated to offset this credit. This is pure money creation. Conversely, the government destroys financial assets through taxation.

Banks don't use reserves to lend, only to cover deposits. Banks are never reserve constrained in lending since they can always lend first then seek reserves later. Lending is only constrained by demand and capital.

abstract concept represented numerically) and 'assets' (another abstract concept represented numerically), you make a mistake in thinking. The three are of necessity best thought of separately.

It is true in my scenario that bank lending does not result in new assets, but it DOES result in an increase in the money supply, hence the oft mis-used metaphor that the Treasury Dept or the Fed can 'print money'. Not the currency supply and not the actual physical assets, but the money supply. (Economists used to refer to this as the 'M1' money supply figure back in the day. I'm not certain if they still do.)

Lending by banks is most assuredly not constrained only by demand and capital. It is also constrained by the government, among other things, raising the reserve ratio banks are required to maintain (a harsh measure) or by the Fed raising the interbank lending rates it charges banks to borrow from it to maintain reserves (a milder measure), or a host of other regulatory devices in between that are too numerous to enumerate.

So no, we're not really paying interest...

it is the fed vs greenbacks. the type of people that pushed the fed on us would also like the gold standard.

What is wrong with the fed is that it wastes us billions of dollars by charging our government interest. The department of the treasury printing money would not, and could not. The second problem with the fed is that it likes unemployment, because it represents the interests of reactionary bankers. Arguments against politicians giving the fed oversight could be used against democracy itself. They dont wash with me.

That strawman is always a desperate attempt to preserve the status quo. We have seen it before.

and the Fed pays US taxpayers interest!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/01/federal-reserve-2010-record-profit-financial-crisis-intervention.html

and the Treasury prints our money - not the Fed.

it just talks about tarp being paid back. If the department of treasury printed them, they would be us treasury notes not federal reserve notes.

"Federal Reserve Notes are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.<8> The Federal Reserve Banks pay the BEP not only the cost of printing the notes (about 4¢ a note), but to circulate the note as new currency rather than merely replacing worn notes, they must pledge collateral for the face value, primarily in Federal securities." (Wikipedia)

So the Fed pays the Treasury/Bureau of Engraving 4c per note over face value. Thus a dollar note is a liability of the Fed and a credit to you - backed by real assets at the Fed.

What are assets at the Fed? US Treasuries, gold certificates, real estate (MBS) of Fannie Mae that accrues value.

created & led by banksters, nothing to do with the greenback party.

the fed = a central bank.

As far as your criticism of the fed for representing the interests of reactionary bankers, is this not because the elected officials who appoint the board of directors are supportive of the reactionary bankers?

The people who pushed the fed in the first place did so to get away from the gold backed currency because they perceived correctly that an industrializing economy with huge gains in output was served very poorly by a currency whose supply is tied to a rare metal.

Not giving politicians the ability to micromanage the fed was done so that situations where long term well being of the economy was in conflict with short term gain wouldn't be resolved in the favor of the latter. It's the same reasoning that puts SC justices in for life.

The federal reserve returns almost all profits back to the US treasury. So even if the dubious claim that the fed charges the US 'billions in interest' were true, this would be offset by the profits returned to the treasury ($79 billion last year).

n/t

Normally the federal reserve is left to its own devices. TARP was an example of politicians getting involved and deciding to micromanage the feds actions. They did this by designing legislation that would use the fed to bail out the banks.

I have a very hard time viewing TARP as the fault of the fed and not of congress and Bush.

n/t

Yes, if you put shitheads in then they will be shitheads. This does not delegitimize the organization, it delegitimizes the people making the decisions about staffing.

banned from making political contributions to politicians and from lobbying the government.

So what he did isn't even reflective on the fed.

n/t

A new study released today by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) shows that, despite rosy statements about the bailout's impending successful conclusion from federal government officials, $1.5 trillion of the $4.8 trillion in federal bailout funds are still outstanding.

The analysis, presented in charts and an online table and program profiles, is based entirely on government records. This comprehensive assessment of the bailout goes beyond the relatively small Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to look at the rest of the Treasury and Federal Reserve's multi-trillion dollar response to the financial crisis. It shows that, while the TARP bailout of Wall Street (not including the bailout of the auto industry) amounted to $330 billion, the government also quietly spent $4.4 trillion more in efforts to stave off the collapse of the financial and mortgage lending sectors............
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/this-day-in-tarp-triumpha_n_930918.html

They were given the bail out $$$ pretty much at 0% -- though I don't think the

records have ever been produced on what they were charged --

and rather than lending the money out to the public/Main Street the banks bought

Treasury notes with the money ... PAYING THEM 3.5% AND 4% --- !!!


Those practices did further damage to Main Street and the economy -- and we should

insist that any interest they collected on bail out money should be returned to the

government!

control monetary policy. The private banks set it. See here.

Structurally, the Fed is a two-part system, with a Board of Governors in DC and Reserve Banks that sit in 12 separate regions of the country that represented roughly equivalent sectors of the economy in 1913. The Board of Governors has 7 members, each of whom can have one 14-year term, and a Chairman who has a four year term. These members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Monetary policy is set through the Federal Open Market Committee, which has members from both the board and the Reserve banks. If you ever want to see how the country is actually run, read the transcripts of FOMC meetings, which are released on a five year lag (they used to be shredded as a matter of course). It is stunning to read how Reserve bank presidents basically talk to WalMart and high-end headhunter firms to find out how their regional economy is doing, and then set monetary policy. It’s also crazy that we still do not know what the FOMC was saying from 2005 onward, during the height of the mortgage boom and bust. All of this is secret, and very much open to subpoena for some enterprising politician. (It is one of my great disappointments that neither the Democratic House or Senate tried to get these transcripts, given that we know that Alan Greenspan was muffling dissent on the housing bubble in 2004, the last released transcript.)

The Reserve Banks are quasi-public and quasi-private entities owned by member banks. The New York Fed, for instance, pays dividends to JP Morgan, and has a .org web address. The Reserve banks are governed by Boards of Directors that are drawn mostly from the banking sectors of their regions, as well as large companies and the occasional union leader or university president. The Fed also has a large research staff and funds most macro-economic monetary policy research. It is uncommon to find ‘credible’ economists in monetary policy who have no financial ties to the Federal Reserve banks. The Fed is actually one point of contention between the right-wing billionaire Koch family and the Ron Paul libertarians; the Kochs are supportive of Federal Reserve-tied scholars, and Paul’s people are not (the Palin Tea Party had no involvement in the Audit the Fed fight, the Ron Paul Tea Party was the driving force on the right for that legislation).

This structure is the result of a political compromise in its inception, a holdover from the Wall Street-populist fights of the 1890s, the financial panic of 1907, as well as legislative shifts over 90 years. It is a deeply corrupt and indefensible system rife with conflicts of interest. The Reserve banks conduct a good amount of the regulatory work in our banking system. Their boards are staffed with bank leaders, and the presidents of the Reserve banks are actually hired by these bankers. Reserve banks even pay dividends to their bank members (attention Congresscritters who want to find a pay-for!). This ‘I’m a dessert topping and a floor cleaner’ identity allows Reserve banks — particularly the NY Fed — to intimidate courts and aide its allies on Wall Street. Additionally, the Reserve banks aren’t subject to the same government policies regarding Federal wages, so they can pay higher wages and give lucrative and prestigious consulting contracts to economists. In one hearing in the 1960s, a Reserve Ba.......

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/12/01/end-this-fed-28595/

which allows right-wing populist analysis to be accepted without realizing where it comes from.

It is relatively easy to fool people with economic arguments because economics is not widely taught and premises than make common sense are not true for a whole economy, such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift">Paradox of Thrift or the widely held perception that the Fed routinely prints money to finance budget deficits.

William Greider has unimpeachable liberal credentials and wrote an entire book about the Fed, http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567">Secrets of the Temple. He is not opposed to the existence of the Fed, and in fact argued for more expansionary policies. (This was in 1989.)

A Federal Reserve that is both a government and private entity. They fear what they don't understand.

The GOP has gained a lot through the years simply by identifying themselves as the "private sector party" and attacking government. No doubt a lot of people who work in the private sector identify with that on the false assumption that the "private sector party" is on their side working for them. The GOP is happy to exploit that dichotomy consiering most Americans work in the private sector.

is the United States government. The closest private sector party that can come close is Wal Mart. Um...safe to say that those employed by the U.S. government make more on average than those at Wally Mart.

When it comes to the People's money, that's bad.

Here's what Bernie Sanders found from the only audit ever of The Fed:

This is socialism for the rich

That's my fucking problem with The Fed.

it takes an accountant to understand an audit - Sanders is not one.

Regarding D&P's audits: They are limited in scope.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_oversight.htm

real-time interference in Open Market decisions and loans.

What if Congress were in pissing matches on emergency loans? We would be paralyzed in times of crisis. It was intended to be that way for great reasons.

Maxine Waters got in ethics trouble for demanding TARP loans for her husband's bank, for instance. Of course, TARP was a Congressional program. What if Fed loans were political?

From an important article (PDF format) that makes me wonder if the fees (and hidden relationships) have anything to do with objectivity: Financial crisis and the silence of the auditors



Gee. It seems like a lot of the foreign banks the US taxpayers bailed out just happened to have been audited by Deloitte & Touche. Small world.

Congress just cannot interfere with FOMC decisions.

You're damn good with support/back-up by the way.

Thanks for that report. The fees look to be audit fees - not loans.

and even to deny that JFK had Treasury NOTES printed -- !!!

Amazing --

Let's see, what could be the motivation?

Any chance OWS is making them nervous?

In fact, Bernanke looks nervous these days -- !!

The trustee overseeing the bankruptcy of Taylor Bean filed a lawsuit this week against auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP, saying the firm's "grossly negligent audits" contributed to the mortgage lender's collapse. The trustee's lawsuit and a second action filed against Deloitte on Monday by a Taylor Bean subsidiary called Ocala Funding seek a total of at least $7.6 billion in damages.

Deloitte was Taylor Bean's auditor from 2002 until it resigned from the assignment in 2009, a move that helped trigger the lender's collapse. the Wall Street Journal reports. The lawsuits seek to recover some of the billions of dollars owed investors. By the time the fraud came to light, Taylor Bean had lost more than $6 billion, according to the trustee's lawsuit. "If Deloitte had done their job … this fraud would never have caused the $6 billion loss," said Steven W. Thomas, an attorney representing both plaintiffs, the Journal story reports.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/venturebiz/content/deloitte-touche-auditor-ocalas-taylor-bean-mortgage-fraud-target-76-billion-lawsuits

They must have accidently missed a few zeroes.

The Big Four should be nationalized -- or their fiduciary responsibilities should be federalized. They'd be lucky, the gangsters they are.

What William K. Black said:

2011 Will Bring More de Facto Decriminalization of Elite Financial Fraud

EXCERPT...

The FBI and the DOJ remain unlikely to prosecute the elite bank officers that ran the enormous "accounting control frauds" that drove the financial crisis. While over 1000 elites were convicted of felonies arising from the savings and loan (S&L) debacle, there are no convictions of controlling officers of the large nonprime lenders. The only indictment of controlling officers of a far smaller nonprime lender arose not from an investigation of the nonprime loans but rather from the lender's alleged efforts to defraud the federal government's TARP bailout program.

PS: A hearty welcome to DU, EdMaven.

Cain's opponents are trying to label him a "government insider"----just like the rest of them---because it is his private businessman/government outsider image that is making him soar.

BTW, Cain is a mathematician! I suspected he was the smartest of the bunch, and now I am sure he is.

9-9-9 is not smart..Its actually the opposite. College ≠ smart

Why are conservatives against the Fed? One, because they're crazy and don't understand how stuff works. So they want the gold standard, because that's what the crazies have told them works. Two, the ones who are less crazy are already rich. They don't want the pie to ever get bigger. They think if the pie stays the same size, no matter how much the population grows, they'll always have the biggest piece. That's why they're always on about inflation this, inflation that, because they want their money to be safe and never lose value sitting in a Scrooge McDuckesque vault in their mansion not helping anyone. And they know if they ever had a gold standard, they'd be the only ones who had any.

OK, now here's why I'm against the Fed as it works today. I think we need a more democratic, egalitarian method of expanding the money supply. I think one good start would be printing money instead of taxing money for social programs, and making direct government loans to small businesses.

I think the Fed is too close to being a private enterprise, and there's a huge conflict of interest when it's staffed by bankers. Look how well the banks have done off of Fed policy. Coincidence?

I think it is bad that the only way we expand the money supply (which must be done with an increasing population) is by putting it in the hands of private banks to lend out with interest, allowing the banks to act as a filter deciding who gets access to the money. I don't know if you've heard, but apparently banks aren't too keen on lending to small businesses these days, and small businesses are very important in recovering from a jobs crisis. In fact, letting the banks decide who gets the money essentially CREATES a situation where monetary policy is a primary factor in the health of the economy, essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy for the Friedmanites and the Chicago Boys.

A gold standard is ridiculous on the face of it, of course. But so is the concept that money can only be put into circulation in our economy according to the bankers' criteria and with a debt to them attached.

And by the way, if you want to fix the economy, start with a living wage.

some kind of fake opposition.

they're against a questionable institution, but for all the wrong reasons. there's some truth to their critique, but also some nutbaggery.

like one side thinks OK, let's expand the amount of money in the system and make sure it all goes in our pockets, and the other side thinks look, I'm already rich and I'm too lazy to invest, can we just keep inflation down so my horde doesn't devalue over time?

Plus I think at least a good 50% of Fed opposition on the right is just an elaborate scam to sell overpriced gold.

I have a problem with the idea of the federal government printing money to expand the money supply. The phrase "not worth a Continental" is why. It's far too easy for the political branches to print too much and create real inflation. Not the fantasy inflation that horrifies the idiots who claim the current unbalanced budget will lead to hyperinflation (about half the GOP contenders), but the kind we've seen in American and world history. It's way too tempting as a short term "fix" to pump up the money supply in an election year. I'd rather not give Congress or the executive that kind of temptation. As it stands, they have waaaaaaaaaay too many.

I think the current system of money expansion, via lending, is a more accurate way to do it. The people who actually need money can go get what they actually need rather than the Treasury department trying to estimate the needed amount. It's a more flexible and efficient system. I also get that it's not working worth a damn right now. I do think part of that problem is structural, but I think the primary reason is a lack of interest on the part of the public. Well, I should say serious interest. I don't think that monetary policy is necessarily easy to understand, but I do think that just about anyone can get the principles of it with some study.

I'd rather a system that works from the bottom-up, expansion via lending, than a top-down solution, Treasury expansion. I think, with proper oversight and safeguards, it provides a better means for its purpose.

Their policy always favors the banks, because it's run by bankers. Seems pretty simple. I think money supply has to be controlled by economists who aren't connected to the banking system but answerable instead to the people.

And I'm not talking about inflation as an economic fix, just the expansion of money supply that's needed to keep up with population expansion. I think when you keep the money supply constant and the population expands, that just squeezes the poor and middle class instead of helping them by reducing prices. But of course, the minimum wage has to be tied to the cost of living. That also seems obvious to me, but nobody else is saying it.

I think that distributing new money when you expand the money supply via social programs instead of through the filter of banks who decide who to lend or not to lend to is a more bottom-up approach to the economy. But I would agree with a system that does both lending to businesses through a real PUBLIC central bank and having part of the system involve private banks as well. I think there should be a "public option" for banking.

Maybe a system of both traditional lending and micro-lending? The micro-lending aspect could operate at a lower interest rate than the traditional lending (say 1-2%). It could give actual small businesses the chance to get needed capital at rates that make it possible to both make money and not get crushed by debt. The only problem I see would be with the scale and execution. Scale would need some limitations, so as not to artificially inflate the number of people trying to get cheap money. Execution would require the agency to make a clear distinction between an entity actually needing this type of capital infusion and the scam artists (i.e. large entities trying to game the system using "small" entities to get cheap loans). This is all off the top of my head, so take it with a pound of salt.

and lets mandate that every time Congress votes itself a raise, the Federal Minimum Wage goes up by exactly the same %age...one of 2 things will happen;
1 The FMW will rise faster than it ever has
2 Congress will stop deciding that it needs a raise every few years (without ever asking US if we think they deserve it)

Discovered that right here at DU.

That is why I usually go with the KISS principle when starting a new thread.

And I have to admit that I too like something explained to me in short, concise terms. Brevity is like playing with kittens for me.

The Fed is something that cannot be explained in short, concise terms. It just can't. Maybe someone could? But I have never heard anyone do it. Though I do admit you came pretty close. Your post gave me a basic understanding.

Don

It is an easy institution to scapegoat, and attackers usually have the advantage that their audience is not informed enough to refute the nonsense.

typically where there's ignorance it's because the folks running the show like it that way. it's the same at the top as in any office.

And, not all that surprisingly, the skeletons in the closet were things that everybody already had figured, which is that they unilaterally decided to bail out some of the failing financial institutions.

Also, not surprisingly, we didn't discover that they killed JFK or that every single dollar collected by the IRS goes to pay interest to them, or other ridiculous Ron Paul/Aaron Russo nonsense.

It's just a central bank. Like all central banks of a fiat currency it's purpose it to manage the amount of money in circulation. It does this by adjusting the interest rate.

Money as debt. Usury should be a crime. Bankers produce nothing they leech off of others hard work. The reason for complication is always to hide the truth or facts. Our currency use to be asset based. Now it's funny money.

Gold is just one commodity of many. Basing your entire economic system on its current value and amount in circulation is a terrible distortion in and of itself.

But I agree we should be able to come up with something better than debt-based currency.

Initially our money system was based on goods. That didn't work so well due to value fluctuations. I feel an asset basses economy should be just that, assets. Buildings, bridges, infrastructure, automobiles, land etc. anything tangible that cannot be eaten. This way a countries money is relational to what assets it has. Just like you and I. No funny money.

Not sure exactly how it would be done.

Of course, there's room for tricky accounting in any system we put forward. What we really need, much more importantly even than fixing the Fed, is to get money out of politics to take away the incentives for all that fuzzy math they do.

or not. It is really a question of making money respectable and people getting paid for their contribution in creating the assets. Gov sponsored campaign money is the only way.

After that, it hardly matters what system you use. As long as everyone's playing fair and they're accountable to the people with votes rather than the people with money, then OK, Federal Reserve, Treasury, whatever. Whoever prints the money becomes a much more academic question.

you go to youtube and search for money as debt watch all of it and become aware of reality. If you're brave enough. Then do the research to quell any doubts you might have of it's truth. Then get back to me.

Google "Modern Monetary Theory", it's a left-wing model of fiat currency.

that doesn't know what fiat currency is.

budgets designed to help people survive would be a simple argument.

Alms for the poor
Champagne for the rich
What gives money it's value
Are you getting paid what your worth
What do bankers create
Can you eat it, wear it, drive it, live in it
Next you will be living in a ditch
After they show you the door
Your being had lad
You don't know it and it's sad

at interest. That interest is the national debt. Right?
If congress made the currency and set the value then there'd be no debt owed to those banksters!

cheating on them. It's to horrible to fathom.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How about the predictably disastrous quantitative easing policies?

What about ZIRP?

How many bubbles does the Fed need to create through its market distorting practices before you will accept criticism?

QE (or CE) must show on the balance sheet which was around $700 billion in 2007. Its $2.8ish trillion today.

I don't remember any QE in my lifetime (prior to 2008) - not to say it hasn't happened. How can you blame the tech bubble and housing bubble on QE when there was none?