Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Fed boss: Fed must be free from political meddling

Tue May 25, 2010 7:30 PM EDT
world-news, business, as, federal-reserve, bernanke, federal-reserve-chairman-ben-bernanke, fed-chairman-ben-bernanke
Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, left, listens to Bank of Japan Gov. Masaaki Shirakawa during an international conference on central banking held at the head office of the Japanese central bank in Tokyo Wednesday, May 26, 2010. The Federal Reserve and other central banks must protect their ability to make key economic decisions free from political interference, Bernanke said Wednesday. (AP Photo/Itsuo Inouye)

Advertise | AdChoices

TOKYO — The Federal Reserve and other central banks must protect their ability to make key economic decisions free from political interference, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday.

As governments move ahead on reforms to prevent another global financial crisis like the one in 2008, Bernanke stressed the importance of the Fed and central banks in other countries maintaining their independence over setting interest rates, known as monetary policy.

The Fed, for instance, often must make decisions such as boosting rates to keep inflation in check that are unpopular with politicians but are necessary for a healthy economy.

Politicians generally prefer holding interest rates low, which stimulate the economy and hiring.

"Such gains may be popular at first, and thus helpful in an election campaign, but they are not sustainable and soon evaporate, leaving behind inflationary pressures that worsen the economy's long-term prospects," Bernanke said in a speech at a conference in Tokyo on the future of central banking in a globalized economy.

"Thus political interference in monetary policy can generate undesirable boom-bust cycles that ultimately lead to both a less stable economy and higher inflation," he said.

Bernanke's comments come as Congress edges closer to completing action on revamping U.S. financial rules, and subjecting the Fed to more oversight.

A provision contained in a House-passed bill doesn't specifically carve out monetary policy from congressional audits as current law does. However, the House bill says the audits shouldn't interfere or dictate the setting of interest rates. A Senate-passed bill, on the other hand, provides for a one-time audit of the Fed's emergency lending program. Congress must reconcile the two bills before a final vote is taken.

Bernanke said the Fed's emergency loan program to banks also should be free of political interference. For years, the Fed — as a lender of last resort — has made low-cost loans to banks when they couldn't get financing elsewhere. The identities of banks drawing the loans aren't made public for fear of causing a run on the institution and defeating the purpose of the backstop.

He also said he thinks the Fed's decisions on purchasing long-term securities, a move to drive down interest rates, also should be protected from political meddling.

Congress' audit provisions emerged in response to populist anger over the Fed's role in bailing out Wall Street banks during the 2008 crisis. The rescues provoked public outrage at a time when many Americans are struggling with nearly double-digit unemployment, stagnant wages and rising home foreclosures.

In his speech, Bernanke didn't talk about the future course of interest rates in the United States or the European debt crisis, which has rattled Wall Street and stock markets around the globe.

But in a question-and-answer session afterward, Bernanke said central banks around the world generally agree on aiming for inflation of around 2 percent. The Federal Reserve does not issue an official target, though individual members of the Federal Open Market Committee provide quarterly opinions of where inflation should be in five or six years, he said.

"Despite increases in inflation a few years ago and now declines to very low levels in the United States, inflation expectations are remarkably stable," Bernanke said. "And that is in turn a factor which helps to stabilize inflation itself."

At its last meeting in late April, the Fed maintained a pledge to hold rates near record lows for an "extended period" to support the economic recovery in the United States.

Even as the Fed must retain its independence, Bernanke said it and other central banks must be accountable to lawmakers. The Fed has taken steps to be more open about its dealings and about its thoughts on setting interest rates.

Bernanke also said he does not want dollar-swap arrangements between the Fed and other central banks to become permanent. While they have played an important role in stabilizing financial markets, they should be used as an emergency backstop, he said.

Earlier this month, the Fed revived a program with other central banks to swap currencies. The Fed is lending much-in-demand dollars to other central banks in exchange for their currencies. In turn, the central banks can lend the dollars out to banks in their home countries to prevent financial crises from spreading.

___

Aversa reported from Washington.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Jeannine Aversa's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Tokyo
  • Public Discussion (102)
freebirdreaming

Fed boss????????????

there is a much better name for this asshat........... and traitor would fit nicely.

  • 6 votes
#1 - Tue May 25, 2010 11:44 PM EDT
economics101

the issue is why we need the Fed at all ....

  • 8 votes
#1.1 - Wed May 26, 2010 12:39 AM EDT
JoulesBeef

the main reason? political meddling.
rival parties could have fun with the fed numbers to hurt the ruling party in the wh.
also with the obstructionist GOP it could take weeks to get an agreement to adjust the numbers.

we need something like the fed, but i would prefer something more like the CBO, than the fed.

and besides for making our money, they make us money.. they paid the us treasury their 45billion in profits last year.
alot of people dont realize they give up their profits.(that doesnt mean it isnt realized elsewhere.)

The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public documents. That reflects the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury

  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:04 AM EDT
economics101

No you and I paid the tereasury $45 Billion more in taxes than the other taxes we knew about ..... all the more reason to get rid of it. I have no problem with getting politics out of the money system, but have a big problem with all of our money being a debt, with interest due every year just to use it.

  • 8 votes
#1.3 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:13 AM EDT
Socrates1

econ...here's an issue we agree on...I think.

Let's see, we have a democracy and yet the most important part of the equation should be controlled by a small cadre of men making decisions in secret? Why not just be honest then, and get rid of the elected government if it's all a sham anyway.

Get rid of the FED.

For me, and I think you disagree, econ, go back to GOLD.

How can we, and/or Congress let somebody essentially tell us to butt out? I don't get it.

  • 4 votes
#1.4 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:23 AM EDT
kiml

Why can't you follow the Canadian model.We had problems up here but not as bad as the US. Our banks are regulated and our problems were mainly due to your collapse.

Regulations keep the idiots in check.

  • 1 vote
#1.5 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:28 AM EDT
economics101

I don't have a problem with gold as long as the scarcity of gold is not used to cause tight monetary conditions. In effect a "hard" money program works fine as long as people understand how it works ... that the first role of money is a "medium of exchange". The problme comes with hording of gold (=money) creating tight monetary conditions like we saw in the late 19th century ....

People need to see money as a facilitator of commerce, not as something of value in itself for hard currencies to work ... cause really, what is the real value of gold besides that of a quasi currency?

  • 5 votes
#1.6 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:29 AM EDT
economics101

As someone born in Canada, the Canadian government bailed out their banks pre emptively to the tune of 700 Billion in "toxic assets" (what TARP was supposed to do ... ), the Canadian real estate market never failed - house prices have actually risen in the last 18 moths in Canada significantly!, the Canadian economy is based on resources production mainly, which gives them a fundamentally better balance of payments than the USA. australia is very similar.

What is interesting is we all have the same Anglo - American banking system, the same risks, the same problmes. What happened is that the UK, Europe and USA had a real estate bubble which burst, Canada and Australia still have a Real Estate Bubble that is being subsidized by government monetaary policies. Vancouver is the least affordable city on earth. Sidney, Melbourne, Toronto are all similarly overpriced and unsustainable housing markets .... while much of the USA is getting back to a balance of income to housing price .....

  • 3 votes
#1.7 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:34 AM EDT
JoulesBeef

No you and I paid the tereasury $45 Billion more in taxes than the other taxes we knew about

thats really not how it works.. sure it is kind of a tax when they print money.. but thats not what this is.. plus the fed is holding onto a lot of debt that very well could screw us in the future when they dump it.. but the 45billion was the money they made on the interest rate.

It isnt a tax at all, it is a share of profits from all the loans in America.

And i just want to reiterate.. they do tax us when they print money.. mainly with foreign purchases and not as much in country.. it does effect domestic but not at the rate it does foreign.. but this isnt that.. this is profits from the interest rates.

they also own a lot of bullcrap.. failed real estate and crap.. when they unload all this junk we could be sitting on a hefty bill.

but really there are a ton of misconceptions about the fed and how things work.

and really they havent had to print all that much money either.. the slope of increase is pretty much the same as it was in 2005

and yeah the m3 is no longer reported and i wish it was, but it really doesnt matter.. you can work out the m3.. the data is redundant just in easy to access form.

  • 3 votes
#1.8 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:37 AM EDT
BJK-798627

I have no problem with getting politics out of the money system, but have a big problem with all of our money being a debt, with interest due every year just to use it.

How is that the fault of the Fed?

The Federal Reserve does not pass the annual federal budget; Congress does that.

The Federal Reserve has two important jobs: first, to ensure the stability of American banks via the FDIC; second, to expand or contract the money supply in order to stimulate investment or head off inflation.

Why some people (e.g. Ron Paul) live in perpetual fear of the Fed strikes me as laughable to say the least.

The Fed, like the Federal income tax, has existed for nearly a century. It's not about to vanish into thin air anytime soon :P

  • 2 votes
#1.9 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:41 AM EDT
LCS

Socrates1

The problems were quite obvious. The old timers I work with in finance, thought the Fed would never lower the interest rate lower than 8%, at 8% the Fed is giving it to the lenders at 6% and this would cover inflation.

The drastic change from 10.5% to 6%, which happened when Clinton was elected, is why we are in this mess today. Some say this happened because the world change, we in the United States opened our markets to the Chinese, and other nations.

Us Americans our consuming, when the interest rate is low, we spend like crazy, and by cars, electronics, clothes, etc., and most of these products are from other countries. If we dont have money to spend, these countries suffer.

We tax companies, out of business, and they go elsewhere. We lost our manufacturing of electronics to China. We are becoming a nation that sells intangibles.

The backbone of a country is in manufacturing.

Ronald Reagan new this, and put tariffs on Japan. Now Toyotas and Hondas are made in the states.

We need to buy American products when ever we have a chance, just good luck in finding any.

  • 2 votes
#1.10 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:43 AM EDT
JoulesBeef

gold blows.. it is nearly linear.. but you can watch country after country, left the recession in the same order as them dropping the gold standard.

and trade imbalances can be much worse for the economy than with fiat money.

there are also wilder swings in economy production do to a lack of ability to manage the economy but since we are in a recession.. i cant say we do a heck of much better job.. but it is a better job even if yall dont want to believe it.

gold also has the problem of not being able to multiply with population growth

  • 2 votes
#1.11 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:43 AM EDT
kiml

I can still remember when gold was $35 an ounce and supported by the reserves in Ft. Knox. That was when a Dollar was a Dollar supported by gold and not the pseudo-dollar now.

  • 2 votes
#1.12 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:44 AM EDT
yukon

The American people should revolt. Why would you even want a 2% inflation rate. This means that in 35 years everything will be twice as much. However the problem is the misconception of inflation. It is not in fact the increase in price alone.. it is the increase of money supply which debases the value of the currency and is a hidden tax to the us people. The federal reserve has created the economic crisis that is long from over by artificially keeping the interest rates near zero. The only thing regular people can do are buy gold and silver.

Furthermore, since the creation of the Federal Reserve system has presided over a 95% percent decline in the U.S. dollar value.

If you compare purchasing power people had in the late 19th century you would come to the conclusion that you would actually be better off then.

  • 2 votes
#1.13 - Wed May 26, 2010 2:00 AM EDT
BJK-798627

I can still remember when gold was $35 an ounce and supported by the reserves in Ft. Knox.

Then people woke up and recognized gold is shiny and makes pretty jewelry, but you can't eat it if you're hungry or heat your home with it in the winter.

It took the Great Depression to jolt America out of this obsolete mentality.

Thankfully, FDR and Richard Nixon had the sense to end the gold standard, first domestically then in the realm of international trade.

There's no going back now, kiml, and no point crying over spilled milk :P

If you compare purchasing power people had in the late 19th century you would come to the conclusion that you would actually be better off then.

By and large that's false.

Except for certain food items (many more people were farmers), most other goods and services were actually quite expensive a century ago.

Many products you take for granted - telephones, TVs, personal computers, cars - are much cheaper today than they were when they first came on the market.

Doesn't anyone take Economics 101 anymore?

  • 1 vote
#1.14 - Wed May 26, 2010 2:07 AM EDT
Socrates1

Yes, BLK, I'm pretty sure I understand basic economics. I also somehow remember we actually agree on quite a bit...that being said.

Ever since we went off the Gold Standard we have been borrowing money. The bills are coming due. We'll find out if it was worth it.

My perspective is that this recession, depression, whatever is simply the continuation of the Great Depression which those before us staved off by selling off all our assets and than borrowing whatever we could.

    #1.15 - Wed May 26, 2010 3:19 AM EDT
    economics101

    jULES,

    you are wrong on that. All interest is really a "tax" on the issuance of money. You see, when someone borrows money from a bank, or whatever institution it causes money to be created. 95% of the nations money is created by PRIVATE BANKS CREATING MONEY. Now they create the money FOR FREE and lend it out at an interest rate set by the Fed.

    Now, to live in our soceity you really have no choice, you have to use this system. Maybe you don't borrow the money, but the money in your wallet, in you IRA or bank account is all borrowed, and someone is paying interest on it. The net cost of interest is the difference between the prevailing interest rate and the inflation rate. Beyond that banks (Fed included) have no real costs beyond renting an office and paying the staff. Oh, and paying a pittance of interest on deposits held in trust as reserves - which is really just an anachronism to the pre Fed days of the gold standard anyway.

    Therefore, all that interest is paid for providing the people with the basic service of CREATING OUR MONEY SUPPLY. Banks don't actually have any of the money they lend out, it costs them virtually nothing to lend it out, their business is the sole cause of the reduction in profits (inflation) from their business. This "tax" now consumes 30 - 50% of our GDP. What is the point of it? I mean, these people create the money out of thin air! They don't add ANYTHING OF VALUE TO THE ECONOMY, JUST THE RIGHT TO ISSUE MONEY.

    Therefore, interest is very much a tax. This is why for 1800 years usury was a capital crime, and still is in most Muslim countries (wonder why we are at war with them all the time??).

    I was talking with a guy recently who came from Iran. He said he wanted to go back to Iran because all Americans are slaves he said. We don't own anything, we work to pay interest, rent, taxes to our masters. Her said in Iran, they didn't have much, but at least it was theirs. If they lost work, they had a place to live and could make due ..... something to think about.

    • 4 votes
    #1.16 - Wed May 26, 2010 10:01 AM EDT
    TinFoil Annie

    1.7

    You did not have Barney Franks, Fannie Mae and the Clinton admin. helping you.

    • 2 votes
    #1.17 - Wed May 26, 2010 11:50 AM EDT
    sixfeetunderhope

    The FED ==The ARCHITECT (GREENSPAM AND FOLLOWERS, RUBIN, SUMMERS, RAHM, CLINTON, GHEITNER, GRAMM, PAULSON, BERNANKE, TBTF, IMF, WORLD BANK, CENTRAL BANKS.

    Governments in EU pledged some 13 percent of their economic output on bailing out banks in 2008 and 2009, according to EU estimates

    Michael Cohrs, the "King" @ Deutsche Bank:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cohrs

    http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/strippenzieher-im-hintergrund-die-wahren-herren-der-deutschen-bank-1.813476-4

    He is a Harvard plutocratic graduate machine , like Trichlet( European Central Bank),Draghi, in Italy, then the Icelandic bank boss that ruined his nation, like all City of London....,Spain, etc.

    EVIL financial capitals : NY and London

    If you DIG deeper, all are "Goldmen" Sachs alumni(Banksters), and appointed in 2002.

    I think the timing is very important.

    It proves the goldmen's at the CENTER of the conspiracy to defraud the entire world(USA , Europe,ASIA).

    Just check all bosses at the Big banks...all Harvard, all prior goldmen employees, and promoted in 2002, so the MACHINE started the PONZI scheme, orchestrated from FED's a. ...SPAM, rubin , summers( all worked for GS)...IT IS disgustingggggggggggggg.& scary.

    No wonder bush had to win! And Obamarahma to continue it!

    AUDIT THE FED...

    AUDIT THE FED...

    AUDIT THE FED...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • 3 votes
    #1.18 - Wed May 26, 2010 11:48 PM EDT
    Reply
    Cori-1642012

    Well are they looking for something more to destroy ,our country ,the golf disaster, the not JOBS ,we are here we are the teachers the art teachers with no job in Miami,Fl and about the oil spill no one care is the oil comes to south Fl ,we will be real well I and not for the right not left I am for a good group of people ho wants to do the right thing for the country, the disaster that is happening now,or no one care and the rich guest Richie's and the rest ho care GOD Help Them,after all i am better human been because I learn after I lost every thing I cut be helpful to others ,I recover from the nightmare of 2008, and still the same noble decent Pearson as always but now I see people cut do real bad things for more power and money.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#2 - Wed May 26, 2010 12:18 AM EDT
    LCS

    In 1984 I bought my first house in Queens the interest rate was 14%, in 1986 the interest rate dropped to 9.5%.

    I have been in the real estate and finance business for over 25 years, and got to work with some of the best people in finance. The old timers in finance thought the rate would never go lower than 8%, because at 8% the Fed is printing and giving the money to the lenders at 6% the lenders then add their 2 points and hence we get 8%. The 6% the Fed is getting covers inflation.

    We would watch oil prices as the main indicator, for inflation and deflation. If oil prices went up, the Fed would hike the interest rate up by 1/4 point, per month, hence tightning the money supply, and no money in circulation prices come down.

    When George Bush Senior was president, we had deflation and Greenspan hiked the rate from 9.5% to 10.5%, and we thought maybe Greenspan did'nt like Bush Senior.

    Keep in mind the Federal Reserve is Quasi Private, and the Federal Reserve Chairman is actually the most powerful person, he can make or break a President.

    When Clinton got elected, Greenspan lower the interest rate from 10.5% to 6%, and we were all quite happy. We refinanced our homes, and spent like crazy. 5 cars per family and 10 televisions. Which made the Chinese very happy because Bill Clinton thought it wise to give the Chinese our tech. Laugh now Cry later but now our childrens, children will be paying for this.

    When Greenspan did this, we joked that he had a thing for Clinton, but we thought this 6% interest rate will last for a week and then go up. However it did not, we been spoil with this low rate for 15 years. We had massive inflation, house quadripling in price, and all the Fed had to do is hike up the interest rate, but they did not.

    Greenspan is either dumber than a box of rocks, or he has an agenda.

    Interesting note Alan Greenspans wife works for MSNBC.

    • 7 votes
    #3 - Wed May 26, 2010 12:29 AM EDT
    papagriz

    "Keep in mind the Federal Reserve is Quasi Private, and the Federal Reserve Chairman is actually the most powerful person, he can make or break a President."

    All the more reason to kick the foreign invaders out! If the chairman of a "FULLY"-private entity has any sway on the President, he and the institution he heads should be nullified immediately. This is a severe security risk to our country and it's time to take the power back. They are just a bank for Christ's sake and we got along just fine before they came and we will do just fine when they are gone!!

    • 6 votes
    #3.1 - Wed May 26, 2010 12:43 AM EDT
    JoulesBeef

    the president can fire the chairman at any time and appoint a new one.
    he also can and often do appoint everyone on the board.

    it's a lot less private than people realize.. not saying it is a good thing, but if we are going to bitch about it, we should get our facts together.

    presidents normally dont shake up the fed very much cause the whole reason why it was set up was to not be political.

    • 2 votes
    #3.2 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:08 AM EDT
    Socrates1

    I don't believe the President can fire the Chairman, but could stand corrected.

    • 5 votes
    #3.3 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:25 AM EDT
    JoulesBeef

    your partial right and so am i.

    The president does have the power to remove a member of the Board of Governors, but only for cause.

    or more correctly

    As stipulated in the Banking Act of 1935, the President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; they must then be confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years. Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy views. The chairman and vice-chairman are chosen by the President from among the sitting Governors for four-year terms; these appointments are also subject to Senate confirmation

    so they have a bit of job security but they still get their jobs from the big P.

    • 3 votes
    #3.4 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:49 AM EDT
    Socrates1

    Why thank you JB.

    • 3 votes
    #3.5 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:54 AM EDT
    Mego-507171

    First of all, the Federal Reserve is not private. It is independent.

    Who owns the Federal Reserve?

    The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

    As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

    I'm a bit confused by the comment economics101 made above about our taxes paying the treasury the $45 million profit of the Federal Reserve since their funds come from:

    How is the Federal Reserve funded?

    The Federal Reserve's income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. Other sources of income are the interest on foreign currency investments held by the System; fees received for services provided to depository institutions, such as check clearing, funds transfers, and automated clearinghouse operations; and interest on loans to depository institutions (the rate on which is the so-called discount rate). After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.

    source

    As for the president being able to remove the Chairman from office, this is what I found in the same FAQs quoted above:

    Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy views. The lengthy terms and staggered appointments are intended to contribute to the insulation of the Board--and the Federal Reserve System as a whole--from day-to-day political pressures to which it might otherwise be subject. If all Governors serve full terms, a President would be able to appoint only two Governors during a four-year presidential term. Moreover, even a President reelected for a second term would not have appointed a majority of the Governors until late in the second term. In reality, many Governors do not complete their fourteen-year terms, and recent Presidents have averaged more than one appointment to the Board every two years.

    • 3 votes
    #3.6 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:59 AM EDT
    Socrates1

    In other words a small cadre of bankers run our money system, in secret, for their own benefit with little oversight, and now they are just a little upset that our elected officials want to know what's going on.

    Think of it like putting together a group of insurance company ceo's who set policy in secret and tell the US government what to do....wait a minute, is that just what we did?

    • 3 votes
    #3.7 - Wed May 26, 2010 3:23 AM EDT
    freebirdreaming

    Mego-507171

    where is your information from?

    the fed is indeed PRIVATE......... there are stock holders who have made their fortunes off the backs of the people since the 40's.

    please post your link.

      #3.8 - Wed May 26, 2010 10:15 AM EDT
      economics101

      The Fed is a bridge between private bank money creation and teh government authority to create said banknotes. It is necessary to have the FED so that banks can create banknotes guarenteed by Congress (and thus all of us). Originally, banks issued their own banknotes which traded based on relative "value" of the issuer. Money was made up of these notes and gold/silver coin.

        #3.9 - Wed May 26, 2010 10:40 AM EDT
        Mego-507171

        where is your information from?

        The Federal Reserve website. Are you suggesting they are wrong?

        Click where I put "source" it will take you directly to the FAQs. It's not private. Private is like Coca-Cola.

        • 3 votes
        #3.10 - Wed May 26, 2010 12:13 PM EDT
        economics101

        The Fed is a quasi private institutions with private shareholders ..... but it doesn't matter, the Bank of England was nationalized after WW2 and does the same thing - it is run by bankers .... who seek profits for their banks

        • 3 votes
        #3.11 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:25 PM EDT
        Mego-507171

        Well according to the Federal Reserve, and I am going to trust them on this one... it is:

        not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

        and

        accurately described as "independent within the government."

        Again, that is from the Federal Reserve's website, I consider it reliable.

        • 2 votes
        #3.12 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:45 PM EDT
        economics101

        the shares of the Fed are not tradeable, they have no market value. However, the choice of who gets in to the various positions at the Fed, including the chariman, are determined by the shareholders.

        The Fed is run on half truths. The whole reason for the Fed is to allow private banks to issue government backed banknotes through fractional reserve banking. The federal Reserve was created by bankers, for bankers for this purpose. It is really a liason between gov and banks - offering to legitimize money creation by lenders and issue money in return for debt to the gov - win win situation for those parties .... and a lose lose for me and you.

        You need to read the Creature from Jekyll island to understand how and why central banks were enacted, and why our money system is 95% private. The original cause of the Central bank was that government's (monarchies) could not be trusted to repay their debts. Banks were a buffer, an institutional construct to give the appearance of solvency to government finance.

        The problme is that today, when the buffer is no longer needed, why do we have them? Banks are no ;onger necessary to create money - they are really just leaches taking a fee from what most of us believe (rightly so) is a government operation - hence the necessity of the FED.

        • 2 votes
        #3.13 - Wed May 26, 2010 2:19 PM EDT
        Mego-507171

        Do you have any sources to back up your claims, or are we just supposed to take you at your word?

        • 1 vote
        #3.14 - Wed May 26, 2010 3:15 PM EDT
        freebirdreaming

        Mego............. maybe it would be a good idea to get some balanced information from other sources?

        its kinda like accepting a statement from toyota that their cars are safe, (because to tell you they might not be will cause them to loss money?) you might want to actually check with the folks who know something about safety and remain nuetral?

        or you could ask the fox if the hens are safe................. you get my point:)

        • 1 vote
        #3.15 - Wed May 26, 2010 3:39 PM EDT
        Mego-507171

        It's not the sort of claim that requires neutrality. You realize that right? Saying the federal reserve is "independent within the government" is like saying there are two houses of congress. You can debate the relevance of a Federal Reserve/Central Bank, or whether a gold standard is better than fiat money, but the Federal Reserve is not a private institution. It is "independent within the government". I know that doesn't fit will with conspiracy theories, but well that's how the cookie crumbles.

        • 1 vote
        #3.16 - Wed May 26, 2010 4:05 PM EDT
        freebirdreaming

        I asked politely.......... now I'll just identify your comments for the baaaaaa's that they are.

        the federal reserve is NOT any part, form or entity of the United States Government. If you need a hint you can go to Jekyll island. Then read some history with a focus on The No name club, and if that is not enough........... grab your ass and hold on cause we are all about to go for a mighty ride and the pampered and lazy will not survive.

        as for your use of conspiracy theory............ find some new talking points or develop critical thinking skills, either way, that bird doesn't fly any more. Calling history- readily accessible information - a conspiracy theory is just plain ignorant.

        A man named Eutice Mullins has done the research, spent a lifetime doing it, all you have to do is pick up the book and read it......... anyone who accepts one source information, deserves what they get.

        • 1 vote
        #3.17 - Wed May 26, 2010 4:30 PM EDT
        Socrates1

        What is "independent within the government"?

          #3.18 - Wed May 26, 2010 4:32 PM EDT
          economics101

          alternate discussions about the Federal Reserve:

          http://www.toolbarhome.com/search.aspx?q=creature+jekyll+island&srch=hdr&po=1

          http://www.toolbarhome.com/search.aspx?q=federal+reserve+criticisms&srch=hdr&po=1

          http://www.toolbarhome.com/search.aspx?q=federal+reserve+audit&srch=hdr&po=1

          http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02/federal-reserve-off-balance-sheet-lending/

          http://www.apfn.org/APFN/fed_reserve.htm

          http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

          Wikipedia:

          The Federal Reserve System (also known as the Federal Reserve, and informally as the Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. It is the only entity with the US government's permission to introduce US paper currency into circulation. Created in 1913 with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act, the Fed is the United States federal government's solution to the problem(s) inherent with fractional-reserve banking; namely, bank panics.[1][2][3] With the support of private bankers,[4][5][6][7] the Fed serves as a government solution to a problem that could not be solved by supply and demand[8]. Since 1913, the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve System have expanded and its structure has evolved.[2][9] Its duties today (in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act,[10] which makes the Fed legally obligated to inform the public about its organization, procedures and rules) are described as falling into four general areas:[11]

          1. Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.
          2. Supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system, and protect the credit rights of consumers.
          3. Maintaining stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.
          4. Providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system.

          The Federal Reserve describes its structure as composed of five parts:[12][13]

          1. The presidentially appointed Board of Governors, an independent federal government agency located in Washington, D.C.
          2. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which oversees Open Market Operations, the principal tool of national monetary policy.
          3. Twelve regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation, which divide the nation into 12 districts, acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors.
          4. Numerous other private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks.
          5. Various advisory councils.[14]

          According to the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, "It is not 'owned' by anyone and is 'not a private, profit-making institution'. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."[15] In particular, the US Government does not own shares in the Federal Reserve System nor its component banks, but does take all of its profits after salaries are paid to employees, a dividend is paid to member banks that is 6% of their capital investment, and surplus is put in a capital account. The government also exercises some control by appointing its highest-level employees and setting their salaries. The Federal Reserve made a record profit of 45 billion in 2009, nearly all of which was transferred to the US Treasury.[16]

          The structure of the central banking system in the U.S. is unique in the world. It is also unusual in that an entity outside the central bank (the U.S. Department of the Treasury) creates the currency used.

          So, as you can see, to say it is not "privately" owned is a stretch, it is a hybrid Self Regulating Organization - what that means is it is quasi judicial, quasi public - meaning it acts as a regulator under statutory (Fed Reserve Act 1913) authority, but is not a government agency. It's members are those whom it seeks to regulate .....

          Even in places like Britan, Canada, etc. where the Central bank is explicitly owned by the government it has the exact same structure .... is it an institution which liaises between the government and the banks governed by statutory authority granted by Congress (or Parliament in those other examples).

          This is all irrelevant, the main purpose of the Central bank is to act as OPEC does, which is set monetary policy followed by members (ie. Private banks). 95% of the US money supply is issued by Private banks under the statutory authority of the Federal Reserve through a quasi legal process called fractional reserve banking.

          The banks create money based on three criteria, the qualifications (deemed by the private bank) of the borrower, the maintenance of a small "reserve" of in trust deposits, and the Fed policies on price / supply of money. Therefore, banks do not have "money" to lend you, but issue banknotes on the Congressional authority of the Fed .... Therefore, interest paid on bank / mortgage or virtually all private debt is not "earned" since the money only exists as a result of the origination of the debt. So interest is really just the fee charged by the bank to you to issue you money authorized by the Federal Reserve.

          No reason to take my work for it - google fractional reserve banking ....

          http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/fractional-banking.html

          http://www.goldonomic.com/fractional_reserve_banking.htm

          http://www.survival.org.au/growth.php

          http://www.wikinvest.com/wiki/Fractional_Reserve_Banking

          Not those who don't criticize the "system" tend to get you lost in a bunch of banker jargon. They want to use formulas and complicated math and terms to try and cover up what is going on ..... basically that banks create money and lend it out at interest ... they have figured out how to make lead into gold, without any lead!

          Excerpt:

          Virtually nothing that is written about money can be accepted as the absolute truth. Even the Constitution can't be believed -- what follows, in blue, at (A) & (B) in the next sentence -- is from the Constitution -- but is no longer followed. Certainly, (A) Congress does not create money and regulate the value thereof and certainly (B) the President does not sign monetary treaties with foreign countries with the advice and consent of Congress. The best we can do is observe what seems to be happening and do our best to suss out the underlying rules according to our own good sense. Even Congress does not declare War any longer -- it hasn't since 1942 and we have had any number of Wars since then.

          In my opinion, The Federal Reserve lies regularly. Take the little test at << http://www.primeronmoney.com/arewebeingliedto.html >>

          In my humble opinion, the seven links found at the following link will be just about, but not quite, the equivalent of a college education in Banking for a student who reads and absorbs the essence of these laws.

          http://www.primeronmoney.com/bankinglaws.html -- Laws, rules and regulations regarding money and banking (7 links)

          Fractional Reserve Banking -- when paper money was falsely backed by gold -- an antiquated system that has evolved into paper money that is absolutely reliable and completely backed by by the laws and wealth of our nation -- by Martin R. Carbone

          Fractional Reserve Banking was a banking system in which a fraction of the sum of (a) a private bank’s invested capital and (b) the deposits of gold by the private bank’s customers at the bank must be kept on hand at the bank, in gold, to (a) meet routine expenditures of the bank and (b) return deposits to the depositors when the depositors want those gold deposits back.[1] In that sense, when a private bank loaned paper money to a borrower, it guaranteed, falsely, that that paper money was backed by whatever amount of gold was written or printed on the money. That guarantee was a sham -- the bank never had more that a fraction of the gold on hand. See <<http://www.primeronmoney.com/chapters/chapter3.html>>. We still have private banks but they now deal only in official, sanctioned, lawful money backed for all purposes by U.S. Government law.

          Bear in mind that many (most?) people think the reserves are somehow still needed by the bank to “back” loans that the bank makes. That is a simple fallacy. Banks do not “back” loans -- they never have since questionable gold backed paper money was stopped. When a bank gives a customer a loan now -- it gives the customer cash or a check based on the customer having enough collateral in the form of assets or income to pay the loan back in accordance with the terms of the loan contract. The cash is also, by a legal tender law, guaranteed to be legal by an official governent action and every citizen is compelled by that law to accept that money in payment of all debts. Remember --- (1) BANKS NO LONGER BACK LOANS. THE MONEY THAT A BANK NOW GIVES WHEN MAKING A LOAN IS GUARANTEED TO BE GOOD BECAUSE IT IS MONEY THAT WAS LEGALLY MADE BY LAW UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

          Also bear in mind that many (most?) people think "Reserves" have something to do with loans made by the bank. THEY DON’T. The money for loans is created for the borrower based on the fact that the bank is acting as an agent of the government, acting to exercise the government’s sovereign right to create whatever money it needs to run the money supply in accordance with its Constitutional mandate to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”. Remember -- (2) RESERVES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LOANS SINCE WE WENT OFF THE GOLD STANDARD. Isn't it kind of dumb to think we somehow have Paper Money Reserves for Paper money like we once had Gold reserves for Paper money?

          The money used NOW for bank loans does not originate with the bank: it was NOT the bank’s money before it was created for the loan. The fact that the borrower pays interest on that money and apparently the bank keeps that interest does not alter the fact that the bank has none of its money “in the loan”. I have never seen the paperwork that spells out the responsibilities of (a) the government, (b) the Fed. and (c) the bank as to what happens to the interest paid by the borrower -- but I assume the bank keeps that interest even though it did not lend its money to the borrower. It seems logical to assume that the bank keeps the interest -- because in the event of a default by the borrower we know that the bank (not the Government and not the Fed.) forecloses, exercising the bank’s right to the interest due on the loan contract. We also understand that when I made interest payments on a mortgage in the past -- those payments (capital and interest) went to the bank and was kept by the bank. The capital part of those payments had been made previously, in full. to the seller of the house.

          It would be more correct to say we are now using a Sovereign Money Banking System wherein all money in the system is created by the government (or its agents -- now, the Fed. and its banks).

          • 3 votes
          #3.19 - Wed May 26, 2010 4:51 PM EDT
          economics101

          In essence our entire economy is based on a government backed ponzi scheme of creating money out of nothing to transfer wealth from working people to the financial aristocracy. The problem is that for this to work, we need constant and geometric money growth (hence inflation) which become increasingly hard to manage as more and more of the GDP is used to pay "interest" which is really nothing more than a replacement for feudal rents. Eventually, the economy becomes completely financial, the main product of the economy is excuses to create more money (stock/derivatives market, housing, consumption, banking....) and those who are actually working stop exchanging labor for the worthless money - does any of this sound familiar, or are we all just conspiracy theorists?

          • 6 votes
          #3.20 - Wed May 26, 2010 4:56 PM EDT
          Mego-507171

          Socrates,

          Independent within the government means that it is very much part of the US government (i.e. not private) but that it is seperate of and self-sufficient from congress and other bodies (though it ultimately does answer to Congress, it isn't part of Congress).

          Economics,

          You do realize that Wikipedia article you posted quotes exactly what I quoted from the Federal Reserve's website which states:

          It is not 'owned' by anyone and is 'not a private, profit-making institution'. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."[

          Of course you didn't put that in bold because it didn't serve your purpose. I however, without an agenda, linked my source simply to inform.

          freebird,

          I asked politely.......... now I'll just identify your comments for the baaaaaa's that they are.

          You are right, and I'm sorry that I came across as rude, it was unnecessary of me. But I don't think this is a debateable point. I'm not making a position statement on how I feel about the Federal Reserve, or how I feel about a fiat system vs. a gold standard, yet I am having to defend a very factual statement against people who do have an agenda.

          The Federal reserve does have aspects of a private entity, as I clearly posted in the initial statement, but as a whole it is not private.

          Anyway, I hope you can accept by apology for being pissy with you, but I'm going to bow out of this one now, because I've tried to make my point and there is no use going beyond this.

          • 1 vote
          #3.21 - Wed May 26, 2010 5:25 PM EDT
          economics101

          Yes but above it clearly says in 3 and 4 privately owned. The managment (board) is appointed by the WH (from a short list provided by the 12 regional "private" banks). The FOMC/advisory councils are made up of a mix of these appointees and the private banks in 2 and 3. So of the "ownership" issue, the government gets to appoint the board - hardly "public". I quoted that because, the entire purpose of the Fed's website is to pretend that it is a government institution. Similarly, the private Self Regulating Organzation in Charge of Securities in Canada, UK is appointed by government, created by statute, but reports to members - private firms - is is a government institution, private, or hybrid? I would argue that the Fed is a hybrid (like the Website says). That's what Ive said from the beginning of this conversation.

          However, you fail to deal with the fact that private companies have (at least some control) over the monetary policy of our country - why is that? Further, that the Fed is the body through which Fractional Reserve banking, a ponzi scheme, operates for the benefit of private banks. So why should they have any control, or certainly not equal control, to the government? :

          he Federal Reserve describes its structure as composed of five parts:[12][13]

          1. The presidentially appointed Board of Governors, an independent federal government agency located in Washington, D.C.
          2. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which oversees Open Market Operations, the principal tool of national monetary policy.
          3. Twelve regional privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation, which divide the nation into 12 districts, acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors.
          4. Numerous other private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks.
          5. Various advisory councils.[14]

            #3.22 - Wed May 26, 2010 5:36 PM EDT
            Socrates1

            M...I return to my question...what does that mean? In other words what is the effect of what you are saying? How does that affect the way the FED works?

              #3.23 - Wed May 26, 2010 5:43 PM EDT
              economics101

              This is not a relevant conversation. We agree that the Fed is not wholly private (what would the benefit of that be?), but privately controlled to benefit private corporations. The distinction is vital since the Fed itself does not really have a purpose beyond facilitating the private banking business.

              • 2 votes
              #3.24 - Wed May 26, 2010 6:03 PM EDT
              freebirdreaming

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKEGxy7xFvM&feature=related

              this man knew his stuff................. he died on feb 3rd, this year. No one knew what he knew in such totality.

              if you give it a look, and take the time, he has the knowledge.

                #3.25 - Thu May 27, 2010 12:09 AM EDT
                Reply
                Cori-1642012

                And he looks so smart right O the big people ........I am a a simple wife with to many bills and no job and many degrees taking dust,I am a daughter of very fine Cuban ho lost every thing too, 1959.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#4 - Wed May 26, 2010 12:30 AM EDT
                papagriz

                I say throw the dirty, cut-throat, invading, covetus, and lying "bank cartel" out on their rear ends. A private central bank should never have been allowed in the first place. The U.S. Treasury Department is supposed to handle this, not some manipulating mafia punks! They are federal in name only, and this was done to veil what they really are. I wish congress and the President would grow some balls and stand up for the U.S. The American people are on their side, their will be no riots, or any other problems. We know what's going on and if we got together we could take the country back from the oppressors!

                • 6 votes
                Reply#5 - Wed May 26, 2010 12:33 AM EDT
                MrTechie

                "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws". - Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838

                • 6 votes
                Reply#6 - Wed May 26, 2010 12:53 AM EDT
                Socrates1

                It is just incredible...basically we have a group giving us the "finger" and we are going to take it? They are desperate and this is crunch time. Are we going to save the banks....or ourselves?

                • 2 votes
                Reply#7 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:26 AM EDT
                freebirdreaming

                comeon............ they are going to save the banks! been here, done this!

                • 1 vote
                #7.1 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:30 AM EDT
                Socrates1

                Of course they are, and we have only ourselves to blame.

                • 2 votes
                #7.2 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:54 AM EDT
                freebirdreaming

                there are quite a few to blame, soc. save that guilt for something useful!:)

                • 1 vote
                #7.3 - Wed May 26, 2010 10:16 AM EDT
                economics101

                The genius of banking is that onece you control the money, you control everything. Do you think any politician wants to tell people that the reason they don't have as much money as they need or want is that they sold the right to create money to the banks 95 years ago ... and they decide arbitrarily, without any oversight who gets it? Which one of those politicians would last 10 mins?

                • 2 votes
                #7.4 - Wed May 26, 2010 10:42 AM EDT
                Socrates1

                If we blame ourselves, we take responsibility. If we take responsibility we may take action.

                • 2 votes
                #7.5 - Wed May 26, 2010 4:33 PM EDT
                economics101

                You're missing my point - the government is caught here. Banks have arbitrarily determined who has money, and who starves for the last 95 years. All those people in the projects, who've lived like dogs because they have no money, no credit, seen their kids go to bed hungry, died, whored or worked for pocket change while the gov't allowed a bunch of crooks dole out money to whomever they wished?

                You think anyone wants to tell people that banks never really had any money? that all this borrowing and credit was just a scheme to transfer wealth from those who work to shareholders of banks? That government can and does control who gets money - and sold it for nothing to bankers?

                I expect there would be a pretty quick demand for capital punishment for most involved - and that keeps everyone living the lie.

                • 2 votes
                #7.6 - Wed May 26, 2010 5:02 PM EDT
                Socrates1

                If your comments are directed towards me I'm not sure I follow. If the people take the responsibility, vote in elected officials who disband the Fed, than there will be a change. Otherwise, nothing.

                • 2 votes
                #7.7 - Wed May 26, 2010 5:05 PM EDT
                economics101

                I agree.

                • 1 vote
                #7.8 - Wed May 26, 2010 6:04 PM EDT
                BJK-798627

                All those people in the projects, who've lived like dogs because they have no money, no credit, seen their kids go to bed hungry, died, whored or worked for pocket change while the gov't allowed a bunch of crooks dole out money to whomever they wished?

                I think that's a rather distorted perspective of urban poverty.

                You're leaving out a bunch of causes like job discrimination, poor schools, high crime, the explosion of drug use starting in the 1960's, etc.

                • 1 vote
                #7.9 - Wed May 26, 2010 8:16 PM EDT
                economics101

                No, you're missi9ng out the simple fact that money is distributed by private, for profit bankers. They decide who gets, and how much. Access to monmey is the major factor in determining all of those things - if the people in projects had access to 500k lines of credit do you think they would go to bad schools, or live in projects?

                The banks arbitrarily determine who gets money based on maintaining the status quo. The rich have propertionally more access to capital than the poor, who typically have no access to capital. Now since all this money is conjured up from the ether, and there is really no oversight or rules as to who gets what - why does a person form the projects get less than a guy from the country club?

                The bankers say its because teh country club guy is more "qualified", but frankly, who's coming first, the chicken or the egg - he's more qualified because he's always had access to capital through credit, while teh poor guy has likely never had access - look at the banks, they went broke, and we lent them more money.

                My point t is they need to maintain this fiction that money is distributed privately, that bankers have some sort of need to control who gets the money because it is at risk (which it clearly isn't). If people realized that money is created and destroyed by the actual process, then they would rightly ask why they got so little, and others got so much. This is why the govt is stuck in bed with these guys .....

                The Evolution of a Government-Sanctioned Ponzi Scheme

                What came to be known as fractional reserve lending dates back to the seventeenth century, when trade was conducted primarily in gold and silver coins. How it evolved was described by the Chicago Federal Reserve in a revealing booklet called "Modern Money Mechanics" like this:

                "It started with goldsmiths. As early bankers, they initially provided safekeeping services, making a profit from vault storage fees for gold and coins deposited with them. People would redeem their "deposit receipts" whenever they needed gold or coins to purchase something, and physically take the gold or coins to the seller who, in turn, would deposit them for safekeeping, often with the same banker. Everyone soon found that it was a lot easier simply to use the deposit receipts directly as a means of payment. These receipts, which became known as notes, were acceptable as money since whoever held them could go to the banker and exchange them for metallic money.

                "Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.

                "Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could 'spend' by writing checks, thereby 'printing' their own money."

                If a landlord had rented the same house to five people at one time and pocketed the money, he would quickly have been jailed for fraud. But the bankers had devised a system in which they traded, not things of value, but paper receipts for them. It was called "fractional reserve" lending because the gold held in reserve was a mere fraction of the banknotes it supported. The scheme worked as long as only a few people came for their gold at one time; but investors would periodically get suspicious and all demand their gold back at once. There would then be a run on the bank and it would have to close its doors. This cycle of booms and busts went on throughout the nineteenth century, culminating in a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The public became convinced that the country needed a central banking system to stop future panics, overcoming strong congressional opposition to any bill allowing the nation's money to be issued by a private central bank controlled by Wall Street. The Federal Reserve Act creating such a "bankers' bank" was passed in 1913. Robert Owens, a co-author of the Act, later testified before Congress that the banking industry had conspired to create a series of financial panics in order to rouse the people to demand "reforms" that served the interests of the financiers.

                Despite this powerful official backstop, however, the greatest bank run in history occurred only twenty years later, in 1933. President Roosevelt then took the dollar off the gold standard domestically, and Federal Reserve officials resolved to prevent further bank runs after that by flooding the banking system with "liquidity" (money created as debt to banks) whenever the banking Ponzi scheme came up short.

                • 2 votes
                #7.10 - Wed May 26, 2010 9:05 PM EDT
                BJK-798627

                if the people in projects had access to 500k lines of credit do you think they would go to bad schools, or live in projects

                Most probably wouldn't.

                That said, how many people in middle class neighborhoods have access to 500K lines of credit?

                The rich have propertionally more access to capital than the poor, who typically have no access to capital.

                Logic dictates that the solution to this problem involves creating jobs that pay good salaries. Full employment would do a great deal to lift the poor out of poverty.

                Then, with a steady stream of income, they could gain access to capital/loans/credit.

                Despite this powerful official backstop, however, the greatest bank run in history occurred only twenty years later, in 1933. President Roosevelt then took the dollar off the gold standard domestically, and Federal Reserve officials resolved to prevent further bank runs after that by flooding the banking system with "liquidity"

                Yes, FDR, may he rest in peace, did exactly that.

                What other realistic choice did he have?

                • 1 vote
                #7.11 - Thu May 27, 2010 4:49 PM EDT
                economics101

                You are avoiding the fact that credit is an entirely synthetic concept. Money is created and destroyed by credit - it does not require a job, or anything else to repay credit over time when you have an ever expanding pool of money to draw upon. The entire concepts of "credit worthiness" and access to capital which you hold as self evident ar about 90 years old.

                Money is created by private entities to generate interest. The use this control to decide who gets access to capital - wages are only a minor supply of money today, with credit making it possible to own a house, car, go to school - so AGAIN what comes first the chicekn or the egg. If MONEY is CREDIT, and credit is controlled by vested interests, WHO CONTROLS THE ECONOMIC OUTCOMES FOR EVERYONE?

                Quite simply, bankers control who gets the good jobs, who has the nice houses, etc .... They cover it up in complex nonsense about credit ratings ans qualifications, but at its root, credit is about discrimination. Now that would be fine IF THE BANKS ACTUALLY HAD THE MONEY THEY LEND OUT. The key point is that they don't. They are distributing money via debt as a service to government.

                This is the key point - government allows 95 - 97% o0f all money to be created by private, for profit agencies (banks, brokers, insurers, etc.) who actively discriminate about who get how much. To Suggest that incomes are important here underlines the fact that you are either disingenuous or don't grasp the basic premise /relationships of our monetary system. Incomes, prices, unemployment, inflaiton are all a DIRECT RESULT OF MONETARY POLICIES ENACTED BY DISCRIMINATORY, PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT COMMERCIAL AGENCIES ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT IN CREATING MONEY.

                Simply put the very essence of our economy is how money is created and distributed by bankers. To suggest that any other groups have a major impact would undermine 30 years of economic thought. Therefore, virtually the entire Economics profession has rationalized the effects of this on how the social organization has evolved. Its OK that poor people don't have access to capital - they can work their way up. The middle class effectively supports the wealthy through interest payments, but thats OK because ti protects us from government overspending and provides investment. The rich exploit the poor and middle classes and add little productive to the economy, but its OK cause they are efficient allocators of capital.

                These rationalizations are fine at the FED, Princeton, DC or Wall St, where a bunch of 1%s decide whats OK for the other 99%. Lets not forget the ultimate test of whether any of this is really OK - when was the last time you heard one of these guys spell it out that banks don't actually have the money they lend you, they create it? That interest, taxes, fees, etc. are all just taxes to support the rich?

                Yeah, I don't recall anyone saying that for about 80 years ....A few cases where it got out:

                Sir Josiah Stamp, president of the Bank of England and the second richest man in Britain in the 1920s. He declared in an address at the University of Texas in 1927:

                The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. . . . Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.

                Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta in the Great Depression, wrote in 1934:

                We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.6

                Graham Towers, Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1935 to 1955, acknowledged:

                Banks create money. That is what they are for. . . . The manufacturing process to make money consists of making an entry in a book. That is all. . . . Each and every time a Bank makes a loan . . . new Bank credit is created -- brand new money.7

                Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of the Treasury under Eisenhower, said in an interview reported in the August 31, 1959 issue of U.S. News and World Report:

                [W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower's deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else's deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It's new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.

                • 1 vote
                #7.12 - Thu May 27, 2010 9:33 PM EDT
                economics101

                DOLLAR DECEPTION:
                HOW BANKS SECRETLY CREATE MONEY
                Ellen Brown, July 3rd, 2007
                http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/dollar-deception.php

                Post your comments here

                It has been called "the most astounding piece of sleight of hand ever invented." The creation of money has been privatized, usurped from Congress by a private banking cartel. Most people think money is issued by fiat by the government, but that is not the case. Except for coins, which compose only about one one-thousandth of the total U.S. money supply, all of our money is now created by banks. Federal Reserve Notes (dollar bills) are issued by the Federal Reserve, a private banking corporation, and lent to the government.1 Moreover, Federal Reserve Notes and coins together compose less than 3 percent of the money supply. The other 97 percent is created by commercial banks as loans.2

                Don't believe banks create the money they lend? Neither did the jury in a landmark Minnesota case, until they heard the evidence. First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969) was a courtroom drama worthy of a movie script.3 Defendant Jerome Daly opposed the bank's foreclosure on his $14,000 home mortgage loan on the ground that there was no consideration for the loan. "Consideration" ("the thing exchanged") is an essential element of a contract. Daly, an attorney representing himself, argued that the bank had put up no real money for his loan. The courtroom proceedings were recorded by Associate Justice Bill Drexler, whose chief role, he said, was to keep order in a highly charged courtroom where the attorneys were threatening a fist fight. Drexler hadn't given much credence to the theory of the defense, until Mr. Morgan, the bank's president, took the stand. To everyone's surprise, Morgan admitted that the bank routinely created money "out of thin air" for its loans, and that this was standard banking practice. "It sounds like fraud to me," intoned Presiding Justice Martin Mahoney amid nods from the jurors. In his court memorandum, Justice Mahoney stated:

                Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

                The court rejected the bank's claim for foreclosure, and the defendant kept his house. To Daly, the implications were enormous. If bankers were indeed extending credit without consideration – without backing their loans with money they actually had in their vaults and were entitled to lend – a decision declaring their loans void could topple the power base of the world. He wrote in a local news article:

                This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State banks to be null and void. This amounts to an emancipation of this Nation from personal, national and state debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every American owes it to himself . . . to study this decision very carefully . . . for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.

                Needless to say, however, the decision failed to change prevailing practice, although it was never overruled. It was heard in a Justice of the Peace Court, an autonomous court system dating back to those frontier days when defendants had trouble traveling to big cities to respond to summonses. In that system (which has now been phased out), judges and courts were pretty much on their own. Justice Mahoney, who was not dependent on campaign financing or hamstrung by precedent, went so far as to threaten to prosecute and expose the bank. He died less than six months after the trial, in a mysterious accident that appeared to involve poisoning.4 Since that time, a number of defendants have attempted to avoid loan defaults using the defense Daly raised; but they have met with only limited success. As one judge said off the record:

                If I let you do that – you and everyone else – it would bring the whole system down. . . . I cannot let you go behind the bar of the bank. . . . We are not going behind that curtain!5

                  #7.13 - Thu May 27, 2010 9:35 PM EDT
                  economics101

                  So Not only is it entirely disingenous, The banking industry is actually illegal! People are told taht this way of running the eocnomy is"natural", that people need debt to live - nonsense. For most of the last 2000 years lending money at interest was a capital crime. As we see from the above discussion, they have so embedded this criminal activity into our economy that enforcing the law would - "bring the system down ... " This IS THE REAL REASON FOR THE TARP, CREDIT CRISIS, AND WHY THE POLITICIANS WILL SACRIFICE ME, YOU AND EVERYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY TO SAVE THE BANKS - TO SAVE THE "SYSTEM" WHICH SERVES THEM AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TOP 1% - AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OTHER 99%.

                  • 1 vote
                  #7.14 - Thu May 27, 2010 9:39 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  BJK-798627

                  "Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws". - Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838

                  If this were still the 1800's, your argument would hold water.

                  But the year is 2010, the gold standard no longer exists (thankfully), and the advent of the global economy has made 19th century banking largely obsolete.

                  When all is said and done, most money does not exist as tangible currency.

                  You guessed it, the majority of money exists as ones and zeroes in computers.

                  This scares some old timers, but for people accustomed to using debit cards and doing internet transactions, it simply elicits shrugs.

                  The foundation of the global economy comes down to food, energy, and technology, not financial systems based on gold and silver reserves.

                  That's the way the ball bounces...

                  • 2 votes
                  #8 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:51 AM EDT
                  Socrates1

                  I'm sorry BLK, but those "shrugs" fail to realize the severity of the problem. We aren't even close to the end of the financial collapse.

                  Why is it any different now that the 1800's? The banks seem to have us by the short hairs right about now.

                  Why thankfully? If I could only find an extremely well written post from some time ago showing how everything accelerated after the United States went off the Gold Standard. Basically that was the catalyst for the movement of everything off shore. When the dollar was gold the nation could only spend so much, as soon as we went off our balance of payments went off the charts to the point that we are now a debtor nation.

                  • 1 vote
                  #8.1 - Wed May 26, 2010 1:59 AM EDT
                  BJK-798627

                  Why is it any different now that the 1800's? The banks seem to have us by the short hairs right about now.

                  There are a few key differences:

                  1) Bankruptcy laws are more sensible today than a century ago.

                  Or do you think debtors prisons and convict dumps for homeless people were a good idea?

                  2) Bank reform laws in the 1930's, esp. the creation of FDIC, represented tremendous progress compared to the chaotic state of the U.S. financial system prior to 1913.

                  Think of it this way - England, Canada, Japan, and every other country with a modern economy has some form of a central bank chartered by that nation's government.

                  Why all the hysterics about the Federal Reserve a century after its creation?

                  • 2 votes
                  #8.2 - Wed May 26, 2010 2:31 AM EDT
                  Socrates1

                  The chaos of the banking system prior to 1913 is a myth. I seem to remember something about 1929, or there abouts.

                  I'm not too familiar with the bankruptcy laws a century ago, but I doubt you suggestion that there were debtor's prisons, but, again, I am no expert. I just know that that was a key concern at the time of the Constitution.

                  FDIC just made things worse.

                  Regarding the fact that we are all under the thumbs of central banks doesn't really say anything. We are all in trouble in those very same countries. Weren't central banks designed to eliminate the very thing we are seeing today? And before you argue for more regulation, remember it's those same bailed out banks that "own" the Central Banks. Is it any surprise they got bailed out by themselves?

                  In short, I don't see how anybody can support the central banking system. It's been a failure, It is a failure. It will continue to be a failure. If one believes in the central banking system, it seems to me, that we might as well eliminate the fiction of voting and elected officials.

                    #8.3 - Wed May 26, 2010 3:30 AM EDT
                    freebirdreaming

                    bjk.......... comments are built on sand much like that techmoney you think so much of

                    http://freebirdsfine.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/19/4309233-nias-meltup-if-you-havent-seen-it-your-not-prepared-for-the-true-future-just-ahead-of-us

                      #8.4 - Wed May 26, 2010 10:19 AM EDT
                      BJK-798627

                      FDIC just made things worse.

                      How so?

                      FDIC insures banks such that if a bank fails, it will guarantee individual accounts up to $100,000. That way people feel safe about depositing money in banks as opposed to in their mattresses.

                      In short, I don't see how anybody can support the central banking system. It's been a failure, It is a failure. It will continue to be a failure.

                      Compared to what? The bartering system in early medieval Europe? The manorial economy that took shape a few centuries later? Or perhaps trade networks dominated by Italian city-states or the Hanseatic League?

                      In any case, once international trade revived in Europe in the 1100's, groups like the Knights Templar acted as central bankers.

                      In other parts of the late medieval world, e.g. China, international trade took the form of government sponsored treasure fleets. Then, in the 1500's the Ming Dynasty turned China isolationist just as Europe began its conquest of the New World.

                      It took China nearly 500 years to recover from that decision.

                      In any case, think of central banking the way Churchill thought of democracy - it might have its pitfalls, but it's better than every other system that's been tried :P

                      • 1 vote
                      #8.5 - Wed May 26, 2010 2:11 PM EDT
                      freebirdreaming

                      what other system has been tried????????

                        #8.6 - Wed May 26, 2010 3:40 PM EDT
                        Socrates1

                        FDIC...how can it be an insurance system when the premiums do not reflect the liability?

                        FDIC..rewards bad banks, punishes good banks.

                        FDIC..allows banks to avoid investigation by the public because they feel safe.

                        Compared to systems which did not use a central banking system

                        The Knights did not issue money, a key difference.

                        I disagree with your examples, your analysis, and your conclusions. :) That being said...

                        He who has the Gold makes the rules....Do you really want to be a servant of the banks?

                        • 2 votes
                        #8.7 - Wed May 26, 2010 4:37 PM EDT
                        economics101

                        Banking in a modern sense begins not with the knights templar, but with Italian commodity markets. They needed to get investors for very risky ventures, so they exchanged notes against future delivery. Once you start creating paper notes which trade as money, you have money. People are confused that money only equals debt, it also equals stocks, derivatives, futures .... any agreement where a promise is exchanged for consideration is money. That's why people can sell receivables as discounted cash, why a call or put option backed up by nothing has a cash value.

                        This is why the derivatives market ($500T) whihc is 10x the GDP of the global economy is so scary - it is a massive increase in the money supply, with zero oversight, zero reserve, szero control - and the clowns in the Fed want to pretend it doesn't exist? How about the silly M3 numbers produced by Treasury and the Fed - does that include all off shore banks creating US denominated debts? Today the Caribbean is the #3 holder of US Treasury debt - does anyone believe there is no leverage being used in Anguilla, St Thomas or Grand Cayman ... its called the Carry trade.

                        The fundamental problem is simple, way too many people create money out of thin air. It makes any control over the economy impossible. Eventually the entire system will collapse, and we will be stuck. In the interim, those who know how will continue to RAPE the working class with debt and exploitation. The soluton is to get rid of a debt based money supply. That would do 3 things:

                        1. eliminate 90% of personal, corporate and Govt debt within 15 years.

                        2. eliminate the ability of governments, corporations and people to chronically live beyond their means

                        3. Eliminate the drain on the economy of all that interest which makes us so uncompetitive.

                        Did you know a book on how the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve banking has destroyed the American Economy has sold 1 million copies in China?

                        Currency Wars - wonder why you've never heard of it .... and they call it a conspiracy theory. ....

                        http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/chinese-buying-up-new-book-about-rothschild-banking-conspiracy/

                        disclaimer: I haven't read the book.

                        • 1 vote
                        #8.8 - Wed May 26, 2010 5:17 PM EDT
                        BJK-798627

                        what other system has been tried????????

                        In the capitalist realm, there was mercantilism, but the age of empire is over, so the whole idea is obsolete.

                        Of course, there's always the Albanian and North Korean varieties of communism, but no one in their right mind would call either economic system a success.

                        The fundamental problem is simple, way too many people create money out of thin air. It makes any control over the economy impossible.

                        I think the idea you find scary is that our governemnt cannot control the U.S. economy, let alone the global economy.

                        Think of the global economy as floating on an immense sea of debt.

                        If everyone owes everyone else money, at the end of the day it all cancels out.

                        With no other options, my advice would be relax, float, and have a good time :P

                        Did you know a book on how the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve banking has destroyed the American Economy has sold 1 million copies in China?

                        And I'm sure the Chinese shrugged indifferently.

                        As long as Walmart exists as the largest distributor of Chinese goods in the U.S., things are fine as far as Beijing is concerned.

                        For the record, how has fractional reserve banking or the Federal Reserve destroyed the U.S. economy? Does either institution have control over natural resources like water, arable land, factories, shipping, etc.?

                        Now if you had pointed to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, literally a disaster of epic proportions, I would agree with you.

                        • 1 vote
                        #8.9 - Wed May 26, 2010 7:32 PM EDT
                        economics101

                        Lets see, there is a complete disconnect between the economy and money. 50% of the production of our country is transferred via a fraudulent scam from working people to bankers who really add nothing to the economy.

                        Now let me ask you, what is the benefit of Central banking and FRB for the US economy? And what happens when the Chinese have created a debt free middle class of 400 million and aren't willing to subsidize our economy any longer?

                        • 2 votes
                        #8.10 - Wed May 26, 2010 8:04 PM EDT
                        BJK-798627

                        Now let me ask you, what is the benefit of Central banking and FRB for the US economy?

                        Economies of scale use money as a medium of exchange. Not seashells, not tea, not cocoa beans, but money.

                        As such, it is useful to have a central bank to manage the money supply. In practice, this means striking a tolerable balance between steady inflation vs. crippling interest rates.

                        And what happens when the Chinese have created a debt free middle class of 400 million and aren't willing to subsidize our economy any longer?

                        First, there's human nature. When a critical mass of people has disposable income, like in Greece, some will go into debt.

                        Second, the other 800 million Chinese will want a share of this new wealth. You know, the whole Communist mentality of spreading the wealth (or more often misery) equally.

                        Finally, it won't matter if they don't lend the U.S. another cent. Our debts are payable in U.S. dollars, not yuan. If they prefer owning large stacks of monopoly money as souvenirs rather than keeping the U.S. as their main trading partner, that's their call. :P

                        • 1 vote
                        #8.11 - Wed May 26, 2010 8:44 PM EDT
                        economics101

                        That does not provide any reason for why we need a private debt based money supply, whihc by its very nature of geometric growth, means everyone is enslaved by debt.

                        Yes we need money. Since today's money is fiat based on our ability to repay, as Edison asked in the NYT in 1921, "If government can issue a bond, why can't they issue a dollar". The cost of the debt doubles the cost of everything we do - THE ONLY REAL "MONEY" BING THE INTEREST PAID.

                        As for Greece, (my wife is Greek) it was the inclusion into the Euro zone that immediately created the debt crisis, as predatory lending and banks took an interest in that "market" whihc had been uninteresting with the closed Drachma - so everyone went from living basically debt free to being in debt over less than a decade.

                        Finally, you statement about the Chinese doesn't make sense. If no one buys our bonds with foreign currency how will the USA exist? We have a massive balance of trade pdeficit, even including all of our securities sold. To say that we don't need them is nonsense - we would see double digit inflation, our dollar would plummet in value and we would (gasp) have to actually produce things - cause the Chinese, Indians and others would not want to exchange their goods and labor for our money.

                        Not one of these "excuses" tells me why we need a debt based money supply. Thats because the only reason to keep this system is that it transfers wealth from those who work to those who don't - its called financial feudalism.

                        • 1 vote
                        #8.12 - Wed May 26, 2010 9:14 PM EDT
                        freebirdreaming

                        bjk.......... that is oversimplified, and riddled with misinformation.

                        • 1 vote
                        #8.13 - Thu May 27, 2010 12:14 AM EDT
                        BJK-798627

                        If no one buys our bonds with foreign currency how will the USA exist? To say that we don't need them is nonsense - we would see double digit inflation, our dollar would plummet in value and we would (gasp) have to actually produce things - cause the Chinese, Indians and others would not want to exchange their goods and labor for our money.

                        Since you've chosen the handle economics 101, I assume you've done some reading on the subject.

                        Here's a short answer to your question: The U.S. is one of the few countries that can exist as a self sustaining, closed economy if forced to do so. We are food self sufficient, technologically self sufficient, and could become energy self sufficient far more easily than countries like China or India.

                        Before you attack that assertion, consider this.

                        The U.S. exports two thirds of all the food we produce. In other words, a great many countries around the world depend on U.S. grown food, often for their very survival.

                        In contrast, China is barely self sufficient in terms of food, and India is facing major problems (water shortages, soil salinization, fertilizer run off) now that it depends on transgenic crops to feed so many of its people. It also doesn't help that China and India combined account for over one-third of the world's population.

                        On top of that, international trade accounts for less than 20% of U.S. GNP. Except for oil imports (much of which we get from Canada and Mexico) the U.S. economy is much less vulnerable to turmoil on the international scene than say, Japan or the Netherlands.

                        bjk.......... that is oversimplified, and riddled with misinformation.

                        Which part was false, freebird?

                        The phenomenon of increased consumer spending by people with sudden access to credit?

                        Or the fact that U.S. bonds, hence U.S. debt, is payable in U.S. dollars (which would become as worthless as monopoly money in the worst case scenario of debt default)?

                        At least I support my arguments with facts, as opposed to 30 second infomercials about the coming financial apocalypse and why investing in gold will save the day. BTW - it won't :P

                        • 1 vote
                        #8.14 - Thu May 27, 2010 1:39 AM EDT
                        economics101

                        so we could become like zimbabwe? You still haven't answered my question about what the benefits of this are? The USA is blessed with lots of resources, which makes the ridiculous indebtedness caused by our banking system even more bizarre - Yes, any economy can exist without trade. Our currency could be come closed. The question is why would we want it to? I asked what the benefits of a debt based money system are? You answered that we need money (ok fine) and that debt is inevitable. I responded that money does not have to come from debt, nor is debt inevitable. In fact, debt is a direct creation of our modern banking system.

                        The example fo Greece is a very good one - under the socialist governments pre Euro greece had a quasi closed currecny. So no one was really interested in lending greeks any money. Most of the major industry was nationalized, and there was little or no personal debt. Remember, most of the people had survived the turkish liberation, 2 world wars, and a civil war. Houses had been granted as occupied mostly.

                        So, the drachma is replaced by the Euro, the government and people of greece are then offered credit, and currency that they can actually use to buy things - in less than a decade we have a country that is insolvent?? So what comes first, debt or banks .... I think you will find that debt is a creation of banking, not the other way around.

                        As such, what need is there for banks. As noted above, banks are basically a distribution agency for our money, issued on behalf of Congress. All money in the USA is nothing more than a debt. Since the basis of all money is the highest order of debt, government debt, why not have the gov't issue the money directly as they did several times before?

                        • 2 votes
                        #8.15 - Thu May 27, 2010 2:20 AM EDT
                        freebirdreaming

                        Here's a short answer to your question: The U.S. is one of the few countries that can exist as a self sustaining, closed economy if forced to do so. We are food self sufficient, technologically self sufficient, and could become energy self sufficient far more easily than countries like China or India.

                        completely wrong.

                          #8.16 - Thu May 27, 2010 9:35 AM EDT
                          economics101

                          yeah like I said, we could become like Zimbabwe or Greece.... Every country can survive without trade .... you just need to define survive, and explain why we should have to go through that so bankers can make billions in profits?

                          • 1 vote
                          #8.17 - Thu May 27, 2010 1:00 PM EDT
                          BJK-798627

                          so we could become like zimbabwe?

                          If we're dumb enough to allow a dictator to stay in power for over 30 years and totally gut the economy, then yes, we could become like Zimbabwe :P

                          Every country can survive without trade .... you just need to define survive, and explain why we should have to go through that so bankers can make billions in profits?

                          Really? Can the Arab countries survive by drinking oil? What about places in really bad shape like Haiti or most sub-Saharan African countries?

                          Without trade, over half of the world's population would either starve or adopt the Mexican approach and emigrate (sparking unimaginable chaos and probably a world war).

                          In any case, I never said that bankers deserve to make huge profits. (In general, it seems like the opposite has occurred).

                          To recap, no one is forced to deposit his/her money in a bank; one can pay bills by money order (a few places print those at no additional cost); therefore, individual participation in the banking system is by and large a voluntary exercise.

                          At the level of large scale trade both within the U.S. and at the global level, some sort of banking system becomes a practical necessity, esp. from the standpoint of national governments. Do the words corporate and personal income tax ring a bell?:P

                          Then freebird chimed in:

                          completely wrong.

                          Super. Now provide some EVIDENCE to show that I'm wrong, or better yet, that you're right. Otherwise, your response amounts to the standard kindergarten retort, "Nuh uh."

                          Until such time as you can formulate a coherent argument, I'll stick with my conclusion that your knowledge of economics is virtually non-existent.

                          • 1 vote
                          #8.18 - Thu May 27, 2010 4:32 PM EDT
                          economics101

                          You have ignored my point entirely throughout. Zimbabwe was used because of the intentional misuse of currency which created widespread inflation and seized up trade. Now Arab countries did survive fine without currency for a long time. In fact, everyone did. Do I need to buy shoes from China, a computer from Taiwan? Cell phone from Finland? No, they can make all that stuff right here.

                          The reason for the power of the USA has little to do with out "superiority" in resources, and much to do with our position as the global reserve currency dating back to BWA in 1944. I think that Americans would have a harder time adjusting to no trade than Saudi Arabia. Using place that our own government has intentionally destabilized like SS Africa and Haiti doesn't help your argument. The people in these countries are mostly self sufficient - so what's your point? That being self sufficient = being poor? I thought you were OK with no trade?

                          My point is simple. Banks are nothing more than a flow through. They create money on behalf of the government, and charge a fee (interest) which they are paid for doing basically nothing. They add nothing to the economy, they just control who gets money and how much.

                          Now I, and every rational American should have 3 problems with that:

                          1. They in effect arbitrarily decide who gets the wealth. Since credit = money in our system, determining who gets credit determines virtually all economic outscomes in our economy. they decide how much houses, cars, education, etc cost, and determine who gets how much and what kind of life.

                          2. They get paid a huge amount of money to do nothing. They don't actually HAVE ANY MONEY to lend out, they create it free of charge. The only real costs of operating a bank or brokerage is the cost of making it look like they have money (facilities / Staff).

                          3. The huge transfer of wealth involved in all this debt (50% of GDP or so) means that wealth is being transferred from the 95% of the populaiton who work (debtors) to the 1% who lend (creditors). This is the basic income distribution of the Modern American Economy. As Edison said in 1921(NYT), those who add nothing to the project, not a second of labor, deliver a single resource, tool or turn a shovel are the main beneficiary of every economic project in this country! So the wealth is diverted from productive activities to passive activities all based on creating currency out of thin air!

                          Now, as stated above, this current crisis is clearly a direct result of that. the Creditors wanted to increase their take (real income gains of 35%+ since 1980), while not wanting to pay the actual working populaiton more. they expanded the money supply directly (credit, Housing, etc) and indirectly (stock markets, derivatives, Insurance) till the economy was so out of balance that it collapsed.

                          Why can't we produce anything in the USA other than subsidized guns, planes and cars anymore? Cause every person in this country works at least 6 months of the year to pay interest on money created out of thin air - bank interest, home loans, corporate interest, government interest ..... American workers are actually the most productive employees around, but they have so many monkeys on their back they can barely stand up.

                          So my point is, since Ive already established that a debt based currency creates debt (not the other way around). That FRB causes geometric growth of debt. That FRB is basically fraudulent theft of labor by forcing people to incur debt in exchange for money which has no value. Finally that this transfer is in effect just modern slavery or feudalism. The end result is an criminal, exploitative, and unsustainable economic system of statism/corporatism. The end result will be the destruction of the Western economies. Not next year, maybe not in 50 years, but the decline is inevitable.

                          Frankly, I have yet to be impressed with your economic reasoning here, so please feel free to dazzle us with why we need this system and why none of the above is true?

                          • 1 vote
                          #8.19 - Thu May 27, 2010 5:12 PM EDT
                          BJK-798627

                          I think that Americans would have a harder time adjusting to no trade than Saudi Arabia.

                          Really? After the Saudis killed the last of their horses and camels for food, what would they have left to eat?

                          Oil is valuable largely as an export commodity (or as a source of other valuable but inedible products - gasoline, lubricants, plastics, etc.)

                          Why can't we produce anything in the USA other than subsidized guns, planes and cars anymore?

                          You're leaving out most of what we actually produce - food, plastics, household appliances, computer technology, pharmaceuticals, construction materials - the list is very long.

                          Frankly, I have yet to be impressed with your economic reasoning here, so please feel free to dazzle us with why we need this system and why none of the above is true?

                          Not that it will change your mind, but here goes.

                          If this were 150 years ago, most people in the U.S. would be living as farmers or cattle breeders. The only things rural Americans couldn't produce for themselves were salt, kerosine oil, and a few other odds and ends.

                          Aside from people living in cities, all other Americans had little need for money, as they could resort to bartering for the goods they needed.

                          But then came the Civil War, the American Industrial Revolution, and a flood of immigrants - all in the span of 50 years or so.

                          By the WWI era, there was no going back to the world of 1860. The U.S. population had tripled, cities boomed, and most people, for better or worse, no longer made their living as farm workers.

                          Not coincidentally, the issues that keep people like Ron Paul awake at night were resolved during this historical era.

                          - The domestic gold standard was kept in place until the Great Depression.

                          - By 1913, a Constitutional amendment was ratified authorizing a federal income tax.

                          - That same year, the juggernaut that gives you nightmares, i.e. the Federal Reserve, was created.

                          All of these events occurred in lockstep with the rise of the U.S. as a global economic power, esp. in the realm of industry.

                          As the saying goes, growth and transformation are often quite painful.

                          I wish this weren't so, but unfortunately there does not seem to be much we can do about it.

                          • 1 vote
                          #8.20 - Fri May 28, 2010 2:21 AM EDT
                          economics101

                          The US food industry is highly subsidized. Yes we could produce lots of food ... so what. We could adapt to produce everything we need - but that would be difficult. The Saudis are a nomadic race who lived off the desert for thousands of years before they got in the oil business. It is safe to assume that they could return back to the desert in a generation if they had too - you call it tomato, I call it Tomato.

                          Now, as for this economic speech - not impressed. Ye I know the history of industrialization, of the battles between the first 2 central banks, the New England Clearing organizations, the Civil War Green back and the crises of the late 19th century (like the repeated bank runs). I am also well acquainted with the foundation of the Bank of England under duress in 1692 and the vital role of banking in the evolution of mercantilism to capitalism.

                          Ive read the various monetary histories of Friedman and Rothbard, Ive also taken several courses in monetary theory. So, your explanation does zero to convince me of anything. Actually, it is more like stating what you believe as fact.

                          I am not a supporter of Ron Paul beyond his belief that our monetary system is unfair. In fact I don't see how one goes from questioning the Fed to laissez faire capitalsim, since the very basis of capitalism is the transfer of wealth inherent from the creation of money. Without capital, what is capitalsim?

                          That being said, you have not addressed a single of my issues raised in your discussion. Not one. Now I don't know if you read my posts, or don't understand them, but I have laid out serious criticisms of how money creation from FRB distorts the fundamental mechanisms of capitalsim (pricing / allocation of resources) to make the entire system both unstable and inequitable. This therefore, is why the workings of FRB, monetary systems are disguised from the public, since they control the outcomes in favor of the managerial class - completely contrary to what capitalsim is supposed to be about.

                          Now, I can accept that this system "works" or is "good" for us, I suppose, but to suggest, as they do, that it is natural, it is fair, it is responsible or honest??? Please. It is just another take on slavery, communism, facisim - a small elite deciding who gets what for the "good" of everyone else.

                          Why can't we have a system thats based on honesty, that's equitable? I know that Plato deemed that unworkable, but is what we have workable?

                          I have no desire to go back to the gold standard, I understand the psychological need for a flexible money supply - but why does our money supply have to transfer wealth and involve debt? In an excellent example of the real cause of debt, I saw the numbers on personal debt in Greece.

                          In 1995, the Aggreggate Greek personal Debt was 6% of GDP. At the time the only banks operating were "domestic". During the Euro Period for the next 12 years to 2008, international banks entered the Greek market. The real aggregate personal debt rose 950% over this period. That is an 80% increase in the Greek money supply to individuals per year!

                          To put this in perspective, our money supply rose 12 - 20% per year during this time. All of this increase in Greece, Ireland, Iceland, the USA was "private" directly created by banks. Now given that real wages rose zero percent .... you have a real decline in spending power caused by bank credit issuance of 950% in Greece and 100+% in a little more than a decade.

                          It is this manipulation that Im complaining about. The Fed, government pretends this doesn't matter, they don't have to control how much money banks create - but clearly they do.

                          • 1 vote
                          #8.21 - Fri May 28, 2010 9:56 AM EDT
                          freebirdreaming

                          We are food self sufficient, technologically self sufficient, and could become energy self sufficient far more easily than countries like China or India.

                          had to go to work.................. econ101 has answered quite nicely. We couldn't feed ourselves if we wanted to, we are importers. this is so widely known it is now public knowledg.......... go find it.

                          your comments put me in mind of that movie with sissy spacek and christopher walkin who built an underground survival shelter, and whose son was raised his entire life without news.

                            #8.22 - Sat May 29, 2010 1:09 AM EDT
                            economics101

                            I am a great believer that people will find a way to get through - so Im sure that if our currency collapsed we would not starve or have no where to live. Nor will the Greeks, or the Saudis. Times would be tough, but ....

                            However, this tangent is not really relevent to my point here. The point is why should we have to suffer at all to facilitate the modern monetary system? Money is supposed to serve us, not the other way around.

                            As stated, I am asking for a rational explanation of why a debt based money supply is necessary, beneficial or even reasonable today. I have yet to hear one on this thread.

                            The simple cause fo the credit crisis, and the entire business cycle, is that the quantity and price of money are the primary determinants of our economic activity. To blame the crisis on borrowers, on irresponsible governments or consumers is ludicrous. Monterism clearly defines that banks directly determine prices and affect borrowing habits. Therefore, any and all economic outcomes are a DIRECT RESULT of the actions of bankers and the Central bank. There are no other guilty parties,

                            So my simple question is why? Knowing that this group manipulates economic outcomes to the detriment of 99% of the populaiton to provide income for 1%, why in God's name do we allow it? I mean, we just went through 2 textbook examples of how they control the economy, how their actions destroyed the lives of millions of Americans, and most Aemricans blame sub prime borrowers and corrupt politicians? I mean really, how stupid are we? Take the time to understand how their scam works, and you will see taht their is NO GOOD reason to allow it to continue.

                            Consider, I have a 5000 CD. I create a ledger that says based on that $5000, I have access to $100,000. Now I loan this 100k to 5 borrowers at 20k each. Open an account for each and credit the accounts 20k. On this I charge 5% APR. They write a check on this account and others accept that I am "good" for the 20k for each. As they repay the 20K + interest, I retire the amount created, and issue new loans to someone else. So on my 5k I earn 5k each year in interest.

                            Now, if I did this I would get arrested pretty quickly for fraud, but this is exactly how banks do it, except, they don't start with their own 5k, they hold it in trust for someone else! This is the fundamental problem with banking.

                              #8.23 - Sat May 29, 2010 2:06 AM EDT
                              Socrates1

                              Econ, I know as we get deeper there are areas we seemingly disagree, but on one fundamental point we do agree...

                              How stupid are we? Why don't we "revolt"? Why do we continue to allow such a system to operate? Even those who are aware of it still accept it, why?

                              • 2 votes
                              #8.24 - Sat May 29, 2010 3:34 AM EDT
                              economics101

                              There are very few who understand it. I mean, many people sort of "get it", but they don't make the connection between the fact that monetarism only works because control of the money supply has 99.5% of the power to completely and absolutely affect economic behavior.

                              Once you realize that, all the nonsense about supply and demand, investment, even regulation become irrelevant. What is important is who controls the price and quantity of money. Thats the only intelligent economic discussion anyone should have. So how come no one is having it?

                              I mean, we can talk about a gold standard like the Austrians, we can look a purely fiat supply like the socialists, an electronic supply like star trek or even a hybrid one - but what we need to discuss is the impact of money on our economy.

                              No one is talking about how money creation is transferring wealth from the working class to the creditor class. No one is talking about the effect this is having on wages, debt, and quality of life, let alone trade, productivity, etc.

                              Those who are benefiting from this process, the financial aristocracy, have managed to write off any discussion about this as "communism" and a failed system. I recently read nobel laureate Krugman's book, where he says socialism is a "failed system", and all academic endeavors should concentrate on capitalsim, which today = monetarism. But we know that the control of the economy under this system thus lies with a network of private money lenders and stock brokers who refuse to be regulated???? Regardless of what the Fed, FDIC, or other regulators do, the control over who gets money at what price is up to private for profit entities who have shown that they do not have the best interests of 99% of the populaiton at heart ....

                              Now, my personal opinion on socialism aside, I do not see why a discussion about the fatal flaws of what is basically a ponzi scheme in money creation is bad. I mean, we have all these economists talking about debt to GDP, inflation, taxation, poverty, resources, etc .... when the solution to all these problems is very simple - actually regulate how money is created. NOT THE TERMS ON WHICH THEY CREATE MONEY, SUGGESTING PRICES OR SYSTEMS TO CREATE MONEY - ACTUALLY REGULATE HOW MONEY IS CREATED.

                              This means getting out of a debt based money supply. This is why no one wants to talk about teh real problem ... because debt is the main business of the USA right now. the top 1% of the population lives almost exclusively on the proceeds of debt (of one type or another), and it maintains the existing social order by disguising discrimination and nepotism with Victorian concepts or "responsibility" "thrift" and "hard work" which don't really apply.

                              The gold standard applied to this system does nothing more than place a hard cap on money creation. Since debt based money must have geometric money expansion to function it will not work with a gold standard. So those who propose the two seek to have them play off each other in artificially reducing economic activity - it is a simple inflation control, at the expense of economic growth. Kind of like using duct tape on a dam ... it will slow the flow, but not stop it. Especially since the gold standard was never really a gold standard anyway ..... Read Rothbard's opus to the Gold standard, and you will see that the exchange of bank notes into specie was regularly and systemically revoked any time you would actually want gold/silver money!!! So why bother. Banks still created virtually unlimited money in banknotes, and only conservative ones like the New England networks were ever stable under the gold standard ....

                              The monetary system is much like the other modern myths of economics. I read today of how Robin Hood was a capitalist, and Castro was Prince John .... How capitalsim existed through Feudalism and mercantilism???? How the Romans were capitalists?? Frankly, the failure to understand how capitalism evolved is astounding. Greco Roman Society was a slaved based monarchy. All property rights derived from the King (on the failure of the Republic)Feudalism was not capitalsim, it was slavery and stat-ism. All property rights were granted by the king. Your right to property was only valid if the king recognized it - not capitalsim. Merchatilsim was characterized by lingering feudalism and state chartered "monopolies" for connected companies like the Hudson's Bay company, Dutch East India Company - not capitalism. Capitalism as we know it is about 200 years old. It is not natural law, and so far, is the shortest of human economic systems. So lets stop talking about how it is the "only" one that works shall we??

                                #8.25 - Sat May 29, 2010 2:12 PM EDT
                                economics101

                                BJK,

                                don't you find the introduction of income tax, and the federal reserve in 1913 interesting?? Ever wonder where your income taxes go, or why you pay them ..... Our why the body empowered by the constitution to coin or create money never seems to have any??

                                • 1 vote
                                #8.26 - Sat May 29, 2010 2:14 PM EDT
                                Socrates1

                                econ..as you may remember, our views of the gold standard differ. Even in your analysis you point out that it is when people go off the gold standard that the results are negative. Much of the manipulation which you argue against could be addressed by the gold standard. Couple it with regulations regarding the issuance of loans and paper against that gold and you have the system you seem to desire.

                                  #8.27 - Sat May 29, 2010 2:22 PM EDT
                                  economics101

                                  I am not against a hard currency. I am against a debt based currency. Rember that the role of currecny is as a medium of exchange - as long as we agree that $1 is enough to buy a car, $1 is enough. The ridiculous progression of money issuance that requires inflation is my problem. So to leave a debt based money supply with a gold standard doesn't work. Now a gold standard with a non debt based money supply to keep money issuance and inflation in check - fine.

                                    #8.28 - Sat May 29, 2010 2:31 PM EDT
                                    Socrates1

                                    Perhaps that is the clarification we both needed. I agree that those who have the power to issue debt without the assets to back up that debt are, in effect, creating money.

                                      #8.29 - Sat May 29, 2010 2:34 PM EDT
                                      economics101

                                      More importantly, they are stealiong interest from those who actually create wealth ..... thats my problem. Fix that, and base money on whatever you want.

                                      • 1 vote
                                      #8.30 - Sat May 29, 2010 2:45 PM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      Linda Luke

                                      "Thus political interference in monetary policy can generate undesirable boom-bust cycles that ultimately lead to both a less stable economy and higher inflation," he said.

                                      OMG just let the Federal Reserve do this, it's ok with them that they have this ability.

                                        Reply#9 - Wed May 26, 2010 9:19 AM EDT
                                        freebirdreaming

                                        he is setting his game ............ preparing for the hyperinflation his actions will cause, he is preparing to blame the government for our impending pain and suffering.

                                        you can't print on the grand scale he has.......... w/o bringing hyper.

                                          #9.1 - Wed May 26, 2010 10:21 AM EDT
                                          Socrates1

                                          Yes, how ironic.

                                          • 1 vote
                                          #9.2 - Wed May 26, 2010 4:38 PM EDT
                                          Reply
                                          Fighting for your Freedom

                                          "Fed must be free from political meddling" ???? In other words, they want to be left alone to manipulate and leverage as they see fit, so that the ruling class,i.e. bankers, elitists, and the mafia, can steal any and all wealth from the commoners. Lovely.

                                          • 3 votes
                                          Reply#10 - Thu May 27, 2010 12:29 PM EDT
                                          Socrates1

                                          Exactly...it's spelled right out and yet we continue to accept it.

                                            #10.1 - Thu May 27, 2010 3:04 PM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            BJK-798627

                                            After rereading some of the posts, I find myself in general agreement with Joulesbeef.

                                            That may happen only once in a blue moon, but it leaves me completely convinced that we're right.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            Reply#11 - Thu May 27, 2010 4:35 PM EDT
                                            economics101

                                            So far you are about the only one you've convinced.

                                            • 1 vote
                                            #11.1 - Thu May 27, 2010 9:41 PM EDT
                                            Reply
                                            Leave a Comment:
                                            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                            Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                            FUN STUFF:
                                            • Leaderboard |
                                            • E-Mail Alerts |
                                            • Top of the Vine |
                                            • Newsvine Live |
                                            • Newsvine Archives |
                                            • The Greenhouse
                                            COMPANY STUFF:
                                            • Code of Honor |
                                            • Company Info |
                                            • Contact Us |
                                            • Jobs |
                                            • User Agreement |
                                            • Privacy Policy |
                                            • About our ads
                                            LEGAL STUFF:
                                            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com