|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 06/15/2007 : 12:15:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sickmint79
i would say i was somewhat suckered into these videos, however i am finding it difficult to determine context of some quotes, and some things are outright incorrect (wilson quote) or presented as fact when it has not been proven (us involvement in sinking lusitania, for instance). however some of the claims certainly seen plausible, it is not as if similar situations have not occurred in the past, correct? regardless, whether created by conspiracy or not, i am interested in evaluating the current state. |
Good. That's what you should do. Unfortunately, we can only get so far. I'm not a trained economist, so some of the more nuanced arguments are going to be hard for me to assess, and there is information that someone who is trained in this sort of thing is going to be able to answer without effort, whereas I am forced to do more searching and reading to arrive at some of the correct conclusions.
| 1. are those points mentioned not regarding simply a central bank? my question is as to what the advantages are by having this central bank be private. |
If you're assuming that the Federal Reserve is private, I don't think that's the case. In their FAQ, they note thatThe 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." |
| 2. by whatever method, is it correct to say that each $1 i spend on federal income taxes is not a dollar given to the government, but ultimately arrives as a dollar with some debt/interest that must be paid, which goes to profit the private corporations who own the federal reserve? |
No, I don't think so. See above.
| 3. if the bank is able to lend out more money than it has assets, will it not force inflation (fractional reserve banking)? |
This is beyond my basic grasp of economics, but even if it is the case, the advantages gained by being able to do so may outweigh the disadvantages.
| my understanding is that #3 is an economic discussion of a practice in place today, regardless of whether a central bank is congress or privately owned. it is what is done at the fed however correct? |
I'm not sure I follow the question. |
 |
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 12:31:17 [Permalink]
|
Per wikipedia:
The Federal Reserve Banks are owned by private member banks (see below). Each member bank owns nonnegotiable shares of stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank; see below). In Lewis v. United States,[18] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The opinion also stated that "the Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes."[19] Another decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City[20] in which the distinction between the Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors is made.
The member banks are privately owned corporations. The stocks of many of the member banks are publicly traded. |
My understanding is that there is no debate that the federal reserve is in fact comprised of private banks.
For #2 - I am naive I do not know how this works. But it is claimed by many.
As for my comment on #3, I'm saying that I think this is more of a question about banking practices, whether the fed is controlled by private interests or not.
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 12:39:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sickmint79
Per wikipedia:
The Federal Reserve Banks are owned by private member banks (see below). Each member bank owns nonnegotiable shares of stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank; see below). In Lewis v. United States,[18] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The opinion also stated that "the Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes."[19] Another decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City[20] in which the distinction between the Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors is made.
The member banks are privately owned corporations. The stocks of many of the member banks are publicly traded. |
|
Well, it looks like there are some distinctions between the board members and the member banks:| n public debate prior to passage of the Federal Reserve Act, some private-sector bankers expressed concern that a central bank governed by a Board of Governors appointed by the government would not be sufficiently responsive to the needs of the financial community. Certain agrarian interests, on the other hand, felt that an independent central bank would yield too much control over monetary affairs to the private banks. As a result, the Federal Reserve System was structured with two levels of authority--the Board of Governors, located in Washington, D.C., has a centralized and supervisory public influence over the Reserve Banks, while the individual Reserve Banks maintain narrower control over their own day-to-day operations. |
My understanding is that there is no debate that the federal reserve is in fact comprised of private banks.
| Originally posted by sickmint79For #2 - I am naive I do not know how this works. But it is claimed by many. |
Right. It probably is, but so are things like "the CIA killed Kennedy" and "The US government was behind 9/11" and such. I'm still waiting to run into some people who are trained economists and try and get a clearer picture of things. Unfortunately, campus around here is dead and so my normal grad student run-ins are less frequent.
[/quote]As for my comment on #3, I'm saying that I think this is more of a question about banking practices, whether the fed is controlled by private interests or not.[/quote]Which practices are you asking about? I'm not too into banking and things like loans and interest rates (I don't own a house and make no money, so I just don't have much interest (no pun intended!) in following such things...) |
|
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 13:02:45 [Permalink]
|
the quoting got jacked up so i'm not sure what all is related together. the federal board of governors is appointed by the president and approved by the congress. but my understanding is (#2) there is still a profit and it goes to private banking interests.
i suppose instead of saying the private banks control the ups and downs of money, one could say it's the board of governorns; but it is not as if they would be beyond manipulation either.
saying that private banks are profiting on interest of money lent to the government arouses less conspiracy issues as cia killing kennedy, or 9/11, etc, i would think.
isn't part of the art of conspiracy though making every conspiracy sound unreasonable, so that people are conditioned not to give any credence to an idea immediately after hearing the word conspiracy? was it coincidence and luck from others actions, or the nazi party itself that started the Reichstag fire to leap hitler and the nazi party into power? will we ever know 100%? doubtful, but it's really not outside of the realms of possibility is it? would you believe everything found in a US history book in 1950 as fact? 1970? 2007? past or current events? without looking into comparing any at all, i'm sure there have been many edits made throughout!! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 14:15:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sickmint79
the quoting got jacked up so i'm not sure what all is related together. the federal board of governors is appointed by the president and approved by the congress. but my understanding is (#2) there is still a profit and it goes to private banking interests.
i suppose instead of saying the private banks control the ups and downs of money, one could say it's the board of governorns; but it is not as if they would be beyond manipulation either. |
Oh, I see what you're saying. Ok, so I must admit that I simply don't know how the system works. That is, I guess banks loan the government money. People do too, though, right? Like when I get a T-bill or something. Right? I'm not sure of the alternative, though-- if the government needs money to buy a fleet of aircraft carriers, it needs to take a loan. Right?
| saying that private banks are profiting on interest of money lent to the government arouses less conspiracy issues as cia killing kennedy, or 9/11, etc, i would think. |
No, but saying that the Fed was part of some grand scheme dreamed up by nefarious power brokers in an effort to keep the average person down is a bit of a stretch.
| isn't part of the art of conspiracy though making every conspiracy sound unreasonable, so that people are conditioned not to give any credence to an idea immediately after hearing the word conspiracy? was it coincidence and luck from others actions, or the nazi party itself that started the Reichstag fire to leap hitler and the nazi party into power? will we ever know 100%? doubtful, but it's really not outside of the realms of possibility is it? would you believe everything found in a US history book in 1950 as fact? 1970? 2007? past or current events? without looking into comparing any at all, i'm sure there have been many edits made throughout!! |
I think that when people conspire to do something evil or nefarious (or perhaps, to do something that they deem needed ) that they work to keep it a secret. As Jerome has failed to do despite myriad requests, I fail to see the conspiracy here. If it's just "banks make money from the interest that comes from their loans" that's not a conspiracy; that's just how it works. People have been loaning at interest for at least 4000 years. I just don't see "conspiracy" in a government institution that has a website, FAQ, and open meetings. |
|
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 14:34:26 [Permalink]
|
i don't know what all factors one would need to denote it as a "conspiracy" but it would still be "wrong" if a system was in place that was rewarding the elitist few while taking advantage of the many as if they were cattle.
i *think* when you buy a t-bill that you are loaning money to the government. BUT when you send money in for a tax, it should theoretically just be theirs - they shouldn't have to borrow it from somebody (a bank) right?
during those 4000 years there have apparently been many banking swindles however. i don't personally or think anyone has a beef with the fact that there are banks, or that money is loaned and loaned at interest; i think it is a necessity. the concern is in the determination of the value of a dollar, and how it could be manipulated by private interests. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 18:26:32 [Permalink]
|
Cune, lets take a look at what really happened with the Knickerbocker trust.
1906, US government was aggressive with the railroads which made it hard to borrow, harming the overall economy.
1907 March 12, J.P. Morgan (railroads)had a meeting with Roosevelt to "allay public anxiety".
1907 March 13, Dow Jones lost 8.3% value (83.12 to 76.23).
1907 March to September Dow Jones market continued to erode on fear.
1907 October 21, Knickerbocker Trust Co. closes due to depositors wanting money lost in the market downturn.
1907 October 24, J.P.Morgan pumps $25 million given to him by the U.S. Treasury into the stock market.
As a reward; J.P.Morgans was allowed by antitrust President Roosevelt to purchase Tennessee Coal and Iron Company for $45 million despite the fact it was worth $700 million.
http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2000/122499.html
Would you consider that these facts agree with the description given by your link as to the cause of the 1907 Panic.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 18:34:43 [Permalink]
|
Cune said "That is, I guess banks loan the government money"
Yes this does happen. This is not the concern. The Fed creates all money for use by the everybody (private and public) at interest to the government (you and I) when government has the constitutional power to create money at no interest.
Article 1 section 8 powers of congress
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 18:52:58 [Permalink]
|
Federal Reserve Act of 1913 December 23rd
Christmas eve?
Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1913.
1913 was a big year for growing government.
If you look at the amount of money collected in income tax and look at the interest on debt the federal government pays you will understand that the 16th Amendment was needed to support the Federal Reserve.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 19:25:04 [Permalink]
|
Cune, you twice claimed my statements false. Please provide evidence that the first and second try at a central bank in America were successes. The link you posted provides no such evidence, only statement of fact. Are you so unskeptical that you would take the assertion of a random website as fact?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 19:38:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
4. My personal favorite quote in the article "decentralized central bank".
Cune responded: "This again shows that you have a poor grasp of what you're reading. Re-read the description of how the Federal Reserve is organized."
Cune, are you really going to argue that decentralized and central mean the same thing?
Decentralized: the dispersion or distribution of functions and powers; specifically : the delegation of power from a central authority to regional and local authorities
Center: a point, area, person, or thing that is most important or pivotal in relation to an indicated activity, interest, or condition
Now if you can show that the 12 district Fed banks can effect money supply or effect the prime rate, I would agree. You will be unable to preform this task as the main Fed only, effects these two things. Again just because they are called districts means nothing as their function is as a branch of the main Federal Reserve.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 19:45:19 [Permalink]
|
Cune said " This clearly notes that the Fed had a role in not mitigating the Great Depression"
Yes, Cune it does say that. Facts do not bare this out. The Fed dramatically increased the severity of the depression as I noted earlier.
Jerome Posted:
The fed also facilitated the great depression.
Contraction of the money supply .
September 1931 had the biggest hike in rate discount in history.
1933 again raised the discount rate.
Little money equals little economy.
So, Cune the Fed had a major role in the depression; one could make the argument that they choose to do the wrong thing by accident. One can not argue that they did nothing as your link states.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 19:50:00 [Permalink]
|
Cune said "This is rich. I think all it shows is that you don't really understand what you're reading. Or rather, you've deluded yourself into think that your conspiracies are true that even when presented with data that shows otherwise, you somehow ignore it through some type of cognitive dissonance."
Cune, when something is presented without evidence as fact and there is contrary evidence, I do not believe it.
You may choose to believe anything you like without evidence; but I would propose this will leave you lacking in knowledge and only left with unsupportable claims of faith.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
sickmint79
New Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 22:17:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cune, you twice claimed my statements false. Please provide evidence that the first and second try at a central bank in America were successes. The link you posted provides no such evidence, only statement of fact. Are you so unskeptical that you would take the assertion of a random website as fact?
|
obviously questionable source - but it certainly didn't sound like the people were loving them... i think it started on chapter 16. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 22:29:21 [Permalink]
|
Sickmint79, a 3 hour video; are you crazy?
I have found the preferred method of examination of evidence here is written documentation.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Federal Reserve Act in 1913
