Originally posted by uzlessAgain the FOMC is comprised of 5 presidents from the regional banks (the private sector interest) and 7 appointments from the Board of Governors (the government interest).
Some would suggest we don't want to privatize monetary policy either.
The Fed is acting in the best interests of whom?
Effectively though the Fed does it's best keep inflation low and employment strong. This whole notion that it's in somebody's pocket is just wishful thinking by conspiracy theorists who are too lazy to pay the fixed cost of learning economics.
Originally posted by PalynkaThe theory of central banking is always that it can keep an economy stable better than leaving it to market forces, but does that prove to be true?
Well, most central banks use several different models to assess the state of the economy and the quantitative effect of its instruments.
The first type consists of purely structural (econometric) models. The idea is to put as much information as possible into a statistical model and try to make extensive use of statistic (econometric) techniques to "let t ...[text shortened]... ut the actual values themselves. There is no "ideal" value that is invariant to policy.
Since the Fed was created we still have boom and busts and some have been even worse than before 1913, like the great depression. We still have bank panics, only now we are forced to bail them out.
Originally posted by telerionThat is complete BS.
Again the FOMC is comprised of 5 presidents from the regional banks (the private sector interest) and 7 appointments from the Board of Governors (the government interest).
Effectively though the Fed does it's best keep inflation low and employment strong. This whole notion that it's in somebody's pocket is just wishful thinking by conspiracy theorists who are too lazy to pay the fixed cost of learning economics.
The Fed does not keep inflation low. You bought into that whole"the fed is fighting inflation" propaganda. The Fed does not fight inflation, it creates inflation. You admitted to me that inflation is a tax previously. You are contradicting yourself.
How do you figure the fed is keeping the inflation tax low?
Originally posted by PalynkaWhy don't you just provide a written transcript of the quote for those of those that can't access videos from work so we can keep score as to who is right and who is wrong
FAIL
In your link the same quote from the exact same footage appears at 4 minutes in.
Can you count to four?
Originally posted by PalynkaHe was not suggesting that we extinguish the money supply.
I did.
Why don't you watch the whole film before judging it? Be open minded, you might learn some history you didn't know before. It is explained in much more detail later.
Perhaps you are just too chicken to watch the whole thing. Afraid of what you will find out.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaOk, at best you've taken the quote out of context, and worse, you've misquoted it. Keep in mind this video is about how bankers took control of the US (historically) Here is the quote in its entirety.
I needed less than two minutes to find the first lie. 😵
Ok. Let's start with the start. At about 1min 30 secs in, some guy says:
We cannot extinguish government debt without extinguishing money supply
FALSE.
Open market operations can be done with many different securities and not necessarily with government bonds. Bonds are usually used be ...[text shortened]... ssets. Besides, the Fed could also use of the discount window more extensively if it needed so.
(referring to the American civil war)
"In Numerous years following the war, the Federal government ran a heavy surplus. It could not however pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes. To pay off the bank notes was to destroy the money supply."
That's a John Kenneth Galbraith quote.....a noted Historian no less. Are you suggesting Mr. Galbraith is incorrect in his assessment?
Originally posted by uzlessCheck where he got his Phd.
Ok, at best you've taken the quote out of context, and worse, you've misquoted it. Keep in mind this video is about how bankers took control of the US (historically) Here is the quote in its entirety.
(referring to the American civil war)
"In Numerous years following the war, the Federal government ran a heavy surplus. It could not however pay off i ...[text shortened]... oted Historian no less. Are you suggesting Mr. Galbraith is incorrect in his assessment?
GRANNY.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionAre you talking current or historic?
Again the FOMC is comprised of 5 presidents from the regional banks (the private sector interest) and 7 appointments from the Board of Governors (the government interest).
Effectively though the Fed does it's best keep inflation low and employment strong. This whole notion that it's in somebody's pocket is just wishful thinking by conspiracy theorists who are too lazy to pay the fixed cost of learning economics.
If you mean both, then I take issue with that since many many people, Milton Friedman included, that have taken the FED to task for creating the stock market crash which led to the great depression, and also for the previous incarnations of the Fed going back to the 1800's.
As far as who the FED benefits today, you'd have a tough time convincing many folks that the easy money polilcy of the past decade endorsed by the FED wasn't largely to keep the stock market going. Who's interests are served by boosting stock prices? The Fed does not have a good track record of its stated goal of stabilizing the monetary system.
Mr. Greenspan in his recent WSJ article blamed an over supply of foreign money as the reason for the credit crisis. He said the Fed noticed in 2004 that the Fed's ability to manipulate interests rates had been decoupled. Ok fine, but curiously, the FED did NOTHING about it.
Regardless, there are curious goings on in the background static that i've noticed in the past few months. I've noticed a call to raise the captital requirements for banks to 10% (resulting in a tightening of the money supply even further), I've heard giving the US FED even more powers than it currently has...etc.
One thing most people in economics understand is that whenever there is turmoil, there is oppurtunity. The question I find interesting today is simple....
If Wealth is not destroyed, but merely transferred, who is benefiting from all of this?
3 edits
Originally posted by uzlessOk, at best you've taken the quote out of context, and worse, you've misquoted it.
Ok, at best you've taken the quote out of context, and worse, you've misquoted it. Keep in mind this video is about how bankers took control of the US (historically) Here is the quote in its entirety.
(referring to the American civil war)
"In Numerous years following the war, the Federal government ran a heavy surplus. It could not however pay off i oted Historian no less. Are you suggesting Mr. Galbraith is incorrect in his assessment?
Err... No, I didn't. This guy was raving about how TODAY we cannot have a debt-free government because he claims money supply can't exist without it and we needed to reform our banking system before thinking about a debt-free government.
This is false and I've explained why. I'm not about to waste 3h of my life on a "documentary' that (less than 5 minutes in) shows a raving lunatic explaining his delusions as fact.
See Metal Brain's post above. Pure denial and inability to face what I said. That's the youtube "documentary" crowd. I suspect you're one of them.
As for Galbraith's quote (which is NOT the one I was quoting), I can only shrug. Even if it was factual for the time (I doubt it), it is not now and so the statement above is still the rantings of a lunatic.