Originally posted by telerionYou obviously do not fully comprehend the amount of independent power the Fed has. When the private side has more say so than the federal side it is not healthy. The private side will look after it's own interests.
Implicitly though, it suggests that direct Congressional control of the money supply would be better than the current arrangement. I'm saying that it is wise to keep the monetary authority and the fiscal authority separate (or, if not totally separate, then at least distant.
I'm not mixing up banks with the central bank at all. I think that you don't u ...[text shortened]... ays pick them back up once you've learned about how things actually work.
I understand fractional reserve banking quite well. The constitution was written when coins were money. Gold and silver were money. The coins today make up a very small amount of currency. You can't ignore the context of history in which the constitution was written. The coins today are not made of precious metals. Gold and silver is what they meant. What the heck are you thinking?
You act as if you are going to teach me something about fractional reserve banking. I could teach you a few things about it. I learned well from a film called Money as Debt as well as other sources. Most money is created by fractional reserve banking, not the US mint. You have a lot to learn, if you have a high speed connection (I have basic dial up) you can watch Money as Debt via the link below. If not, check out the website.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
I am not making too big a deal over the word federal/national. I am making a big deal over the constitution.
Andrew Jackson was a very intelligent man. He was also a very brave man that stood for the little guy. Spare me the trail of tears reminder. I am well aware of his imperfections. You ignore the high inflation the 2nd bank of the US caused before Jackson was elected. People hated that privately owned monopoly. It was hurting them badly and the people loved Jackson for killing it. Just because you say something does not make it correct.
Toyota and Apple do not control our money supply. Are you smoking crack? You don't think we should know who manipulates our money supply and recently created 1.2 trillion dollars out of nothing at a whim, without asking anybody? Now who is being asinine?
You are clearly using a flawed analysis. Anybody can repeat propaganda and make it sound sensible until a guy like me shows how weak your case is. Get back to me when you get your facts straight.
Please look into Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve, HR 1207. Surely a more transparent Fed Reserve is not a bad thing. Tell all of your friends about it. Write your congressmen and ask them to support it. They will only support it if they are pressured to do so. We have one advantage they do not, we outnumber them.
How many people out there think we should know who owns the Fed Reserve? Who thinks it is no big deal?
To be honest, I'm not sure anybody besides us really cares about this debate anymore, but here goes anyway.
You obviously do not fully comprehend the amount of independent power the Fed has. When the private side has more say so than the federal side it is not healthy. The private side will look after it's own interests.
You're still confused about who actually controls the monetary base. The Federal Open Market Committee makes decisions about targeting interest rates (i.e., how to manipulate the money supply). Your statement that the "private side" has more say than the federal side is demonstrably false. While some FRB presidents (the private side) sit on the committee, the majority do not. Most importantly, the FRB presidents do not make up a majority of the FOMC members. They are only 5 of 12. The other members are from the Federal Reserve Board (aka Board of Governors). These members are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed by the Senate. Therefore the federal side outnumbers the private side 7 to 5. Case closed.
The constitution was written when coins were money. Gold and silver were money. The coins today make up a very small amount of currency. You can't ignore the context of history in which the constitution was written. The coins today are not made of precious metals. Gold and silver is what they meant. What the heck are you thinking?
First, coins still are money. If you had gone to the US Treasury link, you would have learned that the US Treasury is responsible for both "coin and currency notes" so I'm talking about both forms of currency. Your error does not stop there however. Debt and savings (i.e., non-currency forms of money) existed at and even before the creation of the Constitution. It is not as though the US central bank was the first organization to think of such things! Furthermore, the FOMC, while responsible for the monetary base, still has only limited control of the money supply. It is the private banking sector that does most of the money creation. Basically, the Fed, as directed by the FOMC, gives the privates banks monetary base (a.k.a, high-powered money). The private banks then loan that money out over and over (keeping in reserve a small fraction each time for liquidity). That's where the actual money creation happens. The FOMC just takes it's best guess at how much monetary base is needed to accomplish the job.
You act as if you are going to teach me something about fractional reserve banking. I could teach you a few things about it. I learned well from a film called Money as Debt as well as other sources.
This statement alone should be enough for a reasonable person to all but dismiss your claims outright. You might as well say that you learned particle physics from Bill Nye the Science Guy. You put a lot of faith in this MoneyMasters site and its videos. Do you have many other corroborating sources, preferably reputable ones?
Thank you for recommending the video, but I've already seen it. In fact, I watched it the first time you mentioned it. You see I don't mind doing research and giving people a chance to express their viewpoints. It is my professional opinion that while much of the video is factually correct, including the basic idea behind fractional reserve banking (though in practice the US system actually departs from the required reserve ratio), it does a great disservice to its audience because of its explicit bias. Its ridiculous caricatures of bankers, its sinister music, and its cherry-picked Presidential quotes, not to mention its loaded narration, all serve less to educate and more to scare. Rather than educating the sincere viewer, it attempts to brainwash him with an absurd conspiracy theory.
For those reading this who have not yet come to the conclusion that you are completely misguided, I advise them to check other sources as well as MoneyMasters. Even a bit of research will reinforce what I have written in this thread. I'm speaking as a person who studies economics, has worked in a private bank, and continues to work in monetary matters. All Metal Brain has is a youtube video. Really who's more likely peddling propaganda?
As for Metal Brain, who has whole-heartedly embraced this MoneyMasters conspiracy group, the only help for him I'm afraid is to show me the same courtesy that I showed him. Specifically, research other points of view. Take a basic economics class or money and banking course. Talk to a senior banker about how the system works. Read the Fed bank and Fed Board websites. Heck, even read wiki if you have to! Hopefully, you'll come to the realization that you've had the wool pulled over your eyes in by this group.
Edit: I should amend my statement about the factual correctness of Money as Debt. It's basically all true up to about minute 22 or 23. All the same biases I mentioned previously still apply to the first part of the video, but the statements, both about the banking system and the economic theory behind them, are sound. Once it starts claiming that without debt there would be no money, it begins to go off the deep end. Such a statement is not only false but it is even self-contradictory within the context of the video itself. The video correctly points out that most money is created by the multiplied effect of being lent out, redeposited in a bank and then loaned out again, repeatedly. However, the initial money does not come from debt. It is comes from depositors or the government. Therefore without debt, they would not be a multiplier effect on money, but there would be money all the same.
After this slip-up, the video goes down hill until eventually it is selling "alternative" money structures in which money is loaned out for free, the population stops growing, and people float around on flying saucers (literally in the video!).
There is no gold standard in this country anymore. Coins lose value to inflation, gold does not. Do not listen to people who think coins made of nickel, copper and zinc are the same as gold and silver. Fractional reserve banking with no gold standard is a horrible way to run an economic system.
Your money is not backed by anything but faith in the Federal Reserve System. They do not protect it's value, they erode it. Inflation is a tax. See the "Quantity Equation".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/breakingviewscom/5014284/Federal-Reserve-is-now-playing-a-high-risk-game-with-inflation.html
Ask yourselves how the Fed has worked out at stabilizing the economy. They helped cause this mess by lowering interest rates too low. The fed caused the great depression, even Bernanke said that on the 60 minutes interview. he also said that the fed was more transparent. Do you know who the shareholders of the 12 fed banks are? Why are they hiding? Could it be because the Rockefellers and other power hungry people are those shareholders? Some transparency.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/12/60minutes/main4862191.shtml
Do you like what is happening? How much will your paper money be worth if you listen to the status quo guy?
Buy gold!
Originally posted by Metal BrainOf course there is no gold standard anymore! Most of us know that. Of course gold doesn't lose value to inflation. This is true by definition since inflation is the loss of value of a dollar to real goods. The value of gold however does move. It changes with supply and demand like anything else. Do not be fooled into thinking that a gold standard necessarily implies price stability.
There is no gold standard in this country anymore. Coins lose value to inflation, gold does not. Do not listen to people who think coins made of nickel, copper and zinc are the same as gold and silver. Fractional reserve banking with no gold standard is a horrible way to run an economic system.
Your money is not backed by anything but faith in the Fed g? How much will your paper money be worth if you listen to the status quo guy?
Buy gold!
Fiat money is not backed by faith in the Federal Reserve. It is backed by the belief that the same note or coin can be exchanged for real goods at a later time.
It is true that inflation is a tax, but do you really believe that a gold standard eliminates inflation???
Your posts are becoming more and more insensible each time. Or maybe you're a gold seller and it's all a big conspiracy to get us to buy your gold. . . !!! XD
Originally posted by telerionI never said I wanted the gold standard back. Stop misleading people.
Of course there is no gold standard anymore! Most of us know that. Of course gold doesn't lose value to inflation. This is true by definition since inflation is the loss of value of a dollar to real goods. The value of gold however does move. It changes with supply and demand like anything else. Do not be fooled into thinking that a gold standard nece ...[text shortened]... be you're a gold seller and it's all a big conspiracy to get us to buy your gold. . . !!! XD
The dollar is not backed by anything. I was saying you have to have faith that the federal reserve will maintain it's value. It clearly does not if inflation is a tax, which it is. I'm glad you agree.
I am not fooled into thinking gold always insures price stability. Gould and Fisk proved that the market can be manipulated, and it still is.
Gold is a good way to protect your wealth from hyperinflation, that is a fact. You do agree that the Fed creating all of this money out of nothing will lead to a high inflation rate, right?
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not claiming there was not inflation during the gold standard. Inflation led to the end of the gold standard. check out Ron Paul's article "The End Of the Dollar Hegemony".
Did you even bother to check data on inflation during the gold standard?
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you agree that your fears are counter-factual?
I'm not claiming there was not inflation during the gold standard. Inflation led to the end of the gold standard. check out Ron Paul's article "The End Of the Dollar Hegemony".
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm