1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainI'm sure that there are other years of data, but now that you've seen one example document, you should be able to google search your way to others.
Thanks.
I notice it is for the year 2005. Are there other years of data available?
Also, I was reading about the board of governors and noticed it said this.
"Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy views".
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqbog.htm
What can they be removed from office for if not their views? Actions? Congress can remove them, right?
I don't know under what conditions a governor of the board can be removed. I would imagine that if a governor killed a bunch of people then he would be out. Likely there are other less extreme violations of the law that would get him fired too. It is not too surprising that governors are immune from being fired solely for their monetary policy ideas. The point is to allow the governor to be open and responsive to crises while at the same time insulated from political pressure (since short-run politics and long-run economic interests may conflict). In the end, the President and Senate just need to exercise caution when putting governors in place.
BTW the Board of Governors aren't unique in this regard. Supreme Court justices and tenured professors have similar immunity.
Originally posted by telerionIt is not easy to just google search and find other years of data. If it is not on the Fed website I doubt it would be found in other places without difficulty.
I'm sure that there are other years of data, but now that you've seen one example document, you should be able to google search your way to others.
I don't know under what conditions a governor of the board can be removed. I would imagine that if a governor killed a bunch of people then he would be out. Likely there are other less extreme violations ...[text shortened]... unique in this regard. Supreme Court justices and tenured professors have similar immunity.
I doubt it would be easy to remove a governor of the board. The fact that it was never done (even during the great depression) is not very reassuring. Once they are in position I don't think it is likely any of them will be ousted for their vote. I'll bet they mostly vote alike anyway.
Originally posted by Metal BrainIf the google search is cumbersome, why would you expect me to do it for you? If you are really interested in finding an answer to your question, look for the report. I'm sure it's out there somewhere.
It is not easy to just google search and find other years of data. If it is not on the Fed website I doubt it would be found in other places without difficulty.
I doubt it would be easy to remove a governor of the board. The fact that it was never done (even during the great depression) is not very reassuring. Once they are in position I don't think ...[text shortened]... t is likely any of them will be ousted for their vote. I'll bet they mostly vote alike anyway.
Why do you bet that they vote pretty much alike? From what I've heard governor's and/or bank presidents disagree at the FOMC all the time. It actually triggers a lot of work for the dissenters' banks because they have to put together data to amass a good defense.
Originally posted by telerionYou seem to be more resourceful at finding the data being an economic big wig and all. One year doesn't prove anything. What if that was the only year they gave back a fair amount of the money back?
If the google search is cumbersome, why would you expect me to do it for you? If you are really interested in finding an answer to your question, look for the report. I'm sure it's out there somewhere.
Why do you bet that they vote pretty much alike? From what I've heard governor's and/or bank presidents disagree at the FOMC all the time. It actually ...[text shortened]... k for the dissenters' banks because they have to put together data to amass a good defense.
Why does the Fed have to rebate the money anyway? Why doesn't the Gov just pay them for the service after they perform that service and be done with it? Why the "you give me a load of wealth and I'll refund the rest of what I don't use?"
What if the kid that mows the lawn did that? You give me $100.00 and I'll refund the Other $80.00 after I mow the lawn. How would that go over with you?
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainEverything (expert testimony and shown data) suggests that the Fed rebates the net interest earned on government debt back to the Treasury. You would like it to be otherwise. You're the one making a pretty heterodox allegation. You go find data to support it. I'm not going to spend every hour of my day being your data monkey.
You seem to be more resourceful at finding the data being an economic big wig and all. One year doesn't prove anything. What if that was the only year they gave back a fair amount of the money back?
Why does the Fed have to rebate the money anyway? Why doesn't the Gov just pay them for the service after they perform that service and be done with it? W 0 and I'll refund the Other $80.00 after I mow the lawn. How would that go over with you?
I'm sure you haven't done a lick of research on your questions. You just piggy back on everyone else. Come back when you find solid data showing 2005-2006 to be an anomaly.
Why does the Fed have to rebate the money anyway? Why doesn't the Gov just pay them for the service after they perform that service and be done with it? Why the "you give me a load of wealth and I'll refund the rest of what I don't use?"
What if the kid that mows the lawn did that? You give me $100.00 and I'll refund the Other $80.00 after I mow the lawn. How would that go over with you?
It's called holding government debt. You really need to stop reading crazy conspiracy theories and take a couple of econ classes. You analogy is way off. It's more like your mom tells you to go buy some milk from the store. She doesn't know exactly how much it will cost so she gives you a five dollar bill. The milk ends up costing $3.50 so you give back the $1.50. There's really nothing nefarious going on.
Originally posted by telerionApparently you are unable to answer the question.
Everything (expert testimony and shown data) suggests that the Fed rebates the net interest earned on government debt back to the Treasury. You would like it to be otherwise. You're the one making a pretty heterodox allegation. You go find data to support it. I'm not going to spend every hour of my day being your data monkey.
I'm sure you haven't don ...[text shortened]... k on everyone else. Come back when you find solid data showing 2005-2006 to be an anomaly.
I win.
4 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainI'll leave that for others to decide.
Apparently you are unable to answer the question.
I win.
BTW: Just because you pissed me off so much, I went to look for the data myself. I found (as I suspected I would) analogous links for other years which show, in the same format, the revenue of the Fed and how much was rebated to the Treasury. It was flipping easy to find! Took me about 30 seconds. Now take the one link for 2005-2006. Think really hard. Find the other years. Lazy tool. You'll know that you got the right answer if you come to 82.1% for 2007-2008.
Edit2: Wow. 90% for 2008-2009. Man, for greedy, secret bankers working to control the world, they sure do give away a lot of their profits!
Edit3: If anyone wants to know how I'm finding this, PM me. I don't want to spoil the fun for MB.
Originally posted by telerionYou completely ignored my question.
It's true. I've got a small mountain of tests to grade.
Why does the fed get all the money in the first place? Why should it be in a position to rebate money at all? If I told you I'd mow your lawn for (more or less) $20.00 but I wanted $100.00 and I'd give you the other $80.00 (more or less) later when I decide how much it costs, would you think that was normal?
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainI sincerely hope that you are still a juvenile. Otherwise I'm afraid you've wasted your life.
You completely ignored my question.
Why does the fed get all the money in the first place? Why should it be in a position to rebate money at all? If I told you I'd mow your lawn for (more or less) $20.00 but I wanted $100.00 and I'd give you the other $80.00 (more or less) later when I decide how much it costs, would you think that was normal?
BTW I answered your question (a stupid one I might add). To find the answer though you have to do this thing called "reading."
Originally posted by telerionYou never answered that question.
I sincerely hope that you are still a juvenile. Otherwise I'm afraid you've wasted your life.
BTW I answered your question (a stupid one I might add). To find the answer though you have to do this thing called "reading."
You obviously are unable to answer it. That is why you insult.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe Constitution limited the Federal government's ability to tax and spend, and therefore it's ultimate power over people.
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.
I understand fractional reserve banking quite well. The constitution was written when coins were money. Gold and silver were money. The c ...[text shortened]... l a guy like me shows how weak your case is. Get back to me when you get your facts straight.
Note that the Federal Reserve was put in place the same year as the 16th amendment was fraudulently certified, which created the power to tax incomes without enumeration.
The Fed could create "money" out of thin air. The net result of this was the ability of government to spend money that didn't exist, without the messy need to borrow it from someone who actually had some.
The Fed's activities amount to legalized counterfeiting. The net result has to be inflation, not price increases, but inflating the supply of currency, without any compensating increase in productivity. More $ chasing the same amount of goods and services produces increases in prices, but the increased prices are not the inflation. The inflation, the blowing up of the balloon, is the creation of additional fiat money from debt through fractional reserve banking.
The lack of understanding of the general public on this allows it's anger to be directed at a few executives getting bonus money amounting to .01% of TARP money, and not questioning where and how the other 99.9% vanished.
The interest on debt service is a third of the Federal budget, but then if you don't have any money, but get to create it from nothing, it's a pretty sweet deal to be able to charge interest from the very government who set you up in this business in the first place. The government gets what it wants, the ability to spend without restraint, and the bankers get to charge for a product that cost them nothing to produce. What a sweet deal.
Originally posted by normbenign😞 Ignorance flourishes like weeds.
The Constitution limited the Federal government's ability to tax and spend, and therefore it's ultimate power over people.
Note that the Federal Reserve was put in place the same year as the 16th amendment was fraudulently certified, which created the power to tax incomes without enumeration.
The Fed could create "money" out of thin air. The net re ...[text shortened]... kers get to charge for a product that cost them nothing to produce. What a sweet deal.
3 edits
Originally posted by telerionOriginally posted by normbenign
😞 Ignorance flourishes like weeds.
The Fed could create "money" out of thin air. The net result of this was the ability of government to spend money that didn't exist, without the messy need to borrow it from someone who actually had some....
The interest on debt service is a third of the Federal budget, but then if you don't have any money, but get to create it from nothing, it's a pretty sweet deal to be able to charge interest from the very government who set you up in this business in the first place. The government gets what it wants, the ability to spend without restraint, and the bankers get to charge for a product that cost them nothing to produce. What a sweet deal.
------------------------------------------------
These two statements/assertions seem at the heart of any accusations of impropriety on behalf of the Fed.
The question is, do they continuously give the profit on the proceeds of the money entrusted to them back to treasury, or do they table their expenses once a year and return to Treasury an amount in proportion to that entrusted to them for that year? If the latter is the case then the system would still be wide open for the private side to invest that amount and generate profits over and above that which they return. Would anyone know if they did or didn't anyway?
Sure its all assertion and baseless conjecture, but surely if you are in the box seat setting the base rate for all market transactions in the worlds largest economy, and you also have the responsibility of overseeing the distribution of truckloads of cash, which is paid for by the American taxpayer, and you're telling me that behind the protection afforded by an opaque reporting environment you (the Fed) enjoy, that you wouldn't be able to find a way to do a bit of business on that money and then come the end of the year submit a sanitized report tabling your expenses that while showing a generous return to your partner in crime (Treasury), actually obscures a hidden reality of profit taking on such a large scale, to make the amount returned to Treasury appear laughable?
Wouldn't you think it naive to believe that a bank with that much influence and with that many portals of private exchange would not somehow have been able to work a system out whereby they could double deal their fiduciary responsibilities? But we have absolute confidence that they would tell us the truth about what they may get up to, and the records that we are allowed to see tell us the whole story of their involvement with the American public's purse? Right?