"End the Fed!" - WHY?!
- Thread starter KingOrfeo
- Start date
How do the others get there?
What makes you think that was a result of political pressure? And, if it was, who applied the pressure, and how and why?
Well, it's one thing to audit the Fed and another to dismantle it.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
I don't see it that way.
I see it as the beholden trying to maintain their prestige.
[This is where I usually talk about Hoffer and the 'scribe class']
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
The Fed does a pretty good job. There's no way I'd want Congress meddling in the gears of our economy.
Libsam
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Posts
- 4,327
One third are the regional bank leaders, they are appointed by the other 1/3, the private interest.
Libsam
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Posts
- 4,327
Also, sometimes the political appointees were former regional heads.
Did you mean "not" or "now"?
Libsam
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Posts
- 4,327
It's correct, I meant to say "not".
Well, who is controlled by the international bankers? Nobody but people who work in banks, I should think. They must have influence with many governments, but not control.
Why, the Trilateral Bilderberg Communist Nazi Jewish Satanist Freemason Illuminati Lizard People of Zion, of course, everybody knows that, where wuz you raised?!
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
You mean like Dodd-Frank?
Or when Barney Frank went to war against the whistleblowers warning us of the housing bubble...
Or when they abdicate their responsibility and let a President Obama over-regulate the fuck out of our economy limiting it to 2% or less rate of growth.
It's not an either-or choice.
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
You mean like Dodd-Frank?
Or when Barney Frank went to war against the whistleblowers warning us of the housing bubble...
Or when they abdicate their responsibility and let a President Obama over-regulate the fuck out of our economy limiting it to 2% or less rate of growth.
It's not an either-or choice.
Are you merging the Fed with Treasury?
Dodd-Frank and it's associated regulations had limited impact on the Fed. At most, it pulled a few banks into the Fed's fold by classifying them as bank holding companies.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
No, I am discussing the limited choice you offered, it's either the Fed or Congress.
You are correct that Congress is worse and I offered some glimpses into why.
Money is a commodity, let the market regulate it.
Treating economics like a hard science that can govern the economy by picking the right formulas and metrics is pretty much the same as playing Russian Roulette with an automatic.
In short, there's a reason they don't want to be audited, they are terrified that the institution designed to make our banks and money safe and sound is sitting on a pretty shaky and unstable foundation itself. It cannot spot bubbles, for example, it can only react to them and they really haven't demonstrated that they react in a proactive economic manner, in fact, they might be exacerbating downturns. It's not rocket science and I keep in mind that rocket scientists sometimes blow up rockets...
You are correct that Congress is worse and I offered some glimpses into why.
Money is a commodity, let the market regulate it.
Treating economics like a hard science that can govern the economy by picking the right formulas and metrics is pretty much the same as playing Russian Roulette with an automatic.
In short, there's a reason they don't want to be audited, they are terrified that the institution designed to make our banks and money safe and sound is sitting on a pretty shaky and unstable foundation itself. It cannot spot bubbles, for example, it can only react to them and they really haven't demonstrated that they react in a proactive economic manner, in fact, they might be exacerbating downturns. It's not rocket science and I keep in mind that rocket scientists sometimes blow up rockets...
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
If a nation doesn't control its currency, it's lost sovereignty. That's why the EU is failing - individual nations are no longer nations and they are under the thumb of their neighbors.
ALL industrialized nations have a central bank to control their money supply. To let the market control it, would mean that other countries would have too much influence on the US economy.
I want the Fed to dictate the value of a Dollar by controlling how many of them there are.
ALL industrialized nations have a central bank to control their money supply. To let the market control it, would mean that other countries would have too much influence on the US economy.
I want the Fed to dictate the value of a Dollar by controlling how many of them there are.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 74,050
No, I am discussing the limited choice you offered, it's either the Fed or Congress.
You are correct that Congress is worse and I offered some glimpses into why.
Money is a commodity, let the market regulate it.
Treating economics like a hard science that can govern the economy by picking the right formulas and metrics is pretty much the same as playing Russian Roulette with an automatic.
In short, there's a reason they don't want to be audited, they are terrified that the institution designed to make our banks and money safe and sound is sitting on a pretty shaky and unstable foundation itself. It cannot spot bubbles, for example, it can only react to them and they really haven't demonstrated that they react in a proactive economic manner, in fact, they might be exacerbating downturns. It's not rocket science and I keep in mind that rocket scientists sometimes blow up rockets...
Though the Constitution grants to Congress the right to coin money, the market ought to dictate what that medium of exchange is going to consist of. We've seen the Dollar lose over 90% of its purchasing power under the Fed.
JohnnySavage
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2008
- Posts
- 44,472
How much larger is the economy now then it was in 1913?
So you say the Dollar is only worth 10% of what it was back then... compare the size of homes now to then. Compare the number of consumer goods we have now compared to then. Americans are far wealthier now then they were then.
Adre
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Posts
- 23,914
Irrelevant. We're richer than ever.
RobDownSouth
Trump Is Dying
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 81,047
Meanwhile, back on the reality-based Planet Earth:
Destroying the cherished Wingnut talking point of "but...but...the Dollar lost 90+% of its purchasin' power!!
#GoldBuggery
Why would that be a condition for failure of a federation? The American states didn't start to fail when they set up a federal government.
With or without the Fed, what it consists of is money, which is dictated by the market in that it is the one thing everybody agrees to want.4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
How would they have too much influence?
Would it be in their best interest to be vested in us, but use that power to tank their investment?
You'll have to explain this one in greater detail to me.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
How much larger is the economy now then it was in 1913?
So you say the Dollar is only worth 10% of what it was back then... compare the size of homes now to then. Compare the number of consumer goods we have now compared to then. Americans are far wealthier now then they were then.
Would it fair to also offer up a comparison of debt to wealth ratios?
