Does anyone think we need the Fed?

[The Rabbi]

Except the Fed isn't private.
Or have you been asleep for the last 20 pages?

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

Except the Fed isn't private.
Or have you been asleep for the last 20 pages?

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it so..

All of the federal reserve banks are owned by their member banks. These are all private entities, there for the fed is private. If the federal reserve banks were owned by the government then it would be public.

 

[Toro]

Hey, I'm not one to argue against the potential power of one man over many via coersion. But I'm also not one to question the possibility of it not being the case, as well.

Greenspan is one man, afterall, and the shareholders who have much more to gain or lose are greater than could probably be counted. No one really knows what goes on behind the scenes at the Fed, and it's all the more reason for there to be as much sunlight as possible.

I can't STAND the fact that our money is handled in secrecy. Inflationary or deflationary moves FIRST benefit those who stand to gain or lose the most IMMEDIATELY, and the rest of us get the scraps that the wolves were too full to finish.

I can't trust a system that somehow manages itself in secrecy. My votes indirectly put most of those people in the positions they're in, along with the rest of our votes as the electorate. How do we NOT deserve to know every single possible detail, so that in case of shenanigans, we can vote in a way that could root the bastards out?

Fair enough. I don't see a reason to have a public/private central banking system. Every other nation in the world has a nationalized central bank, and many if not most countries in the western world have done a better job at conducting monetary policy than the Fed IMHO.

Are you sure about that? As far as I know its just Panama.. and perhaps Russia. I believe the rest are all private central banking just like the fed is in america.

Yes, I am sure of that. All central banks in the western world other than the US are owned by the government whereas the Fed is merely controlled by the government.

 

[Paulie]

Except the Fed isn't private.
Or have you been asleep for the last 20 pages?

The guy who didn't know that the Fed's various member banks are shareholders in the 12 Federal Reserve district banks, is supposed to somehow be a source of education on this topic?

The Fed is public/private.

It has a majority of FOMC members appointed by elected officials, and the rest elected by private banks who hold equity stake in the 12 regional banks.

The ONLY case you could make is that it is MAJORITY public (on the sole basis that the majority of FOMC personnel are selected by an elected official), and MINORITY private (on the sole basis that the rest of the FOMC personnel are selected by the private sector).

Attempting to attribute an absolute distinction one way or the other is futile in the face of the well known (albeit apparently unknown to you up until just recently) facts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Except the Fed isn't private.
Or have you been asleep for the last 20 pages?

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it so..

All of the federal reserve banks are owned by their member banks. These are all private entities, there for the fed is private. If the federal reserve banks were owned by the government then it would be public.

Except it is a public entity run for the benefit of the public.
But other than that you're right.

 

[rubberhead]

Except the Fed isn't private.
Or have you been asleep for the last 20 pages?

Just because you keep saying that doesn't make it so..

All of the federal reserve banks are owned by their member banks. These are all private entities, there for the fed is private. If the federal reserve banks were owned by the government then it would be public.

Except it is a public entity run for the benefit of the public.
But other than that you're right.

How can we take this guy seriously? How do we know for whose benefit it is being run? It's basically the Supreme Court of banking only slightly more secretive. We're between a rock and a hard place now and it's because of fiat currency. Either the Fed raises rates to save the dollar, or they keep rates low to save housing. One of the two is gonna crash further and the Fed must decide. No person or group of people should be making these decisions. That's way too much power. The only reason they were ever given this much power is that people like Rabbi Hitler-Keynes thought that they understood what their power meant. They clearly don't if they think that 7 rich guys have the best interests of the people at heart. There probably is a group of people whose best interests they serve, but it's a much smaller group than Rabbi would admit.

 

[Paulie]

How can we take this guy seriously?

Who, Rabbi?

We can't. He doesn't know that central banking has roots in Keynesianism, and doesn't have the first clue about the FOMC.

A guy who doesn't know that private member banks of the Fed are regional Fed bank shareholders, and have a minority decision in the FOMC, is trying to 'teach' the rest of the posters in this thread.

Not only is his glaring ignorance on the subject obvious based on his shown idiocy, the fact that he's now resorted to simple 2 sentence ad hom attacks to try and SOMEHOW save face completes the assertion that he's clueless.

Does anyone want to make a collection of his ad hom "you're an idiot" posts and throw them up for irony's sake? I love the taste of irony in the evening.

 

[The Rabbi]

How can we take this guy seriously?

Who, Rabbi?

We can't. He doesn't know that central banking has roots in Keynesianism, and doesn't have the first clue about the FOMC.

A guy who doesn't know that private member banks of the Fed are regional Fed bank shareholders, and have a minority decision in the FOMC, is trying to 'teach' the rest of the posters in this thread.

Not only is his glaring ignorance on the subject obvious based on his shown idiocy, the fact that he's now resorted to simple 2 sentence ad hom attacks to try and SOMEHOW save face completes the assertion that he's clueless.

Does anyone want to make a collection of his ad hom "you're an idiot" posts and throw them up for irony's sake? I love the taste of irony in the evening.

You're an idiot. SOmeone who admits she is self taught from reading, what Wiki articles? SOmeone who can't distinguish between business investment and the Dow Jones Averages.
Please.

 

[Paulie]

How can we take this guy seriously?

Who, Rabbi?

We can't. He doesn't know that central banking has roots in Keynesianism, and doesn't have the first clue about the FOMC.

A guy who doesn't know that private member banks of the Fed are regional Fed bank shareholders, and have a minority decision in the FOMC, is trying to 'teach' the rest of the posters in this thread.

Not only is his glaring ignorance on the subject obvious based on his shown idiocy, the fact that he's now resorted to simple 2 sentence ad hom attacks to try and SOMEHOW save face completes the assertion that he's clueless.

Does anyone want to make a collection of his ad hom "you're an idiot" posts and throw them up for irony's sake? I love the taste of irony in the evening.

You're an idiot. SOmeone who admits she is self taught from reading, what Wiki articles? SOmeone who can't distinguish between business investment and the Dow Jones Averages.
Please.

Who ISN'T taught from reading? I wouldn't use Wiki as a source if it was the last website left on earth. Point me to ONE post where I sourced Wiki.

PLEASE mother fucker, I fucking DARE you.

I could either come personally hand you the multitude of books I own on econ, or I could link you to any NUMBER of websites that back me up. What I was personally looking to see is if you were willing to just look for yourself. I get fucking tired as fuck watching people discredit a source because they somehow managed to find a minute detail within it that they can rest on like a crutch, as perceived as anything even somehow REMOTELY partisan in nature. You fit that kind of bill perfectly. Just do a god damn mother fucking google search all by yourself like a big boy, you stupid fucking chump.

Douche the vagina holmes, because it's obvious you've got a significant amount of sand and other undesirable sediment resting in there, causing discomfort.

TWICE when I offered you the proof you wanted on different sub-topics, you chose to ignore me and opted to instead ad hom the otherwise less educated posters in the thread. I speak for no one here but myself.

And not only did I NEVER mention DOW Jones specifically, YOU were the one who misdistinguished business investment as personal investment. And I actually GAVE you that one as a freebie because I realized I failed to be more specific in what I was getting at.

You asked for proof that private banks held equity stake in the 12 regional fed banks. I gave you that proof, you tried to somehow discredit it, I cleared that up for you, and then you ignored me and ad hom attacked someone else.

You're a pussy, and you lack significant economic knowledge to be this harsh in such a discussion.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with being as uninformed as you are, but when you attack others on the basis that you're somehow educated enough to pull it off, that's where the line gets drawn.

Log off and hit the library junior. You've apparently got a LOT of catching up to do.

 

[Mike Mitrosky]

How can we take this guy seriously?

Who, Rabbi?

We can't. He doesn't know that central banking has roots in Keynesianism, and doesn't have the first clue about the FOMC.

A guy who doesn't know that private member banks of the Fed are regional Fed bank shareholders, and have a minority decision in the FOMC, is trying to 'teach' the rest of the posters in this thread.

Not only is his glaring ignorance on the subject obvious based on his shown idiocy, the fact that he's now resorted to simple 2 sentence ad hom attacks to try and SOMEHOW save face completes the assertion that he's clueless.

Does anyone want to make a collection of his ad hom "you're an idiot" posts and throw them up for irony's sake? I love the taste of irony in the evening.

You're an idiot. SOmeone who admits she is self taught from reading, what Wiki articles? SOmeone who can't distinguish between business investment and the Dow Jones Averages.
Please.

Im an autodidact too. You kind of have to be. No economics course in America would ever describe the federal reserve system as a banking cartel, even thought thats exactly what it is.

 

[Paulie]

Who, Rabbi?

We can't. He doesn't know that central banking has roots in Keynesianism, and doesn't have the first clue about the FOMC.

A guy who doesn't know that private member banks of the Fed are regional Fed bank shareholders, and have a minority decision in the FOMC, is trying to 'teach' the rest of the posters in this thread.

Not only is his glaring ignorance on the subject obvious based on his shown idiocy, the fact that he's now resorted to simple 2 sentence ad hom attacks to try and SOMEHOW save face completes the assertion that he's clueless.

Does anyone want to make a collection of his ad hom "you're an idiot" posts and throw them up for irony's sake? I love the taste of irony in the evening.

You're an idiot. SOmeone who admits she is self taught from reading, what Wiki articles? SOmeone who can't distinguish between business investment and the Dow Jones Averages.
Please.

Im an autodidact too. You kind of have to be. No economics course in America would ever describe the federal reserve system as a banking cartel, even thought thats exactly what it is.

Exactly. He's trying to discredit me because instead of taking econ courses at a college where I'm only being taught ONE school of thought, I instead choose to learn ALL schools of thought and come to my own informed opinion.

I took a business class last year at an accredited university, and what do you know...the information they taught us about the Fed was the same old tired bullshit you learn anywhere else where Keynesianism is the basis of the cirriculum.

They don't teach you about Fed shareholder structure, they don't teach you exactly how the FOMC operates and the exact amount of control that each member has, and where they acquired that particular position of control within it. They DAMN WELL don't teach you the reasons WHY it's public/private.

Rabbi obviously isn't a Keynesian, that much is true considering his rhetoric here. He's also not an Austrian because he supports the Fed's role in some way. I'm guessing he's a Friedmanite, which I suppose is worth at least settling for over Keynesian.

If so, at least he doesn't support printing endless amounts of money to cover bills.

Here's some logic for the Friedmanites to ponder though...

The rate of gold discovery in the world tends to average 1-2% per year. Friedman suggested that we increase the money supply 1-2% per year to keep pace with what should be modest growth. Why could a gold standard not exist in an economic environment where the rate of growth of money would be virtually equal, compared to Friedmanism?

 

[Neubarth]

You're an idiot. SOmeone who admits she is self taught from reading, what Wiki articles? SOmeone who can't distinguish between business investment and the Dow Jones Averages.
Please.

Im an autodidact too. You kind of have to be. No economics course in America would ever describe the federal reserve system as a banking cartel, even thought thats exactly what it is.

Exactly. He's trying to discredit me because instead of taking econ courses at a college where I'm only being taught ONE school of thought, I instead choose to learn ALL schools of thought and come to my own informed opinion.

I took a business class last year at an accredited university, and what do you know...the information they taught us about the Fed was the same old tired bullshit you learn anywhere else where Keynesianism is the basis of the cirriculum.

They don't teach you about Fed shareholder structure, they don't teach you exactly how the FOMC operates and the exact amount of control that each member has, and where they acquired that particular position of control within it. They DAMN WELL don't teach you the reasons WHY it's public/private.

Rabbi obviously isn't a Keynesian, that much is true considering his rhetoric here. He's also not an Austrian because he supports the Fed's role in some way. I'm guessing he's a Friedmanite, which I suppose is worth at least settling for over Keynesian.

If so, at least he doesn't support printing endless amounts of money to cover bills.

Here's some logic for the Friedmanites to ponder though...

The rate of gold discovery in the world tends to average 1-2% per year. Friedman suggested that we increase the money supply 1-2% per year to keep pace with what should be modest growth. Why could a gold standard not exist in an economic environment where the rate of growth of money would be virtually equal, compared to Friedmanism?

Trying to tie the value of money to a commodity is insane. If we absolutely had to, I;d prefer that it be tied to the price of corn. Anything that you can make corn liquor from has to have lasting value.

 

[Paulie]

Im an autodidact too. You kind of have to be. No economics course in America would ever describe the federal reserve system as a banking cartel, even thought thats exactly what it is.

Exactly. He's trying to discredit me because instead of taking econ courses at a college where I'm only being taught ONE school of thought, I instead choose to learn ALL schools of thought and come to my own informed opinion.

I took a business class last year at an accredited university, and what do you know...the information they taught us about the Fed was the same old tired bullshit you learn anywhere else where Keynesianism is the basis of the cirriculum.

They don't teach you about Fed shareholder structure, they don't teach you exactly how the FOMC operates and the exact amount of control that each member has, and where they acquired that particular position of control within it. They DAMN WELL don't teach you the reasons WHY it's public/private.

Rabbi obviously isn't a Keynesian, that much is true considering his rhetoric here. He's also not an Austrian because he supports the Fed's role in some way. I'm guessing he's a Friedmanite, which I suppose is worth at least settling for over Keynesian.

If so, at least he doesn't support printing endless amounts of money to cover bills.

Here's some logic for the Friedmanites to ponder though...

The rate of gold discovery in the world tends to average 1-2% per year. Friedman suggested that we increase the money supply 1-2% per year to keep pace with what should be modest growth. Why could a gold standard not exist in an economic environment where the rate of growth of money would be virtually equal, compared to Friedmanism?

Trying to tie the value of money to a commodity is insane. If we absolutely had to, I;d prefer that it be tied to the price of corn. Anything that you can make corn liquor from has to have lasting value.

You didn't address the entire premise of the proposal though.

If Friedman suggested that we increase the supply of money 1-2% per year for normal monetary growth, and gold discoveries are nearly the same percentage rate per year, how is the gold standard so horrible? It still allows for growth in the supply of money at 1-2% per year.

By the way, I'm not stuck on just gold. I'd take ANYTHING that had perpetual value/demand to back our currency at this point. Silver, gold, corn, soy beans, copper, fucking PORK BELLIES for christ's sake.

ANYTHING except what we have right now would be a great and welcome change.

The government will never do it though, because to limit their ability to print limitlessly would end their entire ball game.

 

[Toro]

You didn't address the entire premise of the proposal though.

If Friedman suggested that we increase the supply of money 1-2% per year for normal monetary growth, and gold discoveries are nearly the same percentage rate per year, how is the gold standard so horrible? It still allows for growth in the supply of money at 1-2% per year.

By the way, I'm not stuck on just gold. I'd take ANYTHING that had perpetual value/demand to back our currency at this point. Silver, gold, corn, soy beans, copper, fucking PORK BELLIES for christ's sake.

ANYTHING except what we have right now would be a great and welcome change.

The government will never do it though, because to limit their ability to print limitlessly would end their entire ball game.

Gold discoveries aren't 1%-2% per year. During the 80s and 90s, gold production around the world increased >5% per year because of new technologies. That is a big reason why gold hit $260 an ounce.

Gold production is based upon the profitability of mining companies, which had been one of the poorest run industries in the world.

 

[Paulie]

You didn't address the entire premise of the proposal though.

If Friedman suggested that we increase the supply of money 1-2% per year for normal monetary growth, and gold discoveries are nearly the same percentage rate per year, how is the gold standard so horrible? It still allows for growth in the supply of money at 1-2% per year.

By the way, I'm not stuck on just gold. I'd take ANYTHING that had perpetual value/demand to back our currency at this point. Silver, gold, corn, soy beans, copper, fucking PORK BELLIES for christ's sake.

ANYTHING except what we have right now would be a great and welcome change.

The government will never do it though, because to limit their ability to print limitlessly would end their entire ball game.

Gold discoveries aren't 1%-2% per year. During the 80s and 90s, gold production around the world increased >5% per year because of new technologies. That is a big reason why gold hit $260 an ounce.

Gold production is based upon the profitability of mining companies, which had been one of the poorest run industries in the world.

I swear it was YOU that said 1-2% a long time ago...

What is the average yearly rate of new gold discovery in the world then?

 

[Toro]

I swear it was YOU that said 1-2% a long time ago...

What is the average yearly rate of new gold discovery in the world then?

No, that was not me.

I believe that gold production was actually down last year.

 

[Paulie]

I swear it was YOU that said 1-2% a long time ago...

What is the average yearly rate of new gold discovery in the world then?

No, that was not me.

I believe that gold production was actually down last year.

Well if production sometimes drops YoY, that's not necessarily bad.

But what's the average yearly rate of discovery over, say, the last 50 years?

I found a website that had the info, the ONLY website that did, and they wanted a paid subscription to read the report. I figure you're privy to that kind of info on a daily basis.

 

[Neubarth]

In West Texas, there is a vein of gold two feet thick, fifty feet wide and estimated at the very least to be over a mile and a half long. It is on Federal land and can not be mined until the Federal government wants it to be mined. It would double the world gold reserves overnight if we started to mine it. Of course if that got out, the value of gold would fall to under fifty dollars an ounce. So, please keep it a secret.

 

[Paulie]

In West Texas, there is a vein of gold two feet thick, fifty feet wide and estimated at the very least to be over a mile and a half long. It is on Federal land and can not be mined until the Federal government wants it to be mined. It would double the world gold reserves overnight if we started to mine it. Of course if that got out, the value of gold would fall to under fifty dollars an ounce. So, please keep it a secret.

Either you're lying about that, or you aren't, in which case it actually makes a pretty damn good case for a gold standard.

Peg dollar to gold, and mine this gold you're talking about.

Then, stop spending so much fucking money, and...

Problem solved.

 

[Toro]

I swear it was YOU that said 1-2% a long time ago...

What is the average yearly rate of new gold discovery in the world then?

No, that was not me.

I believe that gold production was actually down last year.

Well if production sometimes drops YoY, that's not necessarily bad.

But what's the average yearly rate of discovery over, say, the last 50 years?

I found a website that had the info, the ONLY website that did, and they wanted a paid subscription to read the report. I figure you're privy to that kind of info on a daily basis.

You are right, it is not always bad. It would be bad now though.

I have had a subscription to GFMS in the past. Gold production may have grown 1%-2% over the past decade. That sounds reasonable.