The US Federal Reserve Thread

[SentinelMind]

The US Federal Reserve, the third and current central banking system of United States, established in 1913 controls US monetary supply....with shareholders from numerous banking interests and cannot be audited by any of three branches of US Federal Government.

What are your thoughts on the Fed?

[YT]?v=iP9H5fADC0E[/YT]

[YT]?v=ZPWH5TlbloU[/YT]

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

The Fed is one of the single most destructive forces destroying our economy. Audit it to show the American people its inner workings...then abolish it. It remains because the fallacy of Keynesianism has run rampant throughout our country for the last century. It seems that, no matter how much the government thinks they can *fix* the economy, all of its powers have avant supporters that spew the Keynesian myth to indoctrinate the masses.

 

[hippie_hunter]

What he said

 

[SV Fan]

The Fed is one of the single most destructive forces destroying our economy

I would argue usury is. Usury is a system that makes people spend more then they can afford while rapidly increasing prices in the process because people can borrow money to pay for it. I guess one can argue that the Fed is one of the biggest enablers of usury around

I may not be a religious person but...

Proverbs 22:7 ESV

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.

I think the worst thing about the Fed is is basically was fast tracked in the House and Congress(while many people were traveling home) just before Christmas.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I would argue usury is. Usury is a system that makes people spend more then they can afford while rapidly increasing prices in the process because people can borrow money to pay for it.

I may not be a religious person but...

Proverbs 22:7 ESV

The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is the slave of the lender.

Actually, usury is when a lender charges too high of an interest rate when they lend money to someone, not someone making piss poor spending choices. And many states set limits on just how much interest one can charge.

 

[SV Fan]

Actually, usury is when a lender charges too high of an interest rate when they lend money to someone, not someone making piss poor spending choices. And many states set limits on just how much interest one can charge.

I know what Usury is, I was pointed out the negative effects of it(ie piss poor spending choices by people who borrow money and over inflating value of things(houses and education are 2 examples of things that get over inflated due to being being able to borrow money)). I would argue the combination of capitalism and usury is a toxic combo.

 

[hippie_hunter]

 

[CConn]

Any time something can't be held publicly accountable in government, something is terribly, terribly wrong.

I feel as though that concept should be relatable to a person of any political belief.

 

[Alex_Spider]

Seriously though, except the Fed it is money that is not relevant anymore and is clearly not working towards the betterment of humanity. It is more a remnant of our primitive ways.

[YT]VncdJkR9-vI[/YT]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VncdJkR9-vI&feature=em-subs_digest

 

[dnno1]

The Fed is one of the single most destructive forces destroying our economy. Audit it to show the American people its inner workings...then abolish it. It remains because the fallacy of Keynesianism has run rampant throughout our country for the last century. It seems that, no matter how much the government thinks they can *fix* the economy, all of its powers have avant supporters that spew the Keynesian myth to indoctrinate the masses.

We saw some of the greatest economic expansions in the history of the United States under the Federal Reserve and your are trying to say that they are one of the single most destructive forces in the economy?

 

[Alex_Spider]

We saw some of the greatest economic expansions in the history of the United States under the Federal Reserve and your are trying to say that they are one of the single most destructive forces in the economy?

Is this a sarcasm attempt?

 

[dnno1]

Is this a sarcasm attempt?

No, it's the truth.

 

[SV Fan]

Is this a sarcasm attempt?

I think the argument could be made that the US population on a whole wouldn't be as rich as they are if they didn't have outside things forcing cash into the system

For every dollar invested say in infrastructure, a certain percentage is paid to employees who are taxed and use the rest of that cash buying stuff(which creates even more job, who pay taxes and go out and buy....)

Now one could argue the US should just print it's own money, and make the banks federally run but that would be communism(although I won't lie at times I think this is a much better alternative to what we have since at least whatever money the banks are screwing people out of would be reinvested in the Government)

 

[dnno1]

I think the argument could be made that the US population on a whole wouldn't be as rich as they are if they didn't have outside things forcing cash into the system

For every dollar invested say in infrastructure, a certain percentage is paid to employees who are taxed and use the rest of that cash buying stuff(which creates even more job, who pay taxes and go out and buy....)

Now one could argue the US should just print it's own money, and make the banks federally run but that would be communism(although I won't lie at times I think this is a much better alternative to what we have since at least whatever money the banks are screwing people out of would be reinvested in the Government)

It would be truly socialist at worst. The Fed on the other hand is an independent central bank that is not beholden to any President (although they do report to congress on its annual operations). They can expand the money supply when needed (some may call it printing money, but in actuality it is just satisfying the demand for money).

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

We saw some of the greatest economic expansions in the history of the United States under the Federal Reserve and your are trying to say that they are one of the single most destructive forces in the economy?

Is it any coincidence that we also saw the biggest busts in American history as well? The Fed, along with massive government spending and price controls, made the Great Depression what it was.
It is, in actuality, printing money for all intents and purposes. The true demand for money would lead to deflation and lowering of prices as to give more utility to money. All the Fed does is distort market factors into unsustainable projects, thus the boom and eventual busts, and give the federal government a blank checkbook. Booms and busts are not inherit to a true free market economy.

 

[dnno1]

Is it any coincidence that we also saw the biggest busts in American history as well? The Fed, along with massive government spending and price controls, made the Great Depression what it was.
It is, in actuality, printing money for all intents and purposes. The true demand for money would lead to deflation and lowering of prices as to give more utility to money. All the Fed does is distort market factors into unsustainable projects, thus the boom and eventual busts, and give the federal government a blank checkbook. Booms and busts are not inherit to a true free market economy.

Not even close. The worst so called busts in American history occurred during the Copper Panic of 1879, which lasted 4 years, the panic of 1797, which lasted 3 years, the depression in 1807 (that lasted 3 years), 1815 (6 years), the 1882 res session (3 years), the Long Depression of 1873, which lasted almost 5 and a half years, and the 1882 recession, lasting more than 3 years. Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve, no recession has lasted more than 3 years (the Great Depression of 1929 was that one) and we haven't seen economic declines in GDP greater than 27%. The Great Recession of 2007 lasted only a year and a half and we only lost 4.3% of GDP. The Great Depression was caused by a crash in the stock market back in 1929 not because of massive government spending and price controls. There was a lack of consumption tied with an over investment in the market, which caused a bubble that eventually burst, bringing the house of cards down. It was government spending that helped lower the unemployment rate and get us out of the recession.

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

Not even close. The worst so called busts in American history occurred during the Copper Panic of 1879, which lasted 4 years, the panic of 1797, which lasted 3 years, the depression in 1807 (that lasted 3 years), 1815 (6 years), the 1882 res session (3 years), the Long Depression of 1873, which lasted almost 5 and a half years, and the 1882 recession, lasting more than 3 years. Since the establishment of the Federal Reserve, no recession has lasted more than 3 years (the Great Depression of 1929 was that one) and we haven't seen economic declines in GDP greater than 27%. The Great Recession of 2007 lasted only a year and a half and we only lost 4.3% of GDP. The Great Depression was caused by a crash in the stock market back in 1929 not because of massive government spending and price controls. There was a lack of consumption tied with an over investment in the market, which caused a bubble that eventually burst, bringing the house of cards down. It was government spending that helped lower the unemployment rate and get us out of the recession.

There's your problem. Keynesianism doesn't work.
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Great_Depression

"The gross national product fell from $91.1 billion in 1930, to $76.3 billion in 1931. Total government receipts fell from $13.5 billion to $12.4 billion, but total government expenditures rose from $13.9 billion to $15.2 billion, in federal, rather than state and local, spending (federal expenditures rose from $4.2 billion in 1930 to $5.5 billion in 1931). In the middle of a great depression when people needed to be relieved of governmental burdens, the dead weight of government rose from 16.4 percent to 21.5 percent of the gross private product. From a modest surplus in 1930, the Federal government so ran up a huge $2.2 billion deficit in 1931."


The unemployment rate wasn't lowered significantly because of government spending, it was lowered because 10-15% of the population was forced on boats to go overseas to get shot at. I suppose technically this lowered unemployment...however I don't think anyone would argue as to its ethical grounds.

 

[dnno1]

There's your problem. Keynesianism doesn't work.
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Great_Depression

"The gross national product fell from $91.1 billion in 1930, to $76.3 billion in 1931. Total government receipts fell from $13.5 billion to $12.4 billion, but total government expenditures rose from $13.9 billion to $15.2 billion, in federal, rather than state and local, spending (federal expenditures rose from $4.2 billion in 1930 to $5.5 billion in 1931). In the middle of a great depression when people needed to be relieved of governmental burdens, the dead weight of government rose from 16.4 percent to 21.5 percent of the gross private product. From a modest surplus in 1930, the Federal government so ran up a huge $2.2 billion deficit in 1931."

Ummmm... Herbert Hoover was president from 1929 to 1933 (the period of the Great Depression). He didn't believe in government intervention and what government spending he did do during his tenure was not enough to stop the Great Depression from happening. With that being said, the increase in government spending did end the depression by 1933, which was when the country went into an expansion period. After 1933, GDP did rise up until 1937, when conservatives in Congress basically stalled the New Deal.

The unemployment rate wasn't lowered significantly because of government spending, it was lowered because 10-15% of the population was forced on boats to go overseas to get shot at. I suppose technically this lowered unemployment...however I don't think anyone would argue as to its ethical grounds.

That all depends on what you consider significant. When FDR took office, unemployment dropped from 23. 6% in 1932 to 16.9% in 1937. I wouldn't call a more than 28% drop insignificant. Furthermore, we did see a large drop by the time the United States entered World War II, but that was once again because of government spending (and I don't believe that the military is counted in the unemployment numbers).

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

Ummmm... Herbert Hoover was president from 1929 to 1933 (the period of the Great Depression). He didn't believe in government intervention and what government spending he did do during his tenure was not enough to stop the Great Depression from happening. With that being said, the increase in government spending did end the depression by 1933, which was when the country went into an expansion period. After 1933, GDP did rise up until 1937, when conservatives in Congress basically stalled the New Deal.

Is completely fallacious to say that Hoover didn't believe in government intervention, yet this is what so many historical accounts say about the period. In 1931, Hoover proposed to:
Establish a Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which would use Treasury funds to lend to banks, industries, agricultural credit agencies, and local governments;

Broaden the eligibility requirement for discounting at the Fed;

Create a Home Loan Bank discount system to revive construction and employment measures which had been warmly endorsed by a National Housing Conference recently convened by Hoover for that purpose;

Expand government aid to Federal Land Banks;

Set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand Federal public works;

Legalize Hoover's order restricting immigration;

Do something to weaken "destructive competition" (i.e., competition) in natural resource use;

Grant direct loans of $300 million to States for relief;

Reform the bankruptcy laws (i.e., weaken protection for the creditor).

Hoover also displayed anxiety to "protect railroads from unregulated competition," and to bolster the bankrupt railroad lines. In addition, he called for sharing-the-work programs to save several millions from unemployment.

Hardly what one might call non-interventionist in economic terms, wouldn't you say? Most of FDR's New Deal, in terms of his first few years in office, were continuations of the Hoover Administration's policies.

The 1937–1938 dip was not the product of tight fiscal and monetary policy, but of excessive government regulation and loose monetary policy. We must clear away the misconception that, without deficit spending and easy credit, the market will fail. This is the fallacy of Keynesian economics, which is the reason why his policies failed...because they cling to a false since of economic reality. Wealth cannot be obtained by simply printing money. The Great Depression is a perfect example of that.

That all depends on what you consider significant. When FDR took office, unemployment dropped from 23. 6% in 1932 to 16.9% in 1937. I wouldn't call a more than 28% drop insignificant. Furthermore, we did see a large drop by the time the United States entered World War II, but that was once again because of government spending (and I don't believe that the military is counted in the unemployment numbers).

This should be no surprise to anyone who has studied the reality of the Great Depression, for US Census Bureau statistics show that the official unemployment rate was still 17.2% in 1939 despite seven years of "economic salvation" at the hands of the Roosevelt administration (the normal, pre-Depression unemployment rate was about 3%). Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–1940.
FDR’s tripling of taxes, his regulation of business, and his relentless antibusiness propaganda also contributed to a worsening of the Great Depression, but his labor policies were probably the most harmful to the employment prospects of American workers. Taking money from people (by the way of taxes and inflation via the Fed) and giving a small portion back to them in order to dig holes and fill them back in is hardly productive.

 

[regwec]

In the modern era, some kind of role for monetary policy is inevitable, because it is the only way to moderate credit markets and inflation, which in turn normalise bond yields and credit ratings, giving governments the ability to borrow. If not for the Fed, where would the repo market be? But for that, how would the US raise funds? With no central bank, what other institution would fill the void?

 

[SentinelMind]

That's the point, why should the US Government use the Fed as a money making machine? All that leads is special interest groups (military, financial industry) getting access to funds first and then everyone else's money being inflated away over time. The Fed has caused massive inflation over the decades. The Fed Government needs the Fed to fund its number of pet projects and grow its police state.

 

[regwec]

Okay, but which institution would you use to stem inflation?

You have to have a monetary supply, and you have to have an issuer. Whoever performs that task ultimately has he ability to affect inflation.

 

[Alex_Spider]

That's the point, why should the US Government use the Fed as a money making machine? All that leads is special interest groups (military, financial industry) getting access to funds first and then everyone else's money being inflated away over time. The Fed has caused massive inflation over the decades. The Fed Government needs the Fed to fund its number of pet projects and grow its police state.

 

[regwec]

That's another thing, printing money doesn't give you more funds. Are you referring to bond-buying as a means of raising capital? If so, then the result of that is QE rather than an increase in real terms funding for any particular sector of government. You're right to say that the long term effect of that is to reduce the value of savings (if those savings are in cash), but I fail to see what that has to do with a "police state" etc.

Perhaps you are making an argument for smaller government? If so, then I instinctively agree with you, though it is very hard to achieve. Here in the UK, every reduction in the rate of spending increase is met by a cacophony of media hand-wringing, and the government dropping another couple of point in a MORI poll. And even in a smaller state, you still need to issue and manage the monetary supply. Monetary policy has existed as long as patent coinage: King Alfred the Great designed a system of delegated taxation and controlled inflation by the control of silver bullion when coins were re-minted.

My point is that, if you are going to use a currency, then you are going to find you have developed an institution like the fed. Aren't you really just questioning the policies of your government?

 

[Hemi'Cuda]

A commodity-based currency, such as gold, is the answer to inflation. Who says governments should be the ones with a monopoly on currency? In a true free-market economy, money will arise as the need arises. There could, quite possibly, be multiple exchanges of money. It's when governments get ahold of the purse when the corruption is ramped up.