Money, Power and Wall Street

it is a quote from Jackson on Biddle's game

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, so. You have been proven wrong on a number of accounts. And your sources are not even close to being credible, much less a refutation of Fed ownership. If you are honorable, you would admit your mistake and move on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

further

quote;

"There were other attempts to resurrect a central bank , but none succeeded until the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, what does that have to do with the issues at hand? How is that relevant to the issue of Fed ownership? It isn't.

 

it is

 

Ok enlighten me, explain.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why is it the Federal Reserve's statement about it's operations and ownership wrong? Why is it every credible source on the subject disagrees with your claim that the Federal Reserve is privately owned?

 

further

" The effort to resurrect a central bank actually began three yrs earlier. " There was an occasion near close of 1910 , when I was secretive, indeed, as furtive as any conspirator...I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System ...." wrote Frank A. Vanderlip, one of the men who created the Fed.
He went on to become president of New York's National City Bank

 

How old are you?

 

why does it matter ?

 

It does, how old are you?

 

tell me why ?

 

Because I get the feeling you are a child. You are avoiding the issue. You were clearly wrong. Instead of acknowledging your error, you denied it. And you have made no attempt to justify your denial. Instead you have been trolling, throwing up distraction and avoiding the issue. Face it you are clueless when it comes to the Federal Reserve and finance, you didn't even know its name.

 

hmm... I don't mind being wrong

now where did I get it wrong ?

 

Gee, maybe better reading or reading comprehension will help.

 

of what

 

Let's summarize.

Your first premise is incorrect. Show me an example of a responsible government. "Responsible government" is oxymoron. Since we've had a Central Bank we've seen the Business Cycle get worse not better. We've seen thousands of banks go bust. Militarism run amok, two World Wars, two invasions of Asian nations (one still occupied, well, actually two), invasion pretty much everywhere - hell, we're in a few countries as we speak! Massive devaluation of the USD - 80% drop in value over the last 3 decades alone. Massive bubbles in everything from food, to housing and finally the financialization (fictionalization more like it) of our economy. Our grandparents would have taken a home loan for 10-15 years. Their grandkids will rent. Responsible governing my arse!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, show me a Central Bank run by a responsible government. One that hasn't inflated away the purchasing power of it's Fiat currency. You can't do it.

So, actually I win. Sure, there were some bank failures - that's NORMAL. The only major depression in the USA prior to the Fed was the Long Depression - which was caused by the Green Back - another freaken Fiat! Under the Fed we had the Great Depression. It's called GREAT for a reason.

I've heard of Stockholm syndrome .... but this takes the cake. It'd be more funny if it wasn't so sad. It's like those Iranians that say (and I've personally heard this): The Ayatollah loves us and is trying his best, it's just those other people in government... and and the J (oh, never mind, you get the point).

The Democraps love us and are trying their best, Obama is trying his best, it's just those Repukelicans in the government.


Pre-Central Bank the USA had a slow deflation in price as they were rewarded with the gains in their own productivity. We saw the greatest gains in standard of living in our history.



But, it's all academic. As I said, in the short term you guys have the numbers. Overwhelmingly have the numbers. So, we're going to do things your way. Life is going to continue to get more shit just as it has over the last 50 years. The debt will go through the roof. The old will live on Cat food and more people will move into storage units. Life will be worse. Unemployment will go higher. BUT AT LEAST you can be safe in the knowledge the BIG Government is looking our for you with his BIG Banking buddies... yeah, they love you. Like any Farmer would live his Cattle.

 

couldn't agree more

it is these people that the poor remember and give capitalism a bad name

they simply don't get it

they are about control , these people are not Human

 

You know that is not true Michael. A list of recessions was presented to you just a few days ago showing quite clearly that under the Fed and Keynesian economic policy recessions have been fewer and less severe.

And many more went bust before the Fed.

What do wars have to do with the Fed? Absoutely nothing. Massive devaluation of the dollar? Just what is massive Michael? The fact his the average American has more disposable income today than they did before the creation of the Fed.

Yes he can, the US Federal government. As I just mentioned, US disposable income has grown as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income

I like how you and your cohorts like to ignore dissonant information Michael.

No that is you making false comparisons again.

You obvioulsy like to ignore the evidence Michael. Because the evidence has been put to you before. You cannot refute it, so you ignore it. It doesn't support your notions.

If you could make a reasoned fact based argument to support these conclusions, I'd be impressed Michael. But you cannot.

 

That's not true.

And we saw thousands of banks go bust before that, as well. So obviously central banks aren't the issue there. And the institutions we put in place after the Great Depression - which have prevented any subsequent runs on commercial banks since then - are the issue.

So you're blaming central banking for all geopolitics of the past century? That's pretty loopy, not to mention totally unsubstantiated.

That's also false.

When was there a food bubble?

And the fact that central banks can make mistakes - and so contribute to bubbles - doesn't mean that they can't also operate well.

Most of the biggest, most famous bubbles in history occurred long before central banking. I don't think that the presence of central banking makes a decisive difference one way or the other in terms of bubbles forming.

The homeownership rate today is substantially higher than it was in our grandparents' time. So, that's another falsehood you've plucked out of thin air.

It's interesting that you cite low inflation as the sole yardstick of the success of a monetary policy. In reality, monetary policy is typically set to balance inflation against unemployment. The fact that monetary policy hasn't achieved a result (ultra-low inflation, and to hell with unemployment) that it wasn't trying to achieve - and that would be unacceptable to the voting public - is no criticism of monetary policy. It's a criticism of your perspective on what monetary policy is supposed to try to do: you're missing half of the picture.

The fact that we haven't had another depression for the intervening 70+ years raises a lot of questions about the saliency of the inference your attempting there.

If you want to do an actual statistical analysis of the effect of central banking on various measures of the economy, I'm all ears. But as it is, you're just cherry picking misleading coincidences and pretending that proves something about the Fed.

Again, you are cherry-picking a coincidence (the fact that industrialization occurred before central banking was introduced) and pretending that it was caused by central banking, without any real support.

Do you not realize that anyone can simply run that same game the other way? Before central banking, we had human slavery, a vastly shorter life expectancy, lower rates of homeownership, less influence in geopolitics, etc. Can I conclude that central banking is responsible for all of those subsequent improvements?

Life is vastly better than it was 50 years ago.

Unlikely, absent some major shock (EU goes up in flames, war in east Asia, that sort of thing).

 

Central banking aside...we can certainly blame fiat currency for some aspects of geopolitical events.

The major nations of Europe went off the gold standard to enter WWI.

Without the ability to print paper money and the ignorant public's willingness to accept it...none of those nations could have afforded a war.