myths about the federal reserve

[dujac]

Why even call those stocks. They don't follow the customary rules of a normal stock. They should have been called non-transferable membership certificates.

it doesn't follow customary rules of a normal stock, because it isn't normal stock and why should you care what it's called?

 

[Fox McCloud]

Myths about Dujac:

Myth number one

Dujac is a Ron Paul Forum member attempting to bust Federal Reserve myths.

While the Ron Paul Forum troll member known as "Dujac" has posted a number of common Federal Reserve fallacies circulating the net, he has focused much more time and effort into spewing common one-liners regarding the legitimacy of the Fed in "regulating" the dollar and keeping "stability" constant. When confronted, however, the member deflects strong attacks and arguments by ignoring them completely and instead switching gears to something else, or by posting further myths which most already know to be myths.

 

[Dr.3D]

it doesn't follow customary rules of a normal stock, because it isn't normal stock and why should you care what it's called?

For the same reason I don't like paper being called money.
For the same reason I don't like names that contradict the purpose of a bill. PATRIOT.... not patriotic, Net Neutrality.... not neutral.
Names are often used to make people see something that isn't there.

One wouldn't call a dog a horse, unless he were trying to fool people into thinking a dog is a horse.

 

[dujac]

For the same reason I don't like paper being called money.
For the same reason I don't like names that contradict the purpose of a bill. PATRIOT.... not patriotic, Net Neutrality.... not neutral.
Names are often used to make people see something that isn't there.

One wouldn't call a dog a horse, unless he were trying to fool people into thinking a dog is a horse.

where do you think money comes from?

 

[Cowlesy]

Myths about Dujac:

Myth number one

Dujac is a Ron Paul Forum member attempting to bust Federal Reserve myths.

While the Ron Paul Forum troll member known as "Dujac" has posted a number of common Federal Reserve fallacies circulating the net, he has focused much more time and effort into spewing common one-liners regarding the legitimacy of the Fed in "regulating" the dollar and keeping "stability" constant. When confronted, however, the member deflects strong attacks and arguments by ignoring them completely and instead switching gears to something else, or by posting further myths which most already know to be myths.

Yeah, well we've wasted enough time with this dude.

 

[Dr.3D]

where do you think money comes from?

Ha ha ha.... nobody is going to fool me into thinking it comes from a printing press, the memory of a computer, or better yet from thin air.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I am really sorry I missed this and now I cannot dance with the troll. This makes me a sad panda!

 

[Dr.3D]

I am really sorry I missed this and now I cannot dance with the troll. This makes me a sad panda!

Yeah, I was just starting to have fun with him.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

In a way, it's sad to see the troll ban-hammered. It's not often we get pro-FED schills in here to pwn.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I am really sorry I missed this and now I cannot dance with the troll. This makes me a sad panda!

Buck up! He may yet join under a different user name and come back to play.

 

[Mini-Me]

Dammit. Before his repetitive "80 years without a depression" chant, the guy used his idea of a "deflationary death spiral" as his justification for saying the Fed increases stability. The idea was that if prices gradually go down, people will all wait in concert to buy anything, consumer demand will go down, and we'll enter a deflationary death spiral. The technology industry's rapid price reductions prove him wrong (the reason is called time preference), but he repeatedly refused for over TWO HUNDRED posts to respond to that refutation. FAIL, FAIL, FAIL.

ZippyJuan is a MUCH better myth-buster and Fed-defender, because at least he's willing to engage you.
In any case, Zippy: I agree with Dr.3D's response to your post: It's indeed a myth that the Fed keeps all interest profit, because it really does return it to the Treasury after expenses and member dividends.* However, the 6% dividends blatantly contradict the idea that the Federal Reserve is "not-for-profit." According to Cowlesy's numbers, those dividends amounted to $1.4 billion in 2009. As he said, "I'll take it!" The big banks profit more from the environment of easy credit (and necessity of perpetual lending) that the Fed creates though; the Fed's existence places the banking industry in an artificially elevated position at the heart of the economy.

*Also, in reponse to DamianTV: Given perfect management, it really would be sustainable for the Fed to charge interest, because the interest does NOT disappear into a black hole. The Treasury gets the interest profits after expenses and dividends, and the government as you know spends every dime it gets. (Similarly, expenses go to employees, etc. and possibly kickbacks and manicures for all I know, and the dividends go to shareholders, which also means they're returned to the fat cats in the general economy.) Since the interest money recirculates back into the general economy the usual way (through spending ), debtors to the Fed can use those same exact dollars to pay their principal with. It's true that if every dollar to the Fed were to be paid back, there wouldn't be enough in circulation for the very last debtor to pay his interest (and diffusion of the remaining money supply throughout the economy would make it difficult for the last several percent to pay), but that's irrelevant given that the whole point of the system is to keep going. It relies on perpetual loans to keep the money supply stable, and allowing everything to be paid back without replenishing the money supply would be catastrophic anyway, interest or not. Whereas specie money is stable by default, debt-based fiat money relies on an intricate balancing act to replace old loans with new ones. It's madness in my opinion, and the most sensible reason anyone would have thought of a system like this is to benefit themselves or a certain class or industry (i.e. bankers). (On top of the weirdness of the system itself, the Fed's constant inflationary tendencies are destructive to the poor and middle class, but that's the tradeoff they're willing to make. )

Actually, I just thought of something: As I mentioned, in order for the system to keep running, the Fed has to continually lend out more money to replace old money. However, the only way to encourage other banks (etc.) to borrow this money is with low rates, and they will still only want to borrow it if they're able to lend enough out to their own customers...by enticing them with low rates. As such, an economy with debt-based fiat money seems to inherently require lower interest rates to remain a stable money supply than an economy with specie-based money would. In other words, not only does the Fed necessitate an economy with tons of debtors, but it has no choice but to entice them with easy money. (However, inflation itself is still their fault, because it means they're still setting the rates lower than they even need to be.) What this means is, even if we had 0% inflation under the Fed, the Federal Reserve System would still inherently discourage saving and encourage borrowing and spending, relative to using specie money.

 

[Bossobass]

Who owns the Federal Reserve?
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

This sounds like a toothpaste ad. ^^^

The stock pays a guaranteed dividend for life. The Corporation is guaranteed a profit, from which it extracts "all expenses", which are subject to no oversight or review and total in the billions of dollars (one certainly couldn't skim any of that). Any and all losses it may incur are absorbed by the Treasury Dept. (taxpayers). Any and all insider trading of top secret OMC information by member banks is subject to no law or investigation. It has unlimited resources to capitalize failed banks of its choice. It has the power to let banks it chooses to fail. It is non-profit so that it pays no taxes of any kind to no one for any reason. It has the power to require zero reserves of banks at its sole discretion. It has the power to lend unlimited amounts of taxpayer cash to anyone it chooses with any terms it pleases without oversight or audit or revealing that information under oath before Congress.

Etc., etc.

Most importantly, it is incapable of conspiring to secretly profit, circumvent the Constitution, influence legislation or justice, or in any way ever make a mistake or break any laws of any kind. Trust Zippy, he somehow knows this instinctively and from reading the Fed's web site. Of course, Fed Worship is a religion that requires one has to have that faith because an audit or FOIA requests are out of the question, overwhelming majority of Congress and court orders notwithstanding.

And, it gives all da money back to da people.

Bottom line: Mandate of economic stability, full employment and low inflation. Fail, fail, fail.

Time for Regime Change. If no one owns it, then who should give a fuck if we end the Fed?

Bosso

 

[jclay2]

Have scientists studied the psyche of a troll. Bet that would be interesting. Why post against a brick wall? Unless this guy is a paid fed official / government type (wouldn't be surprised), why would he waste his time? Better yet, why do we waste our time? Maybe it is just good practice to keep our debating skills sharp?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Have scientists studied the psyche of a troll. Bet that would be interesting. Why post against a brick wall? Unless this guy is a paid fed official / government type (wouldn't be surprised), why would he waste his time? Better yet, why do we waste our time? Maybe it is just good practice to keep our debating skills sharp?

That's the only reason I bothered with this thread. Shredding trolls like the OP is akin to batting practice.

 

[japes]

Dammit. Before his repetitive "80 years without a depression" chant, the guy used his idea of a "deflationary death spiral" as his justification for saying the Fed increases stability. The idea was that if prices gradually go down, people <snip>....

Thanks Mini-me. You're awesome.

 

[Mini-Me]

Thanks Mini-me. You're awesome.

LOL, thanks, but I just wanted to hear him admit he was wrong about something after being cornered on it. :-/

 

[low preference guy]

LOL, thanks, but I just wanted to hear him admit he was wrong about something after being cornered on it. :-/

I don't think he is paid to say he is wrong...

 

[Chester Copperpot]

I see the little shit dujac was banned.. what did I miss?


Anything in the last 20 pages that perhaps was entertaining?

Did this guy see the light or is he a paid fed shill?

 

[Mini-Me]

I see the little shit dujac was banned.. what did I miss?


Anything in the last 20 pages that perhaps was entertaining?

Did this guy see the light or is he a paid fed shill?

I thought it was kind of entertaining, but...I'm one of those easily amused types, so you know how that goes.

I really doubt he was being paid. The Fed, the banks, and the establishment in general easily have enough money to hire better shills. Unless their top reps are all hanging out on the Mises forums or something, I'd like to think they'd send us someone a little more experienced than a bottom-of-the-barrel undergraduate intern. That guy was more Digg/Reddit caliber, if not Youtube. Assuming they do their research, I imagine they'd send us someone more like ZippyJuan instead. (j/k Zippy...I think. )

 

[Teaser Rate]

Yeah, well we've wasted enough time with this dude.

Maybe it’s not my place to comment on this, since I’m not fully aware of the challenges moderators and administrators here face, but I find it a little disturbing that dujac got banned from posting here for nothing more than voicing an unpopular belief. As far as I can tell, he always remained civil, he didn’t start multiple nonsense threads, he didn’t spam or plagiarize, and his descending viewpoint was confined to a single thread everyone was free to ignore. But apparently, there’s not enough room in a forum whose banner reads liberty forest for such a thread.

I think there is a significant risk for any group of people who share similar views to become overwhelmed by confirmation bias and become motivated by emotion instead of reality. i.e. There’s a difference between supporting Ron Paul because you believe he is the best candidate and supporting Ron Paul because his name is Ron Paul.

Crossing certain lines such as banning perfectly civil and reasonable posters for unpopular opinions raises huge red flags in my opinion.


"That's one thing about freedom; you have to tolerate the nonsense too." -Ron Paul