Kregener
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,451
Who owns the FED?
- Thread starter Lord Xar
- Start date
cjhowe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,407
What secret are you trying to find the answer? Obsessing over the cloak and dagger argument will not teach you any more about economic theory or the benefits and short comings of Austrian economics versus Keynesian. The vast majority of the posters on this board's personal finances and their ability to consume products available in the market at this moment benefit by the policies of a central bank. However, your freedom suffers. Understanding the effects of the policy add more value to the ether.
Managed economies are best for those doing the managing. Just like a big spending government is best for the people handing out and receiving that money.
You can make it as complicated as you want and it doesn't change that base fact.
johngr
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,924
Nice ad hominem argument.
Here are two things I would want:
1) An independent and public audit of all open market transactions -- in detail -- from the start in 1913. For the fed to publish all the details and summaries of such transactions on the web for amateur forensic investigators to have a field day with.
2) The names of all the banks that own stock in each fed branch. The percentages of stock each bank owns. The entire labyrinthine chart of all the legal/corporate entities that own each of the banks and all the legal/corporate entities that own each of the corporate entities. Tax returns (if US corporations), financial details and lists of board members with personal details including tax returns (if US citizens), financial details and country or countries of citizenship of each of the banks and each of the corporate entities that own the banks.
(not that you'd find any shady dealings or conflicts of interest or anything)
Last edited:
johngr
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,924
I should be able to file and have answered freedom of information request to get information on stock ownership and open market transactions right?
Has the issue come before the Supreme Court? What was their holding?
Is "public/private" obfuscating disinfo bullshit to cover the fact that there are significant facts about their operations and ownership that the pubic is not privy to?
Last edited:
Cjhowe is one of this forum's resident trolls. Don't let him rattle you from believing:
- The Federal Reserve is an evil institution.
- Income taxes convert everyone into slaves.
- Debt based money is inherently unsound. For more information, read about The Compound Interest Paradox on my blog.
- Keynesian economics is a bunch of lies used to justify fiat debt-based money and business cycles created by the Federal Reserve. Austrian economics is much closer to the truth.
- The Federal Reserve is an evil institution.
- Income taxes convert everyone into slaves.
- Debt based money is inherently unsound. For more information, read about The Compound Interest Paradox on my blog.
- Keynesian economics is a bunch of lies used to justify fiat debt-based money and business cycles created by the Federal Reserve. Austrian economics is much closer to the truth.
cjhowe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,407
1) If evil, why do you continue to participate?
2) The cloak and dagger people want to link income taxes to the fed. They are separate issues. In the time and day of the creation of the Fed, the bimetallists were the proponents of the income tax.
3) You can continue to bring up your "paradox", but it is untrue. You neglect that the entity earning the compound interest purchases goods and services. As far as unsound, no one disputes that. Fiat money is not used because of its soundness, rather it's utility.
4) I don't see how a theory that attempts to explain a phenomenon can be "lies". There are situations where Keynesian principles break down. There are also situations where Austrian principles breakdown. There is no "goal" with either theory, rather they are explanations for various phenomenon in economics. Your attempt to proclaim a justness in voluntary exchange misses the entire point of what is discussed.
I have no choice but to use Federal Reserve Notes as money as long as I live in the USA. The government demands I pay taxes in Federal Reserve Notes. If I attempt to use gold as money, the capital gains treatment makes it untenable.
The Federal Reserve and the income tax are completely linked. The income tax creates an artificial demand for Federal Reserve Notes. The income tax prevents me from boycotting Federal Reserve Notes.
I cannot move to another country, because their monetary systems and taxation systems are based on the same corrupt principles as the USA.
If you don't understand the Compound Interest Paradox, or are too stubborn to seriously evaluate it, then I can't help you. I only object when cjhowe spreads misinformation and other people believe him. I'm not going to repeat my explanation here.
Austrian economics breaks down much less often than Keynesian economics. The problem is that there is no economy in the world today that uses a gold standard. Governments have regulated and taxed the gold standard out of existence. Third world countries, as a condition of IMF aid and WTO membership, must have fiat debt-based money instead of a gold standard.
As I stated many other times, how can someone on a Ron Paul forum be defending the Federal Reserve as aggressively as cjhowe does? Either cjhowe is truly a stubborn fool, or he is someone planted on this discussion forum to disrupt debate. Ron Paul has clearly stated that he is opposed to the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve and the income tax are completely linked. The income tax creates an artificial demand for Federal Reserve Notes. The income tax prevents me from boycotting Federal Reserve Notes.
I cannot move to another country, because their monetary systems and taxation systems are based on the same corrupt principles as the USA.
If you don't understand the Compound Interest Paradox, or are too stubborn to seriously evaluate it, then I can't help you. I only object when cjhowe spreads misinformation and other people believe him. I'm not going to repeat my explanation here.
Austrian economics breaks down much less often than Keynesian economics. The problem is that there is no economy in the world today that uses a gold standard. Governments have regulated and taxed the gold standard out of existence. Third world countries, as a condition of IMF aid and WTO membership, must have fiat debt-based money instead of a gold standard.
As I stated many other times, how can someone on a Ron Paul forum be defending the Federal Reserve as aggressively as cjhowe does? Either cjhowe is truly a stubborn fool, or he is someone planted on this discussion forum to disrupt debate. Ron Paul has clearly stated that he is opposed to the Federal Reserve.
cjhowe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,407
1) You always have choice. Always. What does knowing the evil of a system and choosing to take part in an evil system say about your morality?
2) I understand what you claim to be the "Compound Interest Paradox". The simple fact though is that it is untrue because it fails to take into account that the bank spends the proceeds of interest consuming goods and services from the market. This argument closely parallels one who denies evolution based on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because they fail to take into account the energy of the Sun.
3)It is very easy to claim that a theory breaks down less often when it is not the basis for which people utilize to make decisions. I reject that one can assert empirical evidence for a theory that claims to have never been put into true practice. This doesn't make the theory invalid or less conclusive than theories that have empirical evidence to go on, simply that the assertion has no support. You mistake my position when defending the Fed. There are certainly reasons to end the Federal Reserve System. Freedom is one. Preferring the market fulfil needs over the sustainment of goods already in the market is another. Personal responsibility is another. Restraint of easy credit to Congress is another and there are many more. Simply because there are logical reasons to end the Fed does not give one carte blanche to put forth fallacious arguments that appeal to emotion.
johngr
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,924
A man with a gun to his head has a choice whether to give the robber the wallet. To be able to eat and have have a roof over ones head, in the US, the way the system is set up, the only reasonable choice is to use FRNs. If it were any other way, their value as tinder would far exceed their "monetary" value.
Last edited:
Green Mountain Boy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,076
The "Compounding Interest Paradox" isn't really a paradox - it would be more correct to call it a vicious cycle. Compounding interest coupled with the fractional-reserve banking system is a deadly combination because it dramatically increases the rate of inflation. Debt-money that is created out of thin air requires then an even greater amount to be payed back to the bank. Consequentially - more money ends up being borrowed to help pay the interest on previous debt. But you can't really pay a debt with a debt so it is a losing battle.
Last edited:
johngr
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,924
The banks spending money is irrelevant to the fact that the money to pay all the interest for all the loans was never created and doesn't exist.
Last edited:
PatriotG
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,301
A very sound argument for ending the FED is the U.S. Constitution. Only Congress can regulate the value of the currency, and that was done at the outset. The value of a dollar is that of 1 ounce of silver, or an ounce of gold is $20. There is no provision in the Constitution to abdicate that power, or assign it to any agency, or private institution. I don't recall any amendment to the Constitution by which the people have reassigned that responsibility. Arguments for the FED are based solely on years of indoctrination and a limited mind set.
An analysis of money is simply meant to be used as a tool of measure. Why do you think we need an expanded money supply? Where is the logic? If you make $30 a month and your bills are $5 a month how does that differ from expanding the number so that you make $2900 a month, your bills are $485. In reality as the money supply expands, and the income tax exploits, the point of diminishing returns sets in. You must now pay part of that $2900 in taxes, which is then extrapolated across the spectrum of the cost of living so that instead of $485 you need to spend approximately $1885 for the same goods and services. These are supposed government numbers so please don't come back with where did you get that from. Just do the math based on what the government feeds you each month in the form of average income, inflation and other fictitious numbers they promote.
In the 50's you could rent a nice apartment in NY for $50 a month. The utility of that apartment has not changed, but the reality of the monetary system has exploited the price; taxes, upon taxes, upon taxes.
Beardsley Ruml, the man who promoted withholding, best explained what was happening when he stated that the need for the income tax had become obsolete. We are redistributing wealth, and not down by the way, and controlling the populace. You fill the people with a bunch of nonsense, and they buy into it without thinking for themselves. Machiavelli wrote the program for propaganda 500 years ago and the majority still is caught up in the fact that they will not learn, just simply follow.
An analysis of money is simply meant to be used as a tool of measure. Why do you think we need an expanded money supply? Where is the logic? If you make $30 a month and your bills are $5 a month how does that differ from expanding the number so that you make $2900 a month, your bills are $485. In reality as the money supply expands, and the income tax exploits, the point of diminishing returns sets in. You must now pay part of that $2900 in taxes, which is then extrapolated across the spectrum of the cost of living so that instead of $485 you need to spend approximately $1885 for the same goods and services. These are supposed government numbers so please don't come back with where did you get that from. Just do the math based on what the government feeds you each month in the form of average income, inflation and other fictitious numbers they promote.
In the 50's you could rent a nice apartment in NY for $50 a month. The utility of that apartment has not changed, but the reality of the monetary system has exploited the price; taxes, upon taxes, upon taxes.
Beardsley Ruml, the man who promoted withholding, best explained what was happening when he stated that the need for the income tax had become obsolete. We are redistributing wealth, and not down by the way, and controlling the populace. You fill the people with a bunch of nonsense, and they buy into it without thinking for themselves. Machiavelli wrote the program for propaganda 500 years ago and the majority still is caught up in the fact that they will not learn, just simply follow.
cjhowe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,407
PatriotG, you just tapped on one of the short comings of Austrian economics. There is a psychological phenomenon that occurs with deflationary prices. Actors withdraw from the market as a whole in the presence of deflationary prices that no economic model accounts for. The reason why this is a short coming in Austrian economics is that the Austrians claim that it doesn't matter. The fact is that it does matter as the overall desire in understanding economics is to raise the standard of living. Meaning to bring more goods and services to the market. The argument for the Keynesian model is that if we don't understand this precipitously negative phenomenon, we should go to great lengths in avoiding it, this is what an ever expanding fiat policy allows. The argument being, "better the devil you know"
johngr
Banned
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,924
Temporary and self-correcting. Fewer goods at the same demand level = higher prices causing the "actors" to return to the market.
cjhowe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,407
Go back and study history. This is what both Keynesian and Austrian models predict, but it is not what occurs. There's a psychological component that is further depressed in deflationary periods whose elasticity does not match the models.
Electric Church
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,286
What the hell does that mean?
"Interest consuming goods and services..."
"Proceeds". You mean profits? What the hell is this gibberish? The bank spends proceeds of interest consuming goods?
What is "interest consuming goods and services?" I have some goods....but I don't know if they consume interest. I use services from the market, but are they interest consuming?
All you're doing is spouting out confusing words.
So you mean that the bank spends proceeds (profits) that it obtains from fleecing the public so therefore they're not all that bad. So the mob spends their extortion money on goods and services so they're not all that bad.
I find you one of the most difficult posters to understand
Similar threads
