|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mole wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
Why? What difference would it make if the Fed's policies were carried out by the Treasury Dept (or some other agency) instead? |
Aside from 23 pages of discussion in THIS THREAD, ya might read
Dr. Paul's End The Fed,
or brush up on your history with G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island.
I doubt anyone would allow the same system to exist under a different name or leadership.
It's central banking, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking that are the problems.
The Federal Reserve just happens to be the current manifestation that must be abolished. |
Ending the Fed would not end fiat currency, fractional reserve banking or central banking. So what would be the point of ending the Fed if it would do nothing to correct the problems? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would end the government sponsored monopoly on money creation and interest rates. If other private institutions want to blot a bit of ink on some paper (paper which is backed by nothing except an IOU) and call it money, then fine. Simply put, the Federal Reserve shouldn't be a monopoly money supplier(MMS.)
The Imperial Fed: Does it Have Enough Power? from Cato |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
I don't advocate a gold standard. I would say that all privately issued money should be required to be backed by commodities like gold (or silver), which is what makes it real money in the first place. An interest-free government fiat is also fine, but other legal tenders (which must be backed by real value like gold and silver) should also be allowed.
The problem with a straight up gold standard is that the banker criminals already have all the gold in their possession and have for some time. Even in the absence of a central bank, cornering the gold market allowed the financiers to control the money supply, and thereby exert undue influence over the government. This is one of the main factors leading up to the creation of the Fed. In 1873, the Coinage Act (later known as the "crime of '73") took silver coins out of circulation, which severely contracted the money supply and devastated the economy. This caused a series of panics and allowed the banks to consolidate their power (which was their deliberate plan) and help convince the public to accept a new central bank to "stabilize" the monetary system which they had destabilized in the first place.
Only after the banks had their way with us did they start issuing loans and expanding the money supply again - effectively posing as saviors, when they were the problem to begin with. This is always the case - this is what the World Bank (owned by the same global bankers who control central banks around the world) is now trying to do with all the talk of replacing the dollar with a new global currency. |
How did that happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| mole wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
Why? What difference would it make if the Fed's policies were carried out by the Treasury Dept (or some other agency) instead? |
Aside from 23 pages of discussion in THIS THREAD, ya might read
Dr. Paul's End The Fed,
or brush up on your history with G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island.
I doubt anyone would allow the same system to exist under a different name or leadership.
It's central banking, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking that are the problems.
The Federal Reserve just happens to be the current manifestation that must be abolished. |
Ending the Fed would not end fiat currency, fractional reserve banking or central banking. So what would be the point of ending the Fed if it would do nothing to correct the problems? |
Eegad.
I took the bait being trolled from the debater.
*again*
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mole wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| mole wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
Why? What difference would it make if the Fed's policies were carried out by the Treasury Dept (or some other agency) instead? |
Aside from 23 pages of discussion in THIS THREAD, ya might read
Dr. Paul's End The Fed,
or brush up on your history with G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island.
I doubt anyone would allow the same system to exist under a different name or leadership.
It's central banking, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking that are the problems.
The Federal Reserve just happens to be the current manifestation that must be abolished. |
Ending the Fed would not end fiat currency, fractional reserve banking or central banking. So what would be the point of ending the Fed if it would do nothing to correct the problems? |
Eegad.
I took the bait being trolled from the debater.
*again*
|
"There is no necessary link between the choice of a monetary standard and the existence of a central bank. The Federal Reserve has operated under the classical gold standard (1914-1933), a quasi-gold standard (1935-1971), and a pure flat standard (1973-present). Similarly, the United States has operated under a fiat money system without a central bank (1862-1879), and with one (1973-present). Hence, the Federal Reserve and the gold standard are not alternatives to each other. The Fed can exist and operate under both fiat and gold standards; a gold standard can function with or without a Federal Reserve System.
Fractional reserve banking, as well, is not connected to the choice of monetary standard or the existence of a central bank. Throughout U.S. history, there has been fractional reserve banking. It has been the norm during periods of the gold standard and of fiat money. It has operated with a central bank and without one. The question of whether the Federal Reserve system is desirable or not is not a question of whether one prefers a gold standard or disapproves of fractional reserve banking. One could restore the gold standard without eliminating the Fed. One could eliminate the Fed and retain fractional reserve banking. The latter could be done with or without a gold standard. " http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm#hd24 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| mole wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
| mole wrote: |
| jaykimf wrote: |
Why? What difference would it make if the Fed's policies were carried out by the Treasury Dept (or some other agency) instead? |
Aside from 23 pages of discussion in THIS THREAD, ya might read
Dr. Paul's End The Fed,
or brush up on your history with G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island.
I doubt anyone would allow the same system to exist under a different name or leadership.
It's central banking, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking that are the problems.
The Federal Reserve just happens to be the current manifestation that must be abolished. |
Ending the Fed would not end fiat currency, fractional reserve banking or central banking. So what would be the point of ending the Fed if it would do nothing to correct the problems? |
Eegad.
I took the bait being trolled from the debater.
*again*
|
"There is no necessary link between the choice of a monetary standard and the existence of a central bank. The Federal Reserve has operated under the classical gold standard (1914-1933), a quasi-gold standard (1935-1971), and a pure flat standard (1973-present). Similarly, the United States has operated under a fiat money system without a central bank (1862-1879), and with one (1973-present). Hence, the Federal Reserve and the gold standard are not alternatives to each other. The Fed can exist and operate under both fiat and gold standards; a gold standard can function with or without a Federal Reserve System.
Fractional reserve banking, as well, is not connected to the choice of monetary standard or the existence of a central bank. Throughout U.S. history, there has been fractional reserve banking. It has been the norm during periods of the gold standard and of fiat money. It has operated with a central bank and without one. The question of whether the Federal Reserve system is desirable or not is not a question of whether one prefers a gold standard or disapproves of fractional reserve banking. One could restore the gold standard without eliminating the Fed. One could eliminate the Fed and retain fractional reserve banking. The latter could be done with or without a gold standard. " http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/FRS-myth.htm#hd24 |
The Fed is engaging in fraud in either case, whether it's under a gold standard or not. The Fed is a private banking cartel that monopolizes the money supply with government legislation and collects interest on nothing. The American people are forced to pay through inflation and income tax (which never should have been allowed under the constitution). The Fed is an instrument of extreme usury, and benefits only the elite. The rest of us lose out, and the country has been bankrupt since the Fed was created. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
I don't advocate a gold standard. I would say that all privately issued money should be required to be backed by commodities like gold (or silver), which is what makes it real money in the first place. An interest-free government fiat is also fine, but other legal tenders (which must be backed by real value like gold and silver) should also be allowed.
The problem with a straight up gold standard is that the banker criminals already have all the gold in their possession and have for some time. Even in the absence of a central bank, cornering the gold market allowed the financiers to control the money supply, and thereby exert undue influence over the government. This is one of the main factors leading up to the creation of the Fed. In 1873, the Coinage Act (later known as the "crime of '73") took silver coins out of circulation, which severely contracted the money supply and devastated the economy. This caused a series of panics and allowed the banks to consolidate their power (which was their deliberate plan) and help convince the public to accept a new central bank to "stabilize" the monetary system which they had destabilized in the first place.
Only after the banks had their way with us did they start issuing loans and expanding the money supply again - effectively posing as saviors, when they were the problem to begin with. This is always the case - this is what the World Bank (owned by the same global bankers who control central banks around the world) is now trying to do with all the talk of replacing the dollar with a new global currency. |
How did that happen? |
You mean how did the bankers get all the gold? Through usury, basically. I'm not an expert on the history of it, but I know there are specific examples throughout history of financiers deliberately trying to corner the gold market (Jay Gould is a famous example in the US), which causes panics in the market, allowing them to manipulate it to their advantage.
Mainly though, it was the central banks (controlled by the international banking establishment) that deliberately tried to enforce the gold standard to monopolize the money supply. Once they controlled the money supply (its issuance), they could indebt the nation through usury. Even if they went off the gold standard later (as the Fed did - basically pilfering off all the gold and giving us their fraud notes as replacement), they still monopolize the money supply, and that's all that really matters. It's the issue of control (the gold standard has just been one of their tools to achieve it) that is most important. This is why bankers rule the world, period.
In the US, we actually had a government-issued colonial script (fiat) money supply which worked very well; until the British (by then controlled by the Bank of England) forced all taxes to be paid in gold. This was one of the main reasons for the revolution. People have forgotten this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
staticdelusion
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bump |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of my co-teachers name dropped Greenspan this week. So maybe the con is coming into the Korean collective conscience as well.d to maintain
Of course we need the Fed to maintain "price stability". That will likely be the next leg of the narrative. We will be told that if we eliminate the Fed we will have run away inflation, all the while not explaining what inflation really is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Notice how far the mainstream discussion has moved to the space formerly occupied by those labeled cranks, conspiracy theorists and similar. |
Sometimes conspiracy theories are correct. That's why it's such a shame when conspiracy theorists go overboard. Educating people about the Federal Reserve and how it harms our society, for instance, becomes impossible when you also go around screaming, 'Anyone who doesn't realize the eugenicists want to kill us all is an idiot," and once ideas get associated with people like that, the average man will spur it no matter whose mouth it comes out of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Notice how far the mainstream discussion has moved to the space formerly occupied by those labeled cranks, conspiracy theorists and similar. |
Sometimes conspiracy theories are correct. That's why it's such a shame when conspiracy theorists go overboard. |
Fox, there you go being reasonable again! But is just as much a shame when reality deniers go underboard. There are some, perhaps even many, on here who have essentially stated that believing that the idea that people in government may not have told us everything they know about 9/11 is equivalent to believing there are lizard men on Mars controlling what goes on on Earth. 
| Quote: |
| Educating people about the Federal Reserve and how it harms our society, for instance, becomes impossible when you also go around screaming, 'Anyone who doesn't realize the eugenicists want to kill us all is an idiot," and once ideas get associated with people like that, the average man will spur it no matter whose mouth it comes out of. |
I demand perfection from no one. People are entitled to be right sometimes and wrong other times. Because someone was wrong once in his life, does that make everything else he has ever said untrue, too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| People are entitled to be right sometimes and wrong other times. Because someone was wrong once in his life, does that make everything else he has ever said untrue, too? |
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Individual assertions should be judged on an individual basis, regardless of their source and the other ideas the source in question supports. The reality, though, is that people do tend to judge based on source, and it's often a lasting judgment. I wish it weren't so, but it is, which is why people who genuinely want to educate the public (which most conspiracy theorists seem to) would be best served to keep such things in mind. Presentation can be as important as facts when it comes to persuading people, especially people who trust the media and are immediately suspicious of anything not reported by said media (which is a lot of people). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aVHMZwNcj2B0&pos=10
| Quote: |
Barofsky Says Criminal Charges Possible in Alleged AIG Coverup
April 28 (Bloomberg) -- Neil Barofsky was unpacking boxes in December 2008 when the stench of sewage wafted through the hallways at the 168-year-old Main Treasury Building. The space assigned to him as head of the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or SIGTARP, was shoehorned into the basement, three floors below U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson�s offices.
�They eventually discovered a broken sewer main beneath the floor,� says Barofsky, 40, adding that he doesn�t think any slight was intended by relegating him to the malodorous quarters. Still, he says with a smile, �I wasn�t given the prime real estate in Treasury.�
...
...The TARP watchdog has also criticized Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner in reports and in congressional testimony for his handling of the process by which insurance giant American International Group Inc. was saved from insolvency in 2008, when Geithner was head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The secrecy that enveloped the deal was unwarranted, Barofsky says, adding that his probe of an alleged New York Fed coverup in the AIG case could result in criminal or civil charges.
..
|
Criminal charges at the Fed? That is the most unlikely outcome in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Republican (+1 Democrat) attempt to filibuster financial reform bill fails.
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON � Republicans abandoned their blockade against legislation to clamp tough new controls on Wall Street Wednesday, clearing a road to likely passage for the most sweeping rewrite of financial rules since the Great Depression.
Democrats and Republicans agree the Senate will ultimately pass landmark changes aimed at preventing a recurrence of the crisis that knocked the nation's financial system to its knees in 2008, but the battle now begins over crucial details. The House has already passed its version.
Democrats said the Republicans had given in after three days of votes to block debate, realizing they were on the losing end of a battle for public opinion. GOP lawmakers said they would now switch to trying to change the bill on the Senate floor.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said, "There's been immense pressure bottled up inside the Republican caucus through these last three votes. A lot of their members have been very deeply unhappy with the direction their leadership has been taking them. Better heads prevailed."
Democrats had threatened to hold the Senate in session all night making their case that the Republicans were stalling legislation of importance to virtually every American. The Democrats also have been laying plans to make the legislation a major issue in midterm elections this summer and fall. The Republican retreat came one day after senior executives of Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs were denounced by lawmakers from both parties at a marathon Senate hearing.
President Barack Obama, winding up a Midwest tour promoting the legislation, told reporters he was pleased the debate would proceed and that he hoped to sign a final version "very soon." That was unlikely to occur for at least two weeks.
"We'll end up having a safer, more secure financial system," Obama said, "and I think banks and other financial institutions can get back to making money the old-fashioned way by lending it to companies to build business and create jobs and do all the things we want our financial system to do."
...
The GOP decision to relent came after Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking committee, told his colleagues that he could win no further concessions from Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd in private talks. He said Dodd did agree to adjust some provisions that Republicans had complained would permit further bank bailouts.
...
The bill would establish a nine-member Financial Services Oversight Council, including the treasury secretary, Federal Reserve chairman and the heads of regulatory agencies to monitor markets for threats, such as the bubble in housing prices and mortgage-backed securities that preceded the financial near-collapse two years ago.
The Federal Reserve would begin policing large bank holding companies and interconnected nonbank institutions whose collapse might pose a threat to the economy. With approval of the council, the Fed could even break up complex companies that posed a grave threat.
Most investment derivatives � such as the hundreds of billions of dollars in complex instruments blamed for accelerating the crisis two years ago � would have to be traded on regulated exchanges.
...
Republicans have begun to focus their criticism on the consumer protection provision.
The Senate Democrats' bill would create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve that would have power to police transactions between institutions that provide financial services and their customers.
Republicans say the bill would have unintended consequences that could ensnare small business people for merely extending credit to their customers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
