Credible Argument for Keeping the Fed

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know what prupose the Fed is supposed to be serving. And that is to bring stability to the economy.

Since the Fed has been erected there has been nothing but turmoil in the markets, and it just keeps getting worse and worse and worse.

No, I don't think that's right. Since the Fed's power was expanded in the 1930's, we've pretty much put an end to bank runs. The depth of recessions (measured in relation to GDP) has lessened. Until we ended Bretton Woods there no significant financial crises in the US after the Depression.

Prior to the Fed there were numerous financial panics.



OK, but we've seen middle income purchasing power increase ten to 20 fold.

Hence the purpose of the thread. Which brings up back to my original question, do you have a credible argument for keeping the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel and with it debt based money???

Yes! It promotes stability.

How very bright of you to display your ability to regurgitate my words back at me. To bad your interpretation is totally false.

The federal reserve does not serve the purpose that it was intended. The Federal Reserve has openly admitted that it caused the great depression, and that it caused it to be longer then it was supposed to be.

A valid argument would be that the Reserve has not made anything worse since being enacted. That would atleast be a debatable argument, not an all out absurd LIE that the Federal Reserve has brought any stability to the market.

An accurate statement of the Federal Reserve is that it has brought stability to the OWNERS of the bank.

The Federal Reserve has openly admitted that it caused the great depression

Yes, the Fed screwed up when they allowed so many banks to fail. When they allowed the money supply to fall by more than 30%.

They did better this time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Before the Federal Reserve was established bankers such as JP Morgan causing economic problems and sucking up wealth like a vacume. All the Federal Reserve has done is wrapped them up in the American flag which serves to hide the owners and give a false illusion of Nationalism.

And no. I am agianst debt based monetary policy, especially when it is in the hands of a private institution which is above the law, and above the regulation of the people.

Do you have a credible argument for keeping the Federal Reserve Banking Cartel?

Did you say you're against fractional reserve banking? I didn't see an answer.
You feel the Fed is a private institution?
Above the law? Congress could eliminate the Fed tomorrow.
Yes, it's useful to have a lender of last resort.
A bank for banks is useful during a panic.
Banking Cartel? Maybe you should define your terms?
Is fractional reserve lending evil, in your opinion?

Do you have a credible argument for keeping the federal reserve?

Yes, it's useful to have a lender of last resort.
A bank for banks is useful during a panic.
ARE MY WORDS TOO BIG?

 

[WatertheTree]

No, I don't think that's right. Since the Fed's power was expanded in the 1930's, we've pretty much put an end to bank runs. The depth of recessions (measured in relation to GDP) has lessened. Until we ended Bretton Woods there no significant financial crises in the US after the Depression.

Prior to the Fed there were numerous financial panics.



OK, but we've seen middle income purchasing power increase ten to 20 fold.



Yes! It promotes stability.

How very bright of you to display your ability to regurgitate my words back at me. To bad your interpretation is totally false.

With that attitude, you must be a real pleasure at cocktail parties.


The Federal Reserve screwed up during the Depression. It learned from those mistakes - including significant, substantial reforms that occurred during the Depression.

I'm not sure what that has to do with it serving its purpose.

A valid argument would be that the Reserve has not made anything worse since being enacted.

No. You don't get to decide what argument is valid and what is not. Let's suppose it made inflation 1% worse but made unemployment 5 points better.

Would you conclude that the Fed should be abolish because it made something worse? Well, you probably would....

That would atleast be a debatable argument, not an all out absurd LIE that the Federal Reserve has brought any stability to the market.

The market stability aspect is just a simple fact. It's not worthy of argument - recessions since the 1930's reforms of the Fed have proven to be shorter and less severe than those that preceded the 1930's.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

I guess I could find graphs and editorials by economists, and even video's of Federal Reserve chairpeople with opinions different then yours, quotes of presidents, even regret by the president that forced the Federal Reserve in place, but I dont think anything will help you.

Ok, so you think the Federal Reserve has brought stability to the marketplace. Thats your opinion. Its up to people to decide for themselves if that is true. I dont think its true, I think its the opposite of the truth, but like you said who am I to make these judgements.

Google is a wonderfull tool for people who are not sure if your really dumbfuck stupid or not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How very bright of you to display your ability to regurgitate my words back at me. To bad your interpretation is totally false.

With that attitude, you must be a real pleasure at cocktail parties.


The Federal Reserve screwed up during the Depression. It learned from those mistakes - including significant, substantial reforms that occurred during the Depression.

I'm not sure what that has to do with it serving its purpose.



No. You don't get to decide what argument is valid and what is not. Let's suppose it made inflation 1% worse but made unemployment 5 points better.

Would you conclude that the Fed should be abolish because it made something worse? Well, you probably would....

That would atleast be a debatable argument, not an all out absurd LIE that the Federal Reserve has brought any stability to the market.

The market stability aspect is just a simple fact. It's not worthy of argument - recessions since the 1930's reforms of the Fed have proven to be shorter and less severe than those that preceded the 1930's.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

I guess I could find graphs and editorials by economists, and even video's of Federal Reserve chairpeople with opinions different then yours, quotes of presidents, even regret by the president that forced the Federal Reserve in place, but I dont think anything will help you.

Ok, so you think the Federal Reserve has brought stability to the marketplace. Thats your opinion. Its up to people to decide for themselves if that is true. I dont think its true, I think its the opposite of the truth, but like you said who am I to make these judgements.

Google is a wonderfull tool for people who are not sure if your really dumbfuck stupid or not.

even regret by the president that forced the Federal Reserve in place

Ohhhhh....I love those fake quotes.
You have any favorite fake quotes by Jefferson?

 

[WatertheTree]

Did you say you're against fractional reserve banking? I didn't see an answer.
You feel the Fed is a private institution?
Above the law? Congress could eliminate the Fed tomorrow.
Yes, it's useful to have a lender of last resort.
A bank for banks is useful during a panic.
Banking Cartel? Maybe you should define your terms?
Is fractional reserve lending evil, in your opinion?

Do you have a credible argument for keeping the federal reserve?

Yes, it's useful to have a lender of last resort.
A bank for banks is useful during a panic.
ARE MY WORDS TOO BIG?

So your argument is that the federal reserve serves a purpose of protecting the business interest of banks under it such a goldman sachs and jp morgan??? You think its right to place such power into an institution just so it can protect private industry??

Are you sir a socialist or a commie? Which one is it?

 

[8537]

How very bright of you to display your ability to regurgitate my words back at me. To bad your interpretation is totally false.

With that attitude, you must be a real pleasure at cocktail parties.


The Federal Reserve screwed up during the Depression. It learned from those mistakes - including significant, substantial reforms that occurred during the Depression.

I'm not sure what that has to do with it serving its purpose.



No. You don't get to decide what argument is valid and what is not. Let's suppose it made inflation 1% worse but made unemployment 5 points better.

Would you conclude that the Fed should be abolish because it made something worse? Well, you probably would....

That would atleast be a debatable argument, not an all out absurd LIE that the Federal Reserve has brought any stability to the market.

The market stability aspect is just a simple fact. It's not worthy of argument - recessions since the 1930's reforms of the Fed have proven to be shorter and less severe than those that preceded the 1930's.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

I guess I could find graphs and editorials by economists, and even video's of Federal Reserve chairpeople with opinions different then yours, quotes of presidents, even regret by the president that forced the Federal Reserve in place, but I dont think anything will help you.

You can find editorials, perhaps. But you can't find facts. The facts are what they are - and the facts are that recessions since the 1930's have been more shallow and shorter in length than the recessions that preceded the 1930's. No graph can change that fact.

Ok, so you think the Federal Reserve has brought stability to the marketplace. Thats your opinion. Its up to people to decide for themselves if that is true. I dont think its true, I think its the opposite of the truth, but like you said who am I to make these judgements.

It's not an opinion. It's fact. You might decide there are other grounds upon which to oppose the Fed - and I might even agree with you on many of those.

 

[8537]

Google is a wonderfull tool for people who are not sure if your really dumbfuck stupid or not.

Oh the irony! When questioning the intelligence of another poster, you should at least attempt to use proper spelling and grammar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So your argument is that the federal reserve serves a purpose of protecting the business interest of banks under it such a goldman sachs and jp morgan???

No, my argument is the Fed can protect the banking system.

You think its right to place such power into an institution just so it can protect private industry??

Yes, to protect the banking system.

Is fractional reserve banking evil?
Do we need to eliminate it and return to the gold standard?

 

[WatertheTree]

With that attitude, you must be a real pleasure at cocktail parties.


The Federal Reserve screwed up during the Depression. It learned from those mistakes - including significant, substantial reforms that occurred during the Depression.

I'm not sure what that has to do with it serving its purpose.



No. You don't get to decide what argument is valid and what is not. Let's suppose it made inflation 1% worse but made unemployment 5 points better.

Would you conclude that the Fed should be abolish because it made something worse? Well, you probably would....



The market stability aspect is just a simple fact. It's not worthy of argument - recessions since the 1930's reforms of the Fed have proven to be shorter and less severe than those that preceded the 1930's.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

I guess I could find graphs and editorials by economists, and even video's of Federal Reserve chairpeople with opinions different then yours, quotes of presidents, even regret by the president that forced the Federal Reserve in place, but I dont think anything will help you.

Ok, so you think the Federal Reserve has brought stability to the marketplace. Thats your opinion. Its up to people to decide for themselves if that is true. I dont think its true, I think its the opposite of the truth, but like you said who am I to make these judgements.

Google is a wonderfull tool for people who are not sure if your really dumbfuck stupid or not.

even regret by the president that forced the Federal Reserve in place

Ohhhhh....I love those fake quotes.
You have any favorite fake quotes by Jefferson?

Other then your neosocialist opinion on the Federal Reserve serving to protect the Banking Cartel from the population do you have a reason to keep the current monetary system?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Google is a wonderfull tool for people who are not sure if your really dumbfuck stupid or not.

Oh the irony! When questioning the intelligence of another poster, you should at least attempt to use proper spelling and grammar.

He's on a roll.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess I could find graphs and editorials by economists, and even video's of Federal Reserve chairpeople with opinions different then yours, quotes of presidents, even regret by the president that forced the Federal Reserve in place, but I dont think anything will help you.

Ok, so you think the Federal Reserve has brought stability to the marketplace. Thats your opinion. Its up to people to decide for themselves if that is true. I dont think its true, I think its the opposite of the truth, but like you said who am I to make these judgements.

Google is a wonderfull tool for people who are not sure if your really dumbfuck stupid or not.

even regret by the president that forced the Federal Reserve in place

Ohhhhh....I love those fake quotes.
You have any favorite fake quotes by Jefferson?

Other then your neosocialist opinion on the Federal Reserve serving to protect the Banking Cartel from the population do you have a reason to keep the current monetary system?

Banking cartel? Please elaborate.

 

[WatertheTree]

So your argument is that the federal reserve serves a purpose of protecting the business interest of banks under it such a goldman sachs and jp morgan???

No, my argument is the Fed can protect the banking system.

You think its right to place such power into an institution just so it can protect private industry??

Yes, to protect the banking system.

Is fractional reserve banking evil?
Do we need to eliminate it and return to the gold standard?

Thank you that is all I needed to know.

No, as I said earlier I have no problem with fractional reserve banking. Money has to come into the money supply somehow.

 

[8537]

Waterthetree, I see a pattern here. Every time someone asks a question or raises a point that challenges your premise you ask if that person sees a reason to keep the Fed.

If you can read this whole thread and still not understand the argument as to why some people suggest we keep the Fed, you're not really reading.

 

[WatertheTree]

even regret by the president that forced the Federal Reserve in place

Ohhhhh....I love those fake quotes.
You have any favorite fake quotes by Jefferson?

Other then your neosocialist opinion on the Federal Reserve serving to protect the Banking Cartel from the population do you have a reason to keep the current monetary system?

Banking cartel? Please elaborate.

Fucking look in a dictionary for the definition of those two words dipshit. Its pretty descriptive already.

 

[8537]

So your argument is that the federal reserve serves a purpose of protecting the business interest of banks under it such a goldman sachs and jp morgan???

No, my argument is the Fed can protect the banking system.

You think its right to place such power into an institution just so it can protect private industry??

Yes, to protect the banking system.

Is fractional reserve banking evil?
Do we need to eliminate it and return to the gold standard?

Thank you that is all I needed to know.

No, as I said earlier I have no problem with fractional reserve banking. Money has to come into the money supply somehow.

Can you please describe the workings of a fractional reserve system that is not based on debt-issue currency?

 

[WatertheTree]

So your argument is that the federal reserve serves a purpose of protecting the business interest of banks under it such a goldman sachs and jp morgan???

No, my argument is the Fed can protect the banking system.

You think its right to place such power into an institution just so it can protect private industry??

Yes, to protect the banking system.

Is fractional reserve banking evil?
Do we need to eliminate it and return to the gold standard?

Thank you that is all I needed to know.

No, as I said earlier I have no problem with fractional reserve banking. Money has to come into the money supply somehow.

Can you please describe the workings of a fractional reserve system that is not based on debt-issue currency?

Do some research on the greenbacks. That is a plan that will work well.

Ill backpedel on the 'fractional reserve banking' and replace it with fiat currency. No, I dont think any private institution has the right to create money from nothing and then charge interest for it. Its counterfitting.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I dont have one, thought maybe someone else would.

I got nothing....

 

[Jos]

Early American currency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So your argument is that the federal reserve serves a purpose of protecting the business interest of banks under it such a goldman sachs and jp morgan???

No, my argument is the Fed can protect the banking system.

You think its right to place such power into an institution just so it can protect private industry??

Yes, to protect the banking system.

Is fractional reserve banking evil?
Do we need to eliminate it and return to the gold standard?

Thank you that is all I needed to know.

No, as I said earlier I have no problem with fractional reserve banking. Money has to come into the money supply somehow.

Believe me, that's far from the only thing you need to know.

 

[8537]

Thank you that is all I needed to know.

No, as I said earlier I have no problem with fractional reserve banking. Money has to come into the money supply somehow.

Can you please describe the workings of a fractional reserve system that is not based on debt-issue currency?

Do some research on the greenbacks. That is a plan that will work well.

Eh, really? The Greenbacks? You might remember that (1) that didn't end well and (2) it was based on debt and (3) it ushered in a period of dramatic inflation.

Ill backpedel on the 'fractional reserve banking' and replace it with fiat currency. No, I dont think any private institution has the right to create money from nothing and then charge interest for it. Its counterfitting.

So you want to have a static fiat currency money supply?