Should We Kill The Fed?

[neurosport]

Where did the idea that the Fed Res was not part of the government come from? I just googled the Fed and just as many hits came up with it being part of the government as it not being part of the government. It can be confusing.

Semantics. Irrelevant.

you can call it what you want the point is its not constitutional.

open the constitution and try to find FED in it ...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I find the argument that the Federal Reserve is a private institution to be quite silly. My Congressman recently attempted to make that argument to me when I asked him to support H.R. 1207. If the Federal Reserve were truly a private institution they would not have been created by government statute, they would not have their chairman appointed by the government, they would not have to make reports to the Congress, and they would not be given a monopoly privilege over the creation of money by the federal government. They are a government agency, whether the government intends to admit it or not.

Where did the idea that the Fed Res was not part of the government come from? I just googled the Fed and just as many hits came up with it being part of the government as it not being part of the government. It can be confusing.

There are a few people in this thread claiming that it's not, my Congressman tried to sell me on it a few weeks ago, but it is a government run agency in everything but name alone.

 

[Iriemon]

since you're so smart, tell me - what do we need these fucking shareholders for ?

The shareholders are member banks in the district (federally chartered banks and state intitutions that want to apply) which pay in a percentage of their capital. They are not "shareholders" in the sense of a private corporations. Their shares provide no governing power. They shares cannot be sold or transferred. They are paid a fixed return 6% on the money they have deposited with the Fed. The don't get any more because the Fed makes more.

the question was not who they are or how much they make. the question was WHY DO WE NEED THEM ?

i'm listening ?

No, the question was whether the Fed was a private corporation. There is no other private corporation structured like the Fed. Unlike a private corporation, Fed shareholders are mandate by law as to what they own, they can't sell their stock, they can't control the board, and the don't share any "profit".

So no, the Fed is not a private corporation in the sense any other private corporation is. The Fed is a governmental entity that serves the purpose of establish national monetary policy.

As to why the banks have to deposit their a percent of their capital as shares, I'm not sure why that was done, though I believe it was initially set up that way to give the Fed capital to engage in its monetary policy.

 

[Iriemon]

We don't need them.

We never did.

Can we honestly say the United States of America was a failing economy up until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913?

Nope.

If we are going to use that as the standard, before 1913 the US still had sever economic cycles, that is nothing new.

Since 1913, the US has become the unquestioned world economic power, with an overal growth record and standard of living most every one else envies.

So if that is the Fed's fault, we should all say thank you Fed very much and thank you Congres for creating it.

Why then anyone would want to screw up what has been a tremendous success is beyond me.

 

[mash107]

We don't need them.

We never did.

Can we honestly say the United States of America was a failing economy up until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913?

Nope.

If we are going to use that as the standard, before 1913 the US still had sever economic cycles, that is nothing new.

Since 1913, the US has become the unquestioned world economic power, with an overal growth record and standard of living most every one else envies.

So if that is the Fed's fault, we should all say thank you Fed very much and thank you Congres for creating it.

Why then anyone would want to screw up what has been a tremendous success is beyond me.

But before 1913, we've had credit expansions that inevitably have to contract, as well. They were caused by civil wars and bimetallism. Bimetallism artificially altered the value of the dollar as well. There was no federal reserve, but the same tricks were in play.

And are you actually saying that this...

is actually good for the economy?

Look at all the inflation they did up to 1929.... no wonder we have a Depression.

We've became the economic superpower because of the people, not some buffoon in Washington.

 

[Iriemon]

We don't need them.

We never did.

Can we honestly say the United States of America was a failing economy up until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913?

Nope.

If we are going to use that as the standard, before 1913 the US still had sever economic cycles, that is nothing new.

Since 1913, the US has become the unquestioned world economic power, with an overal growth record and standard of living most every one else envies.

So if that is the Fed's fault, we should all say thank you Fed very much and thank you Congres for creating it.

Why then anyone would want to screw up what has been a tremendous success is beyond me.

But before 1913, we've had credit expansions that inevitably have to contract, as well. They were caused by civil wars and bimetallism. Bimetallism artificially altered the value of the dollar as well. There was no federal reserve, but the same tricks were in play.

And are you actually saying that this...

is actually good for the economy?

Look at all the inflation they did up to 1929.... no wonder we have a Depression.

We've became the economic superpower because of the people, not some buffoon in Washington.

There were tons of recessions before the Fed. There were lots of them when we were on the gold standard. The argument that the Fed is responsible for economic cycles is hogwash.

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

And yes, absolutely I will defend how the US economy has done since 1913. Probably better than most every other nation on earth. I defy anyone to show me an economy that has done better. You want to blame everything that has gone wrong with the economy on the Fed and then give it no credit for everything that has gone right. Well, the Fed couldn't have fucked things up that bad with the track record it has.

Again, why anyone would want to mess with success is beyond me.

And PS, if you look at the chart, you will see that the vast bulk of the relative PP of the dollar declined when we had a gold standard before 1973. So much for that theory.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We don't need them.

We never did.

Can we honestly say the United States of America was a failing economy up until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913?

Nope.

If we are going to use that as the standard, before 1913 the US still had sever economic cycles, that is nothing new.

Since 1913, the US has become the unquestioned world economic power, with an overal growth record and standard of living most every one else envies.

So if that is the Fed's fault, we should all say thank you Fed very much and thank you Congres for creating it.

Why then anyone would want to screw up what has been a tremendous success is beyond me.

We still had the business cycle before the Fed was established because of the two Banks of America, and because the federal government couldn't stop themselves from intervening in the market.

 

[WorldAHope]

If we are going to use that as the standard, before 1913 the US still had sever economic cycles, that is nothing new.

Since 1913, the US has become the unquestioned world economic power, with an overal growth record and standard of living most every one else envies.

So if that is the Fed's fault, we should all say thank you Fed very much and thank you Congres for creating it.

Why then anyone would want to screw up what has been a tremendous success is beyond me.

But before 1913, we've had credit expansions that inevitably have to contract, as well. They were caused by civil wars and bimetallism. Bimetallism artificially altered the value of the dollar as well. There was no federal reserve, but the same tricks were in play.

And are you actually saying that this...

is actually good for the economy?

Look at all the inflation they did up to 1929.... no wonder we have a Depression.

We've became the economic superpower because of the people, not some buffoon in Washington.

There were tons of recessions before the Fed. There were lots of them when we were on the gold standard. The argument that the Fed is responsible for economic cycles is hogwash.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes, absolutely I will defend how the US economy has done since 1913. Probably better than most every other nation on earth. I defy anyone to show me an economy that has done better. You want to blame everything that has gone wrong with the economy on the Fed and then give it no credit for everything that has gone right. Well, the Fed couldn't have fucked things up that bad with the track record it has.

Again, why anyone would want to mess with success is beyond me.

And PS, if you look at the chart, you will see that the vast bulk of the relative PP of the dollar declined when we had a gold standard before 1973. So much for that theory.

The Federal Reserve system has been one of the best creations we have enacted to keep our economy stable and safe.
Before 1913 we went through many wild damaging Panics, mostly as a result of market manipulation and excessive flucutations that caused terrible collapse and widespread suffereing and instability.
Granted, in the late 1920s, and recently Greenspan and then Bernanke failed miserably by NOT intervening to prevent collapse (whether they thought it was within their authority or not, they could have exerted themselves to stop the excesses and prevent calamity, like a good police officer should) but overall the Fed has been and still is a moderating, stabilising force in the economy.

It appears the objections noted to the very existence of the Fed are not based upon what the Fed actually does - its REAL day to day bureuacratic operations - as they are ideological and spiritual.
That "we don't need no stinkin' babysitter". "You aren't the boss of me" mentality.

The utopian "Unfettered Free Market" is an unworkable pipedream theory has pretty much been shot down.
We will not be heading in that direction. The banking and credit and financial systems are way too important to be left up to private bankers, entirely, without close assistnce and supervision.
We all see where Unregulated, Laisezz-Faire approach has left us.
Shipwrecked.
Somebody has to steer and command the ship, despite the idea that our economy can glide along blindly and with no guiding hands on the wheel.

Try that next time you go on a cruise. Take over the bridge, shut the helm down, open up the valves to full speed ahead, and let the Spirit of Free Cruising take you wherever it decides.
See what happens.

The Federal Reserve and US Treasury and the SEC and all other financial regulatory agencies, around the world are going to be ramped UP and will be more active, and that there will be a lot more oversight and regulation.

Sorry.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But before 1913, we've had credit expansions that inevitably have to contract, as well. They were caused by civil wars and bimetallism. Bimetallism artificially altered the value of the dollar as well. There was no federal reserve, but the same tricks were in play.

And are you actually saying that this...

is actually good for the economy?

Look at all the inflation they did up to 1929.... no wonder we have a Depression.

We've became the economic superpower because of the people, not some buffoon in Washington.

There were tons of recessions before the Fed. There were lots of them when we were on the gold standard. The argument that the Fed is responsible for economic cycles is hogwash.

List of recessions in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes, absolutely I will defend how the US economy has done since 1913. Probably better than most every other nation on earth. I defy anyone to show me an economy that has done better. You want to blame everything that has gone wrong with the economy on the Fed and then give it no credit for everything that has gone right. Well, the Fed couldn't have fucked things up that bad with the track record it has.

Again, why anyone would want to mess with success is beyond me.

And PS, if you look at the chart, you will see that the vast bulk of the relative PP of the dollar declined when we had a gold standard before 1973. So much for that theory.

The Federal Reserve system has been one of the best creations we have enacted to keep our economy stable and safe.
Before 1913 we went through many wild damaging Panics, mostly as a result of market manipulation and excessive flucutations that caused terrible collapse and widespread suffereing and instability.
Granted, in the late 1920s, and recently Greenspan and then Bernanke failed miserably by NOT intervening to prevent collapse (whether they thought it was within their authority or not, they could have exerted themselves to stop the excesses and prevent calamity, like a good police officer should) but overall the Fed has been and still is a moderating, stabilising force in the economy.

It appears the objections noted to the very existence of the Fed are not based upon what the Fed actually does - its REAL day to day bureuacratic operations - as they are ideological and spiritual.
That "we don't need no stinkin' babysitter". "You aren't the boss of me" mentality.

The utopian "Unfettered Free Market" is an unworkable pipedream theory has pretty much been shot down.
We will not be heading in that direction. The banking and credit and financial systems are way too important to be left up to private bankers, entirely, without close assistnce and supervision.
We all see where Unregulated, Laisezz-Faire approach has left us.
Shipwrecked.
Somebody has to steer and command the ship, despite the idea that our economy can glide along blindly and with no guiding hands on the wheel.

Try that next time you go on a cruise. Take over the bridge, shut the helm down, open up the valves to full speed ahead, and let the Spirit of Free Cruising take you wherever it decides.
See what happens.

The Federal Reserve and US Treasury and the SEC and all other financial regulatory agencies, around the world are going to be ramped UP and will be more active, and that there will be a lot more oversight and regulation.

Sorry.

How has the "unfettered, laissez-faire" approach left us shipwrecked? The fact that the Federal Reserve exists at all means that we have no unfettered free market, not to mention all the other regulations imposed by the federal government. We did go through panics before the Federal Reserve, and all can be blamed on the national banks or some other form of government intervention into the market. Since the inception of the Fed our currency has lost 95% of it's value, and we've had even worse panics than ever before. My objections to the Federal Reserve are based exactly on what they do, which is create the business cycle and debase the currency.

 

[ItsFairmont]

You guys are literally making each others' points now.

One says, "The economy grew in spite of (or because of) the Fed, and another says, "There were downturns before and after the creation of the Fed.


That just shows that the Fed is unnecessary.

What are we going to all lay down and die without a Federal Reserve?


Nope.

 

[Iriemon]

We don't need them.

We never did.

Can we honestly say the United States of America was a failing economy up until the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913?

Nope.

If we are going to use that as the standard, before 1913 the US still had sever economic cycles, that is nothing new.

Since 1913, the US has become the unquestioned world economic power, with an overal growth record and standard of living most every one else envies.

So if that is the Fed's fault, we should all say thank you Fed very much and thank you Congres for creating it.

Why then anyone would want to screw up what has been a tremendous success is beyond me.

We still had the business cycle before the Fed was established because of the two Banks of America, and because the federal government couldn't stop themselves from intervening in the market.

So its not the Fed's fault, it's the Govt's fault.

If we eliminate the Fed, we'll still have the Govt.

The only difference is that rather than the money supply being in the hands of an independent body, the same idiots that could not manage a balanced budget more than once over the past 40 years and have borrowed us $11 trillion into debt will have the power of creating money.

I don't share your apparent confidence that that would somehow lead to an improvement.

 

[Iriemon]

You guys are literally making each others' points now.

One says, "The economy grew in spite of (or because of) the Fed, and another says, "There were downturns before and after the creation of the Fed.


That just shows that the Fed is unnecessary.

What are we going to all lay down and die without a Federal Reserve?


Nope.

If you look at the Wiki article on recessions, you can see that with the exception of 1929, recessions since the Fed was created have been shorter in term. Since the Gold standard was dropped they have been milder.

But irrespective, unless you think that private "gold certificates" somehow make more sense than a national currency (and I've actually seem some who do) some entity has to be in control of the money supply. If it is not a quasi-independent entity like the Fed then it is Congress, and the concept of giving those yahoos the ability to create money is too frightening to comprehend.

 

[mash107]

If we are going to use that as the standard, before 1913 the US still had sever economic cycles, that is nothing new.

Since 1913, the US has become the unquestioned world economic power, with an overal growth record and standard of living most every one else envies.

So if that is the Fed's fault, we should all say thank you Fed very much and thank you Congres for creating it.

Why then anyone would want to screw up what has been a tremendous success is beyond me.

We still had the business cycle before the Fed was established because of the two Banks of America, and because the federal government couldn't stop themselves from intervening in the market.

So its not the Fed's fault, it's the Govt's fault.

If we eliminate the Fed, we'll still have the Govt.

The only difference is that rather than the money supply being in the hands of an independent body, the same idiots that could not manage a balanced budget more than once over the past 40 years and have borrowed us $11 trillion into debt will have the power of creating money.

I don't share your apparent confidence that that would somehow lead to an improvement.

I agree. Something as important as the money supply should not be in the hands of government, at all.

 

[Iriemon]

We still had the business cycle before the Fed was established because of the two Banks of America, and because the federal government couldn't stop themselves from intervening in the market.

So its not the Fed's fault, it's the Govt's fault.

If we eliminate the Fed, we'll still have the Govt.

The only difference is that rather than the money supply being in the hands of an independent body, the same idiots that could not manage a balanced budget more than once over the past 40 years and have borrowed us $11 trillion into debt will have the power of creating money.

I don't share your apparent confidence that that would somehow lead to an improvement.

I agree. Something as important as the money supply should not be in the hands of government, at all.

Who should control it?

 

[dilloduck]

So its not the Fed's fault, it's the Govt's fault.

If we eliminate the Fed, we'll still have the Govt.

The only difference is that rather than the money supply being in the hands of an independent body, the same idiots that could not manage a balanced budget more than once over the past 40 years and have borrowed us $11 trillion into debt will have the power of creating money.

I don't share your apparent confidence that that would somehow lead to an improvement.

I agree. Something as important as the money supply should not be in the hands of government, at all.

Who should control it?

I'll volunteer !

 

[WorldAHope]

You guys are literally making each others' points now.

One says, "The economy grew in spite of (or because of) the Fed, and another says, "There were downturns before and after the creation of the Fed.


That just shows that the Fed is unnecessary.

What are we going to all lay down and die without a Federal Reserve?


Nope.

I could not disagree more. The Fed is absolutely necessary.
The value of out currency needs to be based upon its relation to other currencies, not to 1913.
Or to the Middle Ages.

The entire OP and argument is pointless, purely academic.
The Fed is not going to be closed down, its authority will increase dramatically.
Regulations are not going to be rescinded or ignored.
We are in a More Regulation, "Uncle Sam, SAVE us !" phase in the markets,
across the board, and will be for some time.

You know that.

 

[mash107]

You guys are literally making each others' points now.

One says, "The economy grew in spite of (or because of) the Fed, and another says, "There were downturns before and after the creation of the Fed.


That just shows that the Fed is unnecessary.

What are we going to all lay down and die without a Federal Reserve?


Nope.

I could not disagree more. The Fed is absolutely necessary.
The value of out currency needs to be based upon its relation to other currencies, not to 1913.
Or to the Middle Ages.

The entire OP and argument is pointless, purely academic.
The Fed is not going to be closed down, its authority will increase dramatically.
Regulations are not going to be rescinded or ignored.
We are in a More Regulation, "Uncle Sam, SAVE us !" phase in the markets,
across the board, and will be for some time.

You know that.

You do realize that allowing the government to control the value of currency is a relic of the middle ages. The Kings at the time always diluted gold with worthless metals, much like the Fed is doing now. And giving the Fed more power is analogous to giving the King more power in the middle ages.

 

[ItsFairmont]

I agree with you about the current trend, but I still like the idea that people determine the value of their goods and services.


And in some cases it still is.


And just you watch: If inflation is out of control, and my 53k salary can only get me a loaf of bread, then I'll have to trade my services for food or something else of value.


Maybe I'll buy a truckload of cigarettes and soap. They'll always be valuable.

 

[mash107]

So its not the Fed's fault, it's the Govt's fault.

If we eliminate the Fed, we'll still have the Govt.

The only difference is that rather than the money supply being in the hands of an independent body, the same idiots that could not manage a balanced budget more than once over the past 40 years and have borrowed us $11 trillion into debt will have the power of creating money.

I don't share your apparent confidence that that would somehow lead to an improvement.

I agree. Something as important as the money supply should not be in the hands of government, at all.

Who should control it?

The same forces that feed, clothe and shelter us. The market.

 

[Iriemon]

I agree. Something as important as the money supply should not be in the hands of government, at all.

Who should control it?

The same forces that feed, clothe and shelter us. The market.

Great. How do I print myself ten million dollars under your system.