Time to eliminate the Fed?

Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
The Fed is a thankless job that no one can do well that has to get done, but preferably not so badly as has been the case over the years. It was supposed to prevent bank failure lead depressions, yet the it seems that during its first big crises in 1929 it precipitated the crises and drove it harder by deliberately smashing banks. During the 1970s it was supposed to work with the treasury for full employment, and unemployment has never been worse. You give it a job, it botches the job. No banking crises prior to 1912 seems remotely as bad as the criseses after the fed.

As for 2, it is bad enough trying to cash an out of area check. It would create chaos here in Portland as we are so integrated with SW washington. There are lots of cities in the US where the big city is on the border with another state. NYC borders three states, I think. Cincinnatiti would have grief, as would DC, Chicago which is close to both IN and WI. St Louis. for another. Kansas City.

The census has a statistical tool call the SMSA. It is an area of three counties or more where the population in the combined counties is greater than 1,000,000 and the counties are integrated economically. Make a rule of no more than 5 SMSAs. Makes banks big enough to be useful, not too big to fail. From a free market standpoint, I don't like it, but I don't like disasters like TARP either. It seems a place to rise above principle.

Any time any government agency runs any economic enterprise, the enterprise will be run to enrich the politicians in power at the expense of the people of the government.
 

Neubarth

At the Ballpark July 30th
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
3,751
Reaction score
200
Points
48
Location
South Pacific
Discuss
1. Elimination of the Federal Reserve;
2. Private Banks restricted to operation in one state only;
3. Your state operating a 'state' bank, modeled after the Bank of N. Dakota.

Bank of North Dakota: About BND - History of BND
Only an insane lunatic would postulate the nonsense that you have above. The FED is the only thing that is keeping the United States running.

In the future, the FED will provide the money for Social Security payments. Those retiring people need their monthly payment to keep from starving.

After that, we can ask the FED to forgive thirty Trillion of debt that they bought to finance SS. Guess what, They will do it! As I keep on telling you idiots on this board, the FED is the greatest thing that we ever thought of.
 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
The Fed is a thankless job that no one can do well that has to get done, but preferably not so badly as has been the case over the years. It was supposed to prevent bank failure lead depressions, yet the it seems that during its first big crises in 1929 it precipitated the crises and drove it harder by deliberately smashing banks. During the 1970s it was supposed to work with the treasury for full employment, and unemployment has never been worse. You give it a job, it botches the job. No banking crises prior to 1912 seems remotely as bad as the criseses after the fed.

As for 2, it is bad enough trying to cash an out of area check. It would create chaos here in Portland as we are so integrated with SW washington. There are lots of cities in the US where the big city is on the border with another state. NYC borders three states, I think. Cincinnatiti would have grief, as would DC, Chicago which is close to both IN and WI. St Louis. for another. Kansas City.

The census has a statistical tool call the SMSA. It is an area of three counties or more where the population in the combined counties is greater than 1,000,000 and the counties are integrated economically. Make a rule of no more than 5 SMSAs. Makes banks big enough to be useful, not too big to fail. From a free market standpoint, I don't like it, but I don't like disasters like TARP either. It seems a place to rise above principle.

Any time any government agency runs any economic enterprise, the enterprise will be run to enrich the politicians in power at the expense of the people of the government.
Good post, I hope others choose to discuss the issue. Did you know of the BND before I posted this thread?
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,696
Reaction score
2,599
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
Currently eight states are considering following in North Dakota's lead.

A PhD Economist running in Florida's Democratic gubernatorial primary has claimed the billions of dollars in interest charges a state bank would save its citizens (think mortgages at 2% and credit cards capped at 6%) and the billion$ more the bank would generate helping its citizens save could eventually reduce and eliminate state and local taxes.

With Wall Street making new friends with each passing bonus pool, this might be a once in a lifetime opportunity to exterminate private debt and the central bankers that profit from usury and eternal wars.
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
Discuss
1. Elimination of the Federal Reserve;
2. Private Banks restricted to operation in one state only;
3. Your state operating a 'state' bank, modeled after the Bank of N. Dakota.

Bank of North Dakota: About BND - History of BND
I like #1, but I see no reason why banks should have to be restricted to only one state or why they should have to be modeled after the Bank of North Dakota.
 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Discuss
1. Elimination of the Federal Reserve;
2. Private Banks restricted to operation in one state only;
3. Your state operating a 'state' bank, modeled after the Bank of N. Dakota.

Bank of North Dakota: About BND - History of BND
I like #1, but I see no reason why banks should have to be restricted to only one state or why they should have to be modeled after the Bank of North Dakota.
Banks were restricted to operation in one state only until recent years, and the BND does not have a monopoly, other private banks and savings and loans operate within the state.
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
Discuss
1. Elimination of the Federal Reserve;
2. Private Banks restricted to operation in one state only;
3. Your state operating a 'state' bank, modeled after the Bank of N. Dakota.

Bank of North Dakota: About BND - History of BND
I like #1, but I see no reason why banks should have to be restricted to only one state or why they should have to be modeled after the Bank of North Dakota.
Banks were restricted to operation in one state only until recent years, and the BND does not have a monopoly, other private banks and savings and loans operate within the state.
Well in a free market there's no reason why a bank would have to stay within one state only, and there'd be no monopoly.
 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
I like #1, but I see no reason why banks should have to be restricted to only one state or why they should have to be modeled after the Bank of North Dakota.
Banks were restricted to operation in one state only until recent years, and the BND does not have a monopoly, other private banks and savings and loans operate within the state.
Well in a free market there's no reason why a bank would have to stay within one state only, and there'd be no monopoly.
I disagree. There can be a 'free' market with rules, and, local control is always better, isn't it?
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,306
Reaction score
1,696
Points
205
Banks were restricted to operation in one state only until recent years, and the BND does not have a monopoly, other private banks and savings and loans operate within the state.
Well in a free market there's no reason why a bank would have to stay within one state only, and there'd be no monopoly.
I disagree. There can be a 'free' market with rules, and, local control is always better, isn't it?
No. Government is inept whether it's federal, state, or local. The free market would make it a 100% reserve requirement, because anything less would be fraud, so there'd be no need for government rules.
 
OP
Wry Catcher

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Well in a free market there's no reason why a bank would have to stay within one state only, and there'd be no monopoly.
I disagree. There can be a 'free' market with rules, and, local control is always better, isn't it?
No. Government is inept whether it's federal, state, or local. The free market would make it a 100% reserve requirement, because anything less would be fraud, so there'd be no need for government rules.
Wow.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,659
Points
48
Location
Maine
The FED as constituted right now ought to be put down, I agree.

But then too, our entire banking and investment industry needs regoooving, too, doesn't it?

It's not JUST the FED that is the problem, amigo.

It's the whole damned system.
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,696
Reaction score
2,599
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
The FED as constituted right now ought to be put down, I agree.

But then too, our entire banking and investment industry needs regoooving, too, doesn't it?

It's not JUST the FED that is the problem, amigo.

It's the whole damned system.
Since fish rot from the head down, I would think the first step is an audit of the Fed like the one Bernie Sanders, Jim DeMint, and Larry Kudlow agree on.

"People who come from very different places agree it ought not to be done in secret, that the Fed isn't Skull and Bones."

So Says Michael Briggs, an aide to Senator Sanders.

Helicopter Ben "looked bored" when Sanders asked "(w)ill you tell the American people to whom you lent 2.2 trillion of their dollars?"

"No," Ben said. That would be "...counterproductive...if clients and investors learned that these poor banks were broke enough to need a public handout."

"(Sander's) new law will force Ben to post the identity of loan recipients on the Fed's website for all to see.

"It also mandates the GAO to investigate potential conflicts of interest that took place during the bailout, such as the presence of Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein in the room during negotiations of the AIG bailout, which lead to Goldman receiving $13 billion of public money via the rescue."

See: Wall Street's War
 
Last edited:

Neubarth

At the Ballpark July 30th
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
3,751
Reaction score
200
Points
48
Location
South Pacific
The simple fact of the matter is that most people (Including Economists who never agree amongst themselves as to what is happening with economics) are too stupid to understand what a blessing the FED is to the United States.

The Fed can not only "Create Electronic Money" to buy our Government Bonds and Notes, which it does when they go unsubscribed by the Chinese Communists, but it can forgive debt, too. THAT IS COMING UP WHEN THE FED WILL HOLD FIFTY TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DEBT THAT WILL BE USED TO FUND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICAL CARE, AND WILL BE ASKED BY THE PRESIDENT (Whoever he is at the time) TO FORGIVE THE DEBT, AND THE FED WILL ERASE IT AND WE WILL INSTANTLY NOT OWE THAT MONEY.

I look at all of the stupid posts by the buffoons on this board who try to cause alarmism by saying that we will never be able to pay our Social Security Debt. What idiots!!!!!

The first thing that you have to understand is that "We The People ARE the Economy." Once you get that into your dipshit heads, then you might understand why the FED is the greatest thing since peanut butter or ice cream.
 

standunited

Rookie
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
23
Reaction score
2
Points
1
The ONLY way our economy will ever be fixed is to completely abolish the Fed! it is a private own company that is illegally in existence! Money from thin air?! Just how long did we think THAT would work?! GAME OVER
 

antagon

The Man
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
3,572
Reaction score
295
Points
48
i dont see why americans are so vehiment bent on condemning the fed, save for not having completely looked into the role it plays. while the reserve rates a few years ago could be added to their many errors, operating such a modern reserve system is crucial for a modern economy. banks and the treasury could not maintain balance alone.
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
36,696
Reaction score
2,599
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
i dont see why americans are so vehiment bent on condemning the fed, save for not having completely looked into the role it plays. while the reserve rates a few years ago could be added to their many errors, operating such a modern reserve system is crucial for a modern economy. banks and the treasury could not maintain balance alone.
antagon

In 2009 something inspired Joseph Stiglitz to say our government would have been better off funding a federally-owned bank than doling out trillions of dollars to private investment banks and CEOs who speculated their way into bankruptcy.

"If we had used the $700 billion to create a new financial institution, allowed it to lever 10:1, which is very modest compared to the 30:1 we were doing, 10 to 1 would have generated $7 trillion of new lending capacity, far in excess of what our country needs.

"So the issue here is not about lending. It's really about saving the bankers.

"And what we confused was saving the banks versus saving the bankers and their shareholders." (Campaigning For State-Owned Banks)
 

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,383
Points
280
i dont see why americans are so vehiment bent on condemning the fed, save for not having completely looked into the role it plays. while the reserve rates a few years ago could be added to their many errors, operating such a modern reserve system is crucial for a modern economy. banks and the treasury could not maintain balance alone.
antagon

In 2009 something inspired Joseph Stiglitz to say our government would have been better off funding a federally-owned bank than doling out trillions of dollars to private investment banks and CEOs who speculated their way into bankruptcy.

"If we had used the $700 billion to create a new financial institution, allowed it to lever 10:1, which is very modest compared to the 30:1 we were doing, 10 to 1 would have generated $7 trillion of new lending capacity, far in excess of what our country needs.

"So the issue here is not about lending. It's really about saving the bankers.

"And what we confused was saving the banks versus saving the bankers and their shareholders." (Campaigning For State-Owned Banks)
I agree with biting the bullet but I do not think it follows that we know enough to impose a workable solution. Blanche Lincoln and her attempt to force a transition to transparency was the best idea proposed worldwide in financial reform and it did not fly. This mess will be revisited several times.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top