Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 - Separation of Commercial and Investment banks
-
Define money supply for me, I have the niggling feeling you're including things with 'cash value' which is likely horribly over inflated. I'm curious where the 5% is coming from.
I have a niggling feeling that there is something seriously wrong with you.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Define money supply for me, I have the niggling feeling you're including things with 'cash value' which is likely horribly over inflated. I'm curious where the 5% is coming from.
Actually, CSS is right about this, in part (I know, it's strange to say). The Fed actually does have the power to create and destroy money electronically, by simply editing the number in their account. These are known as "Open Market Operations," and are TEMPORARY actions done to correct problems in the economy. When the operation is complete, the change is reversed. Under normal circumstances, the Fed adjusts lending rates, and adjusts the currency supply by controlling how much they keep in reserve.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
There's a counter point here though, would we really be better off without the FBI to resolve interstate crimes? Without a national highway system? Without the vast majority of the expansions of federal power since the 1900s which more or less allowed us to be a nation rather than a federation of petty states? Sure, some power shouldn't be given, but not all power is a horrible thing.
Distind wrote:
would we really be better off without the FBI to resolve interstate crimes?
of course not. Since this is a Confederation, we do need to give the federal government some federal jurisdiction.
Distind wrote:
Without a national highway system?
Do we really need them to be federal? They still fall under state jurisdiction. The federal government just gives the states money to keep them from falling apart and to set the speed limits, even though there are speed limit signs everywhere.
Distind wrote:
Without the vast majority of the expansions of federal power since the 1900s which more or less allowed us to be a nation rather than a federation of petty states?
Glad you pointed this out. I think that more power to the federal government gives too much power away, and it's definitely not outlined in the constitution for what they do. the states are giving up their sovereignty, outlined in: Amendment 10 "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is the one amendment that changed the whole nature of the Constitution. A) The states created the Confederation, not vice-versa. B) This Amendment specifies the very fact it's a Confederation, not a Federation. The power resides in the States, not in the federal government. C) The "Articles of Confederation" was named precisely that for a reason.
Distind wrote:
Sure, some power shouldn't be given, but not all power is a horrible thing.
Agreed. That's why the founders only allowed Congress a few delegated powers, outlined in Article I, Section 8. They were more like federal powers, not governing powers. That was the point of the central "government", even though it wasn't supposed to be a government at all. The states were supposed to be their own countries, if you will. That's precisely why they were called states. I know, these are radical thoughts... but that's what we were 200 years ago. Now the federal government has grown out of control. I think that's pretty clear now.
-
I have a niggling feeling that there is something seriously wrong with you.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
So you're quoting something you don't know the real meaning of again? I say that having taken a handful of finance classes and seen how easy it could be to misrepresent financial figures with a bit of hand waving and a stupid audience. In fact I'm fairly sure my teacher was trying to do that a few times, unfortunately for him he had at least 4 5th year engineers in his class that would have none of it.
-
Actually, CSS is right about this, in part (I know, it's strange to say). The Fed actually does have the power to create and destroy money electronically, by simply editing the number in their account. These are known as "Open Market Operations," and are TEMPORARY actions done to correct problems in the economy. When the operation is complete, the change is reversed. Under normal circumstances, the Fed adjusts lending rates, and adjusts the currency supply by controlling how much they keep in reserve.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ah, that one's new on me. Any idea how many of these are floating out there or an approximate value, as I get the distinct feeling he's completely over reacting on this one(as he never actually mentioned how they did anything and seemed to believe they could print their own funds). This isn't a printing of funds so much as legally nudging the books. Which is actually quite a bit scarier to me, but we don't have to tell CSS that.
-
So you're quoting something you don't know the real meaning of again? I say that having taken a handful of finance classes and seen how easy it could be to misrepresent financial figures with a bit of hand waving and a stupid audience. In fact I'm fairly sure my teacher was trying to do that a few times, unfortunately for him he had at least 4 5th year engineers in his class that would have none of it.
No. Here is my source for 5%, regardless of accuracy (could be 4% or 6% or whatever), most money is electronic. http://mbanking.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-electronic-money-replace-cashever.html[^] You don't seem like someone who has studied how our economic system works.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Before the rest of that response list grows any further, I want to cut this one off at the source. The Fed IS a bank. It is fully indpendent... which is why we can't audit them... in the real sense. Ian would respond here by saying, "yes, it does get audited". Yes. But all of the most important stuff does not get audited. So it is a private independent bank, which answers to literally nobody. It is the only bank in the entire world without any independent auditing system. I call that a problem.
josda1000 wrote:
Ian would respond here by saying, "yes, it does get audited". Yes. But all of the most important stuff does not get audited.
Indeed. It gets audited every year, just as major companies are audited. I believe the difference between the yearly audit and the one Ron Paul keeps whining about, is the amount of detail reported.
josda1000 wrote:
So it is a private independent bank, which answers to literally nobody
You mean aside from Congress? True, Congress does not directly approve every action they take, both because it would take too long, and because it's SUPPOSED to have a degree of independence, so politicians can't use it to manipulate the economy to their own advantage. When Geihtner (sp?) and Bernanke are pulled before Congress every few months, that's them answering to someone. If they do something that Congress doesn't like, they can get kicked out. If an individual Fed governor (Remember, the Fed is really a committee, of which Bernanke is the Chairman) does something stupid, the others can vote him out.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
josda1000 wrote:
Ian would respond here by saying, "yes, it does get audited". Yes. But all of the most important stuff does not get audited.
Indeed. It gets audited every year, just as major companies are audited. I believe the difference between the yearly audit and the one Ron Paul keeps whining about, is the amount of detail reported.
josda1000 wrote:
So it is a private independent bank, which answers to literally nobody
You mean aside from Congress? True, Congress does not directly approve every action they take, both because it would take too long, and because it's SUPPOSED to have a degree of independence, so politicians can't use it to manipulate the economy to their own advantage. When Geihtner (sp?) and Bernanke are pulled before Congress every few months, that's them answering to someone. If they do something that Congress doesn't like, they can get kicked out. If an individual Fed governor (Remember, the Fed is really a committee, of which Bernanke is the Chairman) does something stupid, the others can vote him out.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
When Geihtner (sp?) and Bernanke are pulled before Congress every few months, that's them answering to someone.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ah, that one's new on me. Any idea how many of these are floating out there or an approximate value, as I get the distinct feeling he's completely over reacting on this one(as he never actually mentioned how they did anything and seemed to believe they could print their own funds). This isn't a printing of funds so much as legally nudging the books. Which is actually quite a bit scarier to me, but we don't have to tell CSS that.
It is a scary amount of power, but if it's used properly, it can be beneficial. The bailouts of late were Open Market Operations, as were many of the other bank bailouts in the past century. And of course, though Congress does not necessarily take part in planning one of these operations, they are made aware of them. If the Fed abuses their power, Congress can metaphorically lynch them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
When Geihtner (sp?) and Bernanke are pulled before Congress every few months, that's them answering to someone.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
I wouldn't know. Can't browse YouTube at work. If someone would care to summarize it, I'll respond.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
It is a scary amount of power, but if it's used properly, it can be beneficial. The bailouts of late were Open Market Operations, as were many of the other bank bailouts in the past century. And of course, though Congress does not necessarily take part in planning one of these operations, they are made aware of them. If the Fed abuses their power, Congress can metaphorically lynch them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
No. Here is my source for 5%, regardless of accuracy (could be 4% or 6% or whatever), most money is electronic. http://mbanking.blogspot.com/2010/01/will-electronic-money-replace-cashever.html[^] You don't seem like someone who has studied how our economic system works.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
That seems to be a global figure, anything for the states, preferably with real figures backing it up? And I'm no economist, but I generally can peg more than idiots like you without thinking for all that long. That said, the fed doesn't seem to be any more responsible for this figure than anything else you've put forward. They have the ability to create 'temporary' funds, but do so at the risk of being booted. That's not really the ability to create unlimited funds, and if they tried to do such they'd be booted faster than you type insults.
-
It is a scary amount of power, but if it's used properly, it can be beneficial. The bailouts of late were Open Market Operations, as were many of the other bank bailouts in the past century. And of course, though Congress does not necessarily take part in planning one of these operations, they are made aware of them. If the Fed abuses their power, Congress can metaphorically lynch them.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I wouldn't know. Can't browse YouTube at work. If someone would care to summarize it, I'll respond.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
That seems to be a global figure, anything for the states, preferably with real figures backing it up? And I'm no economist, but I generally can peg more than idiots like you without thinking for all that long. That said, the fed doesn't seem to be any more responsible for this figure than anything else you've put forward. They have the ability to create 'temporary' funds, but do so at the risk of being booted. That's not really the ability to create unlimited funds, and if they tried to do such they'd be booted faster than you type insults.
Distind wrote:
And I'm no economist
It is very obvious.
Distind wrote:
I generally can peg more than idiots like you without thinking for all that long.
Key wording here, "generally", indicating that you trick yourself into believing something illogically false to make yourself feel better, which is also very obvious.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
When Geihtner (sp?) and Bernanke are pulled before Congress every few months, that's them answering to someone.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
That cracked me up. You just basically nailed it. The point is that Congress has no say in what the bank does. At all. Ian, distind, I hope you people get the point. Seriously, they need a check on their power. Why do you think we have a system of checks and balances? Because no one source can be trusted with unchecked power. The Fed has precisely that. They are at the top, more powerful than the Congress itself.
-
That cracked me up. You just basically nailed it. The point is that Congress has no say in what the bank does. At all. Ian, distind, I hope you people get the point. Seriously, they need a check on their power. Why do you think we have a system of checks and balances? Because no one source can be trusted with unchecked power. The Fed has precisely that. They are at the top, more powerful than the Congress itself.
josda1000 wrote:
Ian, distind, I hope you people get the point.
Oh, they get the point, it scares them so they block it out and manufacture a fantasy land. In Ian's case, it may be because he profits greatly from the corrupt system and nothing else matters to him. Ian works for a very profitable hedge fund in NY.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Senator Sanders asked Bernanke if he would tell the Congress where all the money went. Specifically, to which institutions (investment firms, banks, etc). Bernanke answered "No."
Well, that's a bit odd. I could understand something like "Not at this time," or "Not in front of the cameras," because openly naming the institutions that got bailed out would erode confidence in them, which would then cause them to be in need of ANOTHER bailout. Could understand delaying the information (Or only giving it to the finance committee in private) until after the bailed-out firms had recovered.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
josda1000 wrote:
Ian, distind, I hope you people get the point.
Oh, they get the point, it scares them so they block it out and manufacture a fantasy land. In Ian's case, it may be because he profits greatly from the corrupt system and nothing else matters to him. Ian works for a very profitable hedge fund in NY.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Well, that's a bit odd. I could understand something like "Not at this time," or "Not in front of the cameras," because openly naming the institutions that got bailed out would erode confidence in them, which would then cause them to be in need of ANOTHER bailout. Could understand delaying the information (Or only giving it to the finance committee in private) until after the bailed-out firms had recovered.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Don't you understand? If they went bankrupt instead of being bailed out, the economy would have been fine. People that lost money in the banks that went bankrupt should know better... it's called "fractional reserve"... they don't have the money! People that lose their jobs in the banks would just get relocated to new businesses or neighborhood banks. Those big banks SHOULD go down! Don't you see that? Like CSS says... of course you do. You just have a vested interest in this. (I don't mean to offend, I just hope you see the light, honestly. You should know me by now.)