Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 - Separation of Commercial and Investment banks
-
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.)
-
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)[^]
Actually, we're only somewhat profitable right now. I do NOT work for one of the big firms (Though I did in early '08, and got laid off along with most of the rest of the company). My firm is NOT a public company or a commercial bank. We did NOT get a penny of bailout money. Going to keep trying to insult me, or would you like to get back to the actual discussion?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Actually, we're only somewhat profitable right now. I do NOT work for one of the big firms (Though I did in early '08, and got laid off along with most of the rest of the company). My firm is NOT a public company or a commercial bank. We did NOT get a penny of bailout money. Going to keep trying to insult me, or would you like to get back to the actual discussion?
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.)
josda1000 wrote:
People that lost money in the banks that went bankrupt should know better...
It's a fair point, but you're not seeing the indirect effects. Let's look at 401k accounts, to start... Tax-deferred retirement accounts... Not social security or government funding. This is people putting away money for the future, so they can retire comfortably. Well, here's the first list of big 401k providers that I stumbled upon (Outdated by a few years): http://www.workforce.com/tools/hot_list/HL01_30_06.pdf[^] #1. Fidelity. 11 million participants (People with retirement accounts). #2. Hewitt Associates. 5.4 million participants. #3. Merrill Lynch, part of Bank of America. 3 million participants. Just looking at the top three... Hewitt is just fine, but Fidelity and Merrill both needed a bailout. If they went down, that's 14 million people who would have lost their retirement savings. I think you can see where I'm going with this... After 401k, you can look at pension funds. Then you can look at the mutual funds that invested in these firms, and which 401k and pension funds were invested in THEM. That's the real problem... Everything is so intertwined that if a large firm collapses, it can hurt millions and millions of people. That's the "Too Big To Fail" problem. So yes, the big firms DID deserve to collapse... But did everyone invested indirectly in that firm deserve the same?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Yes. A small group of hedge funds that's a subsidiary of a large non-financial/tech company. I think we only have a couple hundred employees worldwide, if that.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Which is the whole point of auditing them. Because otherwise, they can get away with what they want. They simply must be audited, even if they'd done nothing wrong. We just need to keep them in check.
As I keep saying, they ARE audited. They even post the audits on the web for the general public. Ron Paul probably just wants to look through their books himself, instead of letting an independent auditing firm do it.
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:
People that lost money in the banks that went bankrupt should know better...
It's a fair point, but you're not seeing the indirect effects. Let's look at 401k accounts, to start... Tax-deferred retirement accounts... Not social security or government funding. This is people putting away money for the future, so they can retire comfortably. Well, here's the first list of big 401k providers that I stumbled upon (Outdated by a few years): http://www.workforce.com/tools/hot_list/HL01_30_06.pdf[^] #1. Fidelity. 11 million participants (People with retirement accounts). #2. Hewitt Associates. 5.4 million participants. #3. Merrill Lynch, part of Bank of America. 3 million participants. Just looking at the top three... Hewitt is just fine, but Fidelity and Merrill both needed a bailout. If they went down, that's 14 million people who would have lost their retirement savings. I think you can see where I'm going with this... After 401k, you can look at pension funds. Then you can look at the mutual funds that invested in these firms, and which 401k and pension funds were invested in THEM. That's the real problem... Everything is so intertwined that if a large firm collapses, it can hurt millions and millions of people. That's the "Too Big To Fail" problem. So yes, the big firms DID deserve to collapse... But did everyone invested indirectly in that firm deserve the same?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
And that's why I say that you should actually keep some money in either dollars (savings accounts like 401K is ok, but I mean liquid accounts), or gold/silver. because things like this can happen. and you KNOW that those two businesses should have apparently failed, from your findings. You actually kind of helped my case. NO government money should have gone into the private sector like that. It's precisely unconstitutional. BUT the way they got around it is by using the Federal Reserve, a private bank. That's the only way they got around it. It is immoral what they did, for one thing. Stealing from the public to give it to a few banks/institutions and their members. Once this system collapses, we'll have to go back to our American roots, it's the only way.