Romney or Obama?

[John Snowstorm]

Is English your second language perchance?

[Agronaut]

lol waht ever grammar nazi

no i just dont bother with punctuation when i type.

[Kemia]

But isn't voting Republican or Democrat the same thing that we've been doing over and over again, expecting change?

it does not matter who we vote for, the one who prints the money is who is in charge, and i dont see any government printing money or controlling it. I see banks that do that.

::::EDIT::::I.E. such as the federal reserve which is a private bank not owned by the american government or its people..::::EDIT::::

[Agronaut]

its been that way since 1913. cash was more for ease to carry then anything else. gold was heavy and you needed to carry scales if you were a buisness man. big scam back then was grinding of some gold arround the eges of the coin. thats why you still see ridges on coins today.back then they used bank notes one of my little hobbies is collecting bank notes from back then

you cant really go back to the gold standard. there is to much economy now , trying to hold that much gold reserve would be imposible.

me i like sliver and have a bunch of it. the new tech thats pouring out uses silver so the prices are flying high and will stay there or go even higher. gold on the other hand is being driven mostly by speculation lack of faith in the economy. so just as high as it is now it could come tumbling down at anytime.

[octobrev]

The dollar isn't even backed by gold anymore it's backed by faith. And you're right that the fed reserve is privately owned :<

[barbrolie]

The dollar isn't even backed by gold anymore it's backed by faith. And you're right that the fed reserve is privately owned :<

I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy but the fed is not privately owned.

[octobrev]

is + min 3 characters

[John Snowstorm]

lol

lol waht ever grammar nazi

no i just dont bother with punctuation when i type.

Yup, you sure don't bother with punctuation..... or spelling, or capitalisation, or grammar, or even using the correct words.

w/ regards gold standard; you don't have to go back to a gold standard, and it would be ruinous to do so. However, in simple terms, if the people that print the money want it back with interest, the system is obviously doomed to failure and debt spiral as there is more debt than money in existence.

I love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy but the fed is not privately owned.

w/ regards the fed; it was originally set up to prevent financial "panics"

how'd that work out for you?

They are a semi governmental organisation in that the president appoints the governors, but they are crucially independent of the government when setting monetary policy, the whole idea was to find a compromise between centralised policy making of government and private interests of the banking sector. The fed has stock, the stock is owned by private banks, and they receive dividends on it, ie. it runs for profit and is owned by private banks.

The Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (1978) made it so that the Fed may be audited by the Government Accountability Office, but crucially this audit mandate excludes "deliberations, decisions, or actions on monetary policy matters"

[barbrolie]

The fed has stock, the stock is owned by private banks, and they receive dividends on it, ie. it runs for profit and is owned by private banks.

Two things. First, the Fed is different from the Federal Reserve Banks, both of which are part of the Federal Reserve System.

The Fed has no stock, the Federal Reserve Banks do have stock. They are, however, not run for "profit".

Second, owning stock is a condition of a bank to be part of the federal reserve system. Each member bank deposits a sum of money with the federal reserve system to prevent runs on the banks, though, of course, such runs can still happen. The banks lose interest, in theory, for the money that is held with the fed.

In exchange for the money held with the fed, the banks own "stock", which unlike regular stock, does not give ownership rights over the fed. All that the stock does is provide a basis for ownership of the dividend payments, which are made based on the amount of stock held, which is based on the amount of money kept as security with the fed.

So, the dividend is basically part compensation for the interest lost by banks due to the requirement that they keep reserves within the federal reserve system.

So no. The Fed is not privately owned. Neither is the Federal Reserve Bank.

[Agronaut]

octo wow you not only repeated 2 people you even manged to misunderstand them. sorry but i think the drugs are having long term effects.

John Snowstorm, your just reading stuff of wiki so give it up. your post was almost word for word.


if you want to know what wrong with the banks and the economy ,its simple. people spend stupid, they buy crap they dont need and pay alot of interest for it. probably 70% of the population does it. new cars every 3 or 4 years paying high prices then taking a bigger loss when they trade in. dont even get me started on home buying. hell i have money i drive a new impala, sure i could afford more. its called living within your means and not racking up debt , thats why i dont have any debt.

[John Snowstorm]

Two things. First, the Fed is different from the Federal Reserve Banks, both of which are part of the Federal Reserve System.

The Fed has no stock, the Federal Reserve Banks do have stock. They are, however, not run for "profit".

Second, owning stock is a condition of a bank to be part of the federal reserve system. Each member bank deposits a sum of money with the federal reserve system to prevent runs on the banks, though, of course, such runs can still happen. The banks lose interest, in theory, for the money that is held with the fed.

In exchange for the money held with the fed, the banks own "stock", which unlike regular stock, does not give ownership rights over the fed. All that the stock does is provide a basis for ownership of the dividend payments, which are made based on the amount of stock held, which is based on the amount of money kept as security with the fed.

So, the dividend is basically part compensation for the interest lost by banks due to the requirement that they keep reserves within the federal reserve system.

So no. The Fed is not privately owned. Neither is the Federal Reserve Bank.

It has stock, it pays dividends, the fact the stock is different from regular publicly traded stock and is only open to a select group doesn't change anything.

I didn't say it was the exact same as regular private business, I said it is quasi private, it governs monetary policy independently of the executive or legislative branches of government, the government holds none of its stock which is entirely held by private banks. You can fudge around with this all you like but the fact is that monetary policy is not controlled by the elected government.

The damn thing was set up to be quasi private, you can go read the premises for setting it up.

And that's not to even start on the conflicts of interests that are apparently taken as wrote with the fed.

John Snowstorm, your just reading stuff of wiki so give it up. your post was almost word for word.

This amused me since I didn't go anywhere near wikipedia and having run a google search on my paragraph it doesn't match whats in the wiki article at all. Ofc it's going to have some of the same key words, that's the nature of the topic. lol.

A poor attempt at invalidating points so that you don't have to address them.

[barbrolie]

It has stock, it pays dividends, the fact the stock is different from regular publicly traded stock and is only open to a select group doesn't change anything.

It does. The "dividend" is a reimbursement of sorts. It is not a distribution of profit. That is a big difference.

I didn't say it was the exact same as regular private business, I said it is quasi private, it governs monetary policy independently of the executive or legislative branches of government, the government holds none of its stock which is entirely held by private banks. You can fudge around with this all you like but the fact is that monetary policy is not controlled by the elected government.

There is good reason for the elected government to not control monetary policy. Otherwise right before elections, guess who will be printing money?

You are right in that the job of the fed, amongst other things, is to maintain profitability and sustainability of the private banking systems. And even though you didn't mention it, it is true that 6 out of the 9 board members of the Federal Reserve Bank are chosen by private banks. But these members do not have an influence on the monetary policy, which comes from the Fed.

The government owns no stock because the Fed doesn't hold any government security. Since the stock is essentially a receipt saying "we received your money, thanks" the government doesn't need to hold stock.

The damn thing was set up to be quasi private, you can go read the premises for setting it up.

And that's not to even start on the conflicts of interests that are apparently taken as wrote with the fed.

You are partially right. It was set up to be largely independent of "government" and it was expected that it would work closely with private banks. Doesn't make it private. It is still very much a public institution that maintains the health of the fiscal system by setting and executing monetary policy. And if you view the recent recession as a result of bad fiscal policy, it isn't. It was a failure of federal oversight on the financial system, not bad macroeconomics on the part of the Fed.

[John Snowstorm]

It does. The "dividend" is a reimbursement of sorts. It is not a distribution of profit. That is a big difference.

All dividends are reimbursement, you're just playing semantics. I have shares in a glass company, the dividends I receive are both a distribution of profits AND a reimbursement for my investment. The difference is, the fed pays out a 6% dividend by law every year, perhaps not astoundingly profitable by wall street or hedge fund standards but a surefire guaranteed 6% payout is huge. I'd take it. lol.

If you really think banks need compensation above and beyond the rewards they reap from receiving huge fed loans at next to no interest, approved by their own CEOs who are on the board, then we have a fundamental disagreement which I don't think is likely to be resolved.

There is good reason for the elected government to not control monetary policy. Otherwise right before elections, guess who will be printing money?

Which is so much better than bankers printing money to give themselves interest free loans. You're assuming the fed isn't riddled with conflicts of interest.

The government owns no stock because the Fed doesn't hold any government security. Since the stock is essentially a receipt saying "we received your money, thanks" the government doesn't need to hold stock.

All stock are receipts saying thanks for the cash.

You are partially right. It was set up to be largely independent of "government" and it was expected that it would work closely with private banks. Doesn't make it private. It is still very much a public institution that maintains the health of the fiscal system by setting and executing monetary policy. And if you view the recent recession as a result of bad fiscal policy, it isn't. It was a failure of federal oversight on the financial system, not bad macroeconomics on the part of the Fed.

That is a different discussion, which I may agree with you on, however that is not what I am saying.

If you have a group which is not controlled, or even accountable to, the executive or legislative branches of government, who's stock is owned by private entities who sit on the board of that group then it is a farce to claim that it is "very much a public institution". A few presidential appointments a public institution does not make.

[barbrolie]

All dividends are reimbursement, you're just playing semantics. I have shares in a glass company, the dividends I receive are both a distribution of profits AND a reimbursement for my investment. The difference is, the fed pays out a 6% dividend by law every year, perhaps not astoundingly profitable by wall street or hedge fund standards but a surefire guaranteed 6% payout is huge. I'd take it. lol.

Except that the 6% return is a cap, not the required dividend. And there is a difference between making a return on your investment and being compensated for lost interest.

The idea of being paid a lease rate as compensation for lost interest on money held as security is not restricted to the Fed. All risk-mitigating structures within the financial system do this.

If you really think banks need compensation above and beyond the rewards they reap from receiving huge fed loans at next to no interest, approved by their own CEOs who are on the board, then we have a fundamental disagreement which I don't think is likely to be resolved.

The cheap loans the banks get is how money supply is increased within the economy. You can argue that this is not the best way to do that, but it seems that people who spend their lives studying this very question haven't come up with a better way.

Which is so much better than bankers printing money to give themselves interest free loans. You're assuming the fed isn't riddled with conflicts of interest.

You are mixing up the roles of the United States Treasury and the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve Banks. These three are different. I can't really respond to you till this difference is cleared up.

All stock are receipts saying thanks for the cash.

But in this case the stocks do not grant you ownership, and they form a basis for the amount of interest loss that the member bank makes.

If you have a group which is not controlled, or even accountable to, the executive or legislative branches of government, who's stock is owned by private entities who sit on the board of that group then it is a farce to claim that it is "very much a public institution". A few presidential appointments a public institution does not make.

The Federal Reserve system has only presidentially nominated people on its board. The Federal Reserve Banks have some government and some private appointees. However, the members of the federal reserve banks are designed to be in a minority in any voting that happens, and the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System are in the majority.

[barbrolie]

If you have a group which is not controlled, or even accountable to, the executive or legislative branches of government, who's stock is owned by private entities who sit on the board of that group then it is a farce to claim that it is "very much a public institution". A few presidential appointments a public institution does not make.

This link might help. http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/fl...flaherty4.html