rmptr
Silver Member
Time to send 'em home & chain the doors?
Here's another clip from Ilargi.
If this article is true, the bank has failed to serve us well and we should shut it down. IMO
In the US in the 19th century, there were several attempts at establishing a central bank; all failed. After the economic crash of 1907, voices once more were raised to try again. One of the pivotal arguments behind the scheme was that the devastation caused by the crash was a direct result of the fact that politicians had too much influence on the topic of banking and financial policy, while they had far too little knowledge in the field.
Therefore, a central bank, it was argued, had to be independent from Washington, and its directors should be private bankers instead of elected political representatives of the people. Bankers knew the field much better, which would lower the risks of another crash, and they would not abuse their financial powers for political ends.
To fully assure its independence, the prospective central bank was made responsible for "printing" all of the nation’s money as well, and would be paid a 6% interest rate over all money it issued. These provisions exist to this day.
Despite a lingering and deeply seated suspicion of the bankers, the Federal Reserve Act was pushed through Congress in 1913 when most members had already left for Christmas recess. The Federal Reserve system is not federal, since it’s not part of the government; that would have prevented the very independence that was the stated goal. It’s owned and controlled by a group of banking families, who each hold a set number of -untradable- shares.
Forward to today: one of the main objectives of the Federal Reserve was to ensure the nation’s currency would be stable. Since the US dollar has lost about 95% of its value since 1913, it’s obvious that the central bank has failed that objective to an astonishing extent.
More relevant, though, for the present day, is that the US economy is a complete wreck (or maybe "roadkill" is a better term). Existing debts for businesses, governments and individuals alike are at levels that can only be done justice by labeling them "insane". This situation has built up over decades. And no matter where you stand, there’s no way you can defend this as being the product of a sound financial policy.
When it comes to both housing and financial markets, it is very obvious, and has been for a long time, that levels of borrowing, available credit and leverage are very unhealthy for the economy. The Federal Reserve, which is after all the very institution that has access to more data and numbers than any other entity in the country, was the one party that could have halted this development, at any point through the years. Every single day, thousands of them, it could have intervened. It never did.
On the contrary, interest rates were lowered below inflation rates for years, and Alan Greenspan repeatedly encouraged people to go out, get a cheap "creative" mortgage at low interest, and buy a home (an initiative that had nothing to do with his job description). He equally endorsed the proliferation of new financial instruments, such as mortgage backed securities, swaps and various derivatives, claiming (no, really) that they were taking the negative risk out of the markets.
We don’t have to answer the question whether Greenspan was too dumb to understand what his public enthusiasm for these new-found instruments would cause, or whether he intentionally misled his audiences. We just need to acknowledge that he left behind a gigantic mess.
And that brings us to what started off this diatribe. The same calls for "independence" and "strength" that led to establishing the Federal Reserve are once again in fashion. Congress is about to hand over even more powers to the central bank that is beyond the control of the American people. The mess we’re in, say the pundits, as they did in 1912, is a result of the Federal Reserve not having enough power over the American economy, not the opposite.
Is there really such an ironclad guarantee that handing over the last little bits of control over your economy to a group of private bankers will solve the problems? Does anyone ever consider the idea that they are the cause of the problems? Could it be that perhaps their interests are different from those of the American people?
Why is the idea so strong and persistent that the Fed works tirelessly and incessantly for the happiness and wealth of US citizens? What proof is there of that? Have you taken a look at the numbers lately? And if you did, what makes you think they will improve by giving more power to the institution that was established explicitly to prevent those numbers from ever occurring?
I’m curious to see the logic.
PS: Fannie and Freddie are down another 25%. Time to send for the priest.
<eof>
This certainly affects each and every one of us, and the future of our children...
I'd really like to see at least a comment from everyone who has taken the time to read this.
Best
Here's another clip from Ilargi.
If this article is true, the bank has failed to serve us well and we should shut it down. IMO
In the US in the 19th century, there were several attempts at establishing a central bank; all failed. After the economic crash of 1907, voices once more were raised to try again. One of the pivotal arguments behind the scheme was that the devastation caused by the crash was a direct result of the fact that politicians had too much influence on the topic of banking and financial policy, while they had far too little knowledge in the field.
Therefore, a central bank, it was argued, had to be independent from Washington, and its directors should be private bankers instead of elected political representatives of the people. Bankers knew the field much better, which would lower the risks of another crash, and they would not abuse their financial powers for political ends.
To fully assure its independence, the prospective central bank was made responsible for "printing" all of the nation’s money as well, and would be paid a 6% interest rate over all money it issued. These provisions exist to this day.
Despite a lingering and deeply seated suspicion of the bankers, the Federal Reserve Act was pushed through Congress in 1913 when most members had already left for Christmas recess. The Federal Reserve system is not federal, since it’s not part of the government; that would have prevented the very independence that was the stated goal. It’s owned and controlled by a group of banking families, who each hold a set number of -untradable- shares.
Forward to today: one of the main objectives of the Federal Reserve was to ensure the nation’s currency would be stable. Since the US dollar has lost about 95% of its value since 1913, it’s obvious that the central bank has failed that objective to an astonishing extent.
More relevant, though, for the present day, is that the US economy is a complete wreck (or maybe "roadkill" is a better term). Existing debts for businesses, governments and individuals alike are at levels that can only be done justice by labeling them "insane". This situation has built up over decades. And no matter where you stand, there’s no way you can defend this as being the product of a sound financial policy.
When it comes to both housing and financial markets, it is very obvious, and has been for a long time, that levels of borrowing, available credit and leverage are very unhealthy for the economy. The Federal Reserve, which is after all the very institution that has access to more data and numbers than any other entity in the country, was the one party that could have halted this development, at any point through the years. Every single day, thousands of them, it could have intervened. It never did.
On the contrary, interest rates were lowered below inflation rates for years, and Alan Greenspan repeatedly encouraged people to go out, get a cheap "creative" mortgage at low interest, and buy a home (an initiative that had nothing to do with his job description). He equally endorsed the proliferation of new financial instruments, such as mortgage backed securities, swaps and various derivatives, claiming (no, really) that they were taking the negative risk out of the markets.
We don’t have to answer the question whether Greenspan was too dumb to understand what his public enthusiasm for these new-found instruments would cause, or whether he intentionally misled his audiences. We just need to acknowledge that he left behind a gigantic mess.
And that brings us to what started off this diatribe. The same calls for "independence" and "strength" that led to establishing the Federal Reserve are once again in fashion. Congress is about to hand over even more powers to the central bank that is beyond the control of the American people. The mess we’re in, say the pundits, as they did in 1912, is a result of the Federal Reserve not having enough power over the American economy, not the opposite.
Is there really such an ironclad guarantee that handing over the last little bits of control over your economy to a group of private bankers will solve the problems? Does anyone ever consider the idea that they are the cause of the problems? Could it be that perhaps their interests are different from those of the American people?
Why is the idea so strong and persistent that the Fed works tirelessly and incessantly for the happiness and wealth of US citizens? What proof is there of that? Have you taken a look at the numbers lately? And if you did, what makes you think they will improve by giving more power to the institution that was established explicitly to prevent those numbers from ever occurring?
I’m curious to see the logic.
PS: Fannie and Freddie are down another 25%. Time to send for the priest.
<eof>
This certainly affects each and every one of us, and the future of our children...
I'd really like to see at least a comment from everyone who has taken the time to read this.
Best
