It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Make Your Argument For Why The Fed Is Bad

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I know this is a HUGE issue with most ATSers, Ron Paul supporters, and tea-party supporters. It's definitely an issue that hits home with most Americans. It's been talked to death here on ATS, and the subject of several popular conspiracy videos on Youtube. But is any of it justified?

When I first learned about the Fed, fractional reserve banking, fiat currency, etc, I thought it was a huge scam. I still do, to some degree, but I'm more interested in what you think. I have four questions I would like anyone who is for abolishing the Fed to answer, so I can better understand your position:

  1. What is it about the Fed, specifically, that is so bad?
  2. What institution would we replace the Fed with?
  3. How would the economy function without a fiat currency & flexible money supply?
  4. If the money supply was a zero-sum game, what would happen if dollars weren't recycled back into the American economy (or money was simply horded)?

If you are Pro-Federal Reserve, I would like to know your thoughts on how the Fed is helping the economy.

Please, discuss!




posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Why create another thread to rehash what has already been discussed?

The banksters are criminals. What more do you need to know!



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Because other countries are able to print their own money.

This means they do not let a private company print their money for interest.

Just like the income tax, the United States functioned for over 100 years without it.

If a central bank was needed, the founding fathers would have spoken highly of it, yet instead they expressly forbid it.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
Because other countries are able to print their own money.

This means they do not let a private company print their money for interest.

Just like the income tax, the United States functioned for over 100 years without it.

If a central bank was needed, the founding fathers would have spoken highly of it, yet instead they expressly forbid it.



Also add how it was "brought to life".... downright despicable and illegal. I would expect this from "Today's politicians"

www.jekyllexperience.com...


On the evening of November 22, 1910, Sen. Aldrich and A.P. Andrews (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Department), Paul Warburg (a naturalized German representing Baron Alfred Rothschild's Kuhn, Loeb & Co.), Frank Vanderlip (president of the National City Bank of New York), Henry P. Davison (senior partner of J. P. Morgan Company), Charles D. Norton (president of the Morgan-dominated First National Bank of New York), and Benjamin Strong (representing J. P. Morgan), left Hoboken, New Jersey on a train in view of a group of confused reporters, who were wondering why these bankers, representing about one-sixth of the world's wealth, were gathering at this particular place and time and leaving together.


populistamerica.newsvine.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I have a very simple reason. The decisions they make have a profound effect on our daily lives, but we don't vote for them so they are not held accountable to us.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Ok, well, not to be disrespectful to anyone -- but none of you have made a very convincing argument for why the Fed should be abolished.

I think most of the anti-fed talk is just hyped rhetoric.

Maybe there are good reasons to dispose of the Federal Reserve. I haven't seen any in this thread. And to be honest, I don't see convincing proof of any of the conspiracies surrounding the Fed.

I'm sorry, but youtube conspiracy videos just aren't proof enough for me.

It's also worth pointing out that a lot of people around the world use USD for currency.

What would really happen if we went on a gold standard? If we couldn't create more money, I see that as a zero sum game, which means banks just don't work anymore. Is that the best way to grow an economy?

And if we did manage to make more money, it would all have to be based on gold -- a worthless metal who's sole qualification for being valuable seems to be it's shinyness. Well, to be fair, it's relatively rare as well. But mostly shiny.

Besides, the last thing you want is a significant portion of resources being put into digging gold out of the ground, building huge storage vaults, and surrounding them with armed guards and barbed wire fences. It's much easier to just fiddle on a computer and magically write in the amount of currency you need to create



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 




As one poster mentioned, this doesn't need to be discussed any further. You in your own post bring up the most pertinent issues such as fractional reserve banking. But the issues you highlight are only the gross byproducts of an originally corrupt system that was forced upon us.


The ultimate sin of the Federal Reserve is the fact that they print money and attach a debt to it. Where as, we could print our OWN money, and attach NO debt it. It's a very simple concept.

The fact that it is a physical impossibility to ever pay the interest off highlights the fact that the entire thing is a scam.

Additionally, because they print the money and are never audited, who's to say while you are at work slaving 8 hours a day to scrape together $40,000 a year... they aren't in the back room at the fed printing money for themselves, friends, etc?

Wait a minute, why am I even repeating all the obvious answers that anyone could discover if they bothered to look. This isn't an opinion thread, it's an "im bored, let's talk about nothing" thread.

(not to mention that your second post is filled with illogical reasoning, and pointless comments which reflect your inexperience with the subject)




What would really happen if we went on a gold standard? If we couldn't create more money, I see that as a zero sum game, which means banks just don't work anymore. Is that the best way to grow an economy?

And if we did manage to make more money, it would all have to be based on gold -- a worthless metal who's sole qualification for being valuable seems to be it's shinyness. Well, to be fair, it's relatively rare as well. But mostly shiny.

Besides, the last thing you want is a significant portion of resources being put into digging gold out of the ground, building huge storage vaults, and surrounding them with armed guards and barbed wire fences. It's much easier to just fiddle on a computer and magically write in the amount of currency you need to create


HEY LOOK I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT! YAY LETS MAKE A THREAD!

Furthermore... not to be disrespectful to anyone, but every single person who has commented on this thread has made a much more valid point for abolishing the fed, than you have made for preserving the fed. Get a grip?

[edit on 23-7-2009 by king9072]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg


  1. What is it about the Fed, specifically, that is so bad?
  2. What institution would we replace the Fed with?
  3. How would the economy function without a fiat currency & flexible money supply?
  4. If the money supply was a zero-sum game, what would happen if dollars weren't recycled back into the American economy (or money was simply horded)?



Holy smoke!

I hope some of our resident experts chime in!

I can't answer all your questions directly, because I am not technically educated enough to go into the kind of detail I suspect you'd like (you're not kidding about this being a huge topic!)
----------------------------------------------
What is it about the Fed, specifically, that is so bad?

First off. the whole issue of 'bad' as it applies to the Federal Reserve Bank (the infamous one) is tricky. We're I to put myself in the shoes of a theoretical "owner" of the Fed (and YES there are real life "owners" of the Fed for those who think it's just a corporate shell game) - I might be inclined to think of it as the proverbial "goose that lays golden eggs."

The problem that faces these genuinely 'elite' supranational entities is the unrelenting pressure to suck the system dry at the highest rate possible. Thus continuously exacerbating the open wound from which they feed parasitically (from the common wealth.)

Ultimately, the main irritant of the smooth flowing of economic systems is the power to control it - without exception - it is manipulated by them to increase and maintain the flow of revenue to themselves. The more the better, the faster the better. As in the fable of the golden goose, the greedy will inevitably kill it.

However, since the "ownership" of the world's currency (yes I said world) is restricted to a tiny fraction of the population; the perspective of the 'cattle' or as they like to call us the 'human resource' is much more commonly experienced.

For every cent these 'middlemen' suck from the economy, we lose twice. Once because it was the wealth generated by human effort which is going not to it's destination, but to them; and the second as a portion of the wealth meant to arrive at it's destination was lost in transit.

Fractional reserve lending, that medieval practice of the sin of usury in mathematically inverted form, has been cemented into policy by an organization, or more properly a 'person,' in the form of a corporate citizen, since the earliest history of 'money trading.' Everywhere it is exposed, rational people, decry the base cruelty of the privilege. And nearly every form of 'government' has coddled and protected its very existence, not daring to even attempt to envision a world without it. As if THAT would be the sin.

Bad is a poor choice of description, unless we were speaking to children, who can't yet comprehend what that means.

I think the Federal Reserve is actually not ONE entity at all. Whatever corporate and legalistic facade is presented, it appears that the existence of a supranational financial cartel is a reality, and the Fed is simply one tentacle of the beast, or one strand of the web.
----------------------------------------------

What institution would we replace the Fed with?

I am not certain we could replace it at all. In fact, we may not need to replace it.

If the country produced it's own currency and abandoned the model that creates instant growing debt for every dollar produced, the well-spring of abuse may be controllable by a genuine systemic regulatory model with public oversight.

It probably wouldn't be pretty. The question of what the difference between "price" and "cost" would become a true social issue. People would have to contend with the true nature of 'reasonable profit.' Let's face reality, people are all for not getting ripped off, but when you stop them ripping off their prey, it's most often taken personally.

We have numerous cartels and cabals within the corporate tier of citizenship. That used to not be a problem when corporations were still regulated by liability. But now, corporations are "persons," and along with their tremendous resources and influences, have all the rights and privileges of any bonafide citizen. With all their influence and associations and institutions, and partnerships, they have secured rights above and beyond us regular 'citizens'. The legal maneuver was quite clever.

This is not a small issue. It is the reason the Fed and most other quasi-political and quasi-governmental entities fail to adhere to the mandate of social justice.

Removing the monetary policy-making power from the charter of the Fed, renders the Fed useless as an instrument of capitalistic exploitation. I suggest that if we were to revoke the Fed's charter, or more radical still, eliminate - or at least drastically regulate (and I mean draconian) the limits of 'fractional reserve' lending - the Fed would dissolve itself.

(I must confess the conspiracy theorist in me tends to imagine that the interests behind the Central Reserve Banking system would likely do everything -and anything - in their power to destroy any such effort.)

I guess that doesn't really answer your question; but I can't get much closer to an imaginary replacement without more information... I do not profess to be any kind of expert in these matters.

----------------------------------------------

How would the economy function without a fiat currency & flexible money supply?

The same way we did while the country wasn't being exploited by robber barons. We would find that we are strong, and that our freedom to use our own resources fairly and with intentional stewardship was wrongly removed.

Of course, that casts a nasty pall over the 'representatives' of the time, when it was 'determined' that we needed a "Federal Reserve Bank" which of course justified the "need" for the private corporation we call the IRS.

----------------------------------------------

If the money supply was a zero-sum game, what would happen if dollars weren't recycled back into the American economy (or money was simply horded)?

I confess that this question merits a ton of time and effort - and I'm ashamed to admit I have been overly verbose (sigh) and am running out of space....

Suffice to say, from a very narrow perspective EVERYTHING is a zero-sum game. If we have solid backing for our currency, the issue of not recycling the supply would be a non-issue.


Be well. Please feel free to correct any missteps of reason you may have encountered. Much of what I have stated is my current state of perception, with new facts comes new perspectives. So let's hear what everyone else has to say.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


Make an argument or GTFO.

This isn't a "lets insult people" kind of thread. If you are incapable of citing real facts, or making coherent, logical statements, then there is no need for you to post anything.


The Fed's interest bearing debt is payed for by selling more debt. As long as the debt increases, the money supply increases, and there are more dollars to go around. That's called monetary inflation, NOT price inflation. The two are not always related.

Also, no bank anywhere works without fractional reserve lending. That's a must for banks -- and as i've pointed out on other "fed threads," (which are about as chalk full of no information as this thread, so far) if you get rid of fractional reserve lending, your savings account stops accruing interest. So if you want to get rid of FRL, you're also trying to get rid of interest payments on a savings account.

Come on, lets get some real "Fed Heads" on here to explain why the Fed is bad, with some kind of proof. Otherwise, it's all just dumb "group think."



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
JFK....possibly our last real president. Obama is NO JFK. not even close...not in his dreams.

But as for the question of the OP....

Inflation....inflation...inflation.....bubbles...bubbles...bubbles....control...control...control.

I could get into detail as I have 100's of times...but I know that others's will take to it as many are highly educated on the workings of the Federal Reserve here...which is awesome I might add.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Thanks for the reply, Maxmars.

I've done a fair amount of research on the Fed, and there doesn't seem to be a massive conspiracy surrounding it. I mean, maybe there is, but the only place you can find any evidence of this conspiracy is on Youtube. That makes me not trust the conspiracy theorists. If you read the official documents about the Fed, supposedly it actually nets a small profit for the treasury on an annual basis. That small profit is the ONLY profit made by the institution -- and it's all given to the treasury. Or so the official documents say.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 


I too have seen the documents. But there are two paradigms we we are accepting 'defacto'.

1 - Suppose I were to tell you that our business grossed 1 million this fiscal period. And my salary and bonuses come to 900,000.

Profit would be 100,000, even though we are a million dollar business.

Simplistic the example may be, but the point is, 'profit' has become a malleable measure, and we can't be certain that we are privy to it's actual definition.

Many times the question I have relates to the reporting tools we should be demanding of the Fed. But there charter is of their own design, they are no fools.

2 - There are books, and there are books. The facts we see reported, are they real? How can we actually know? Lying to us would be quite easy to do, especially if there is a true global conspiracy. It may seem paranoid to think so, but it is just as reasonable to presume that it is naive to think otherwise.

There are too many presumption necessary to accept that the Fed is not responsible for numerous anomalies in the behavior of the monetary system. The malady is on a global scale, and the issues similar in all nations with Central Banks; all of which are subordinate in policy to the International Settlement bank, and it's political arms, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

I would love to discuss this further, but I think your mind is set on granting the Fed the benefit of the doubt. Good for you. Your mind is made up.

Personally, I disagree with your apparent perspective. No disrespect intended, but if you believe that the trust in the Federal Reserve System and in Central Banking based on fractional reserve lending in general isn't misplaced, your not likely to agree that lending shouldn't be a source of revenue; investment should be a source of revenue. To make lending a source of profit, above and beyond the true 'cost' lending, is to invite usury and embolden the abuses that have led us to this territory we are in now. Illusory derivatives, questionable financial vehicles, rampant 'gambling' on arbitrary performance metrics, all lead to the dysfunction of economies and the enabling of the predator-prey relationship in the model.

By the way, what interest I see from my bank account represents a tiny fraction of the interest the institution is making. Practically infinitesimal. And yet it is not a net gain, since we deal in debt, "reserve" notes, not money. They are arbitrary representations of nonexistent conceptual obligations - imposed upon us as a nation by the whim of a singular collection of parasitic opportunists.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   


What is it about the Fed, specifically, that is so bad?


Unconstitutional.



What institution would we replace the Fed with?


Congress.



How would the economy function without a fiat currency & flexible money supply?


Fiat Currency simply implies "Command" .. Our Government says this piece of cotton/paper is worth x amount, then through economic policy (supply) dictates it's worth (faith). Most currencies are backed by the countries ability to produce economically..

Gold is in fact a Fiat Currency. Just another form. It is subject to the same inflation/deflation .. only difference is generally speaking you cannot run deficits with Gold.. you can however run massive Deflation by shrinking your Gold supplies. If America were to rely on Gold, with a Negative trade balance, we would be bankrupt before the year was out.



If the money supply was a zero-sum game, what would happen if dollars weren't recycled back into the American economy (or money was simply horded)?


High-saving rates usually lead to limited consumerism, as the US's GDP is 70% Consumerism, this would lead to Deflation .. as demand would drop considerably, thus prices, leading to production cuts, resulting in massive layoffs. From October 2008-current day America has had the highest levels of savings in the past 50 years, while consumerism has been at historic lows.. resulting in dropping prices (exclude volatile commodities), massive production cuts and astronomical lay offs.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 


The Founding Fathers were actually split down the middle .. half wanted a Central Bank, half wanted Private banks. Jeffersonian philosophy one, and Government was kept out of banking affairs, while Congress in accord with the Constitution created the currency. Sadly this resulted in eventually a Private banking cartel being the Central Bank.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Why? BEcause they have the power to impose martail law on us all, and are most likely alundering money. They print and send money to all the damn banks, and to toher countrys and we the poeple see not one penny of it all. not 1 penny. other contrys do print thier own money, as anohter member here posted. The fed is giving away money at our expense mind you, to benefit thier culture and way of lif, leaving us to fend n starve for ourselves. Thats only the tip of the iceburg why the fed sucks.
Paulsona nd berneke dont wnat the fed audited. Dosnt sound like too y you like thiers lots of stuff were not suposed to jknow about>? and its OUR money!



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
FEderal reserve is BIG business, and big business is not honest at all. i work in business, and its run like the mafia and ghestoppo rolled into one. its all about makig money, treating the employees like crap, so the upper CEOS can make millions, then boot yuor arse out the door. business is NOT honest, and never till the end of time will it be. Federal reseve is abusiness i rest my case.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 




If the money supply was a zero-sum game, what would happen if dollars weren't recycled back into the American economy (or money was simply horded)?


It should also be noted that not every Dollar created stays in circulation. Dollars are eventually destroyed by the Mints that create them. "Digital Funds" created by the Federal Reserve (which never go beyond numbers on a computer screen) are often recycled as well .. The Federal Reserve for instance will "recycle" the "debt" that they buy from the Treasury. This is called "Monetizing Debt" .. Simply creating money from the central bank to fund the government. When the debts mature, a portion is given to the Treasury, while a portion is by all technical means "destroyed". The Federal Reserve being nothing more than a Regulatory institution cannot hold physical assets (hence the various 'lane' corporations built to own the debts and bad assets from the banks) .. thus the Federal Reserve cannot technically "profit" from anything.. it can only loose money .. or monetize it. That's not to say the system is not vastly corrupt.. the Regulatory oversight of the bank regulates the individual banks that bank up the Reserve.. banks running banks, that's never good. The result is institutional corruption, and an economic policy that favors the massive banking cartels before it favors the American people.

This is actually grossly unconstitutional, as Inflation (monetizing the debts) is an indirect tax, and requires direct Congressional / Treasury approval, as technically speaking monetizing debt is the creation of fictional Dollars, and the Constitution specifically dictates on Congress may increase the money supply.

EDIT: Eventually all that money the Fed has monetized or handed out to banks will have to be "called in" .. If not it risks a huge inflationary problem .. just as the Fed had to create money to lubricate the economy, to prevent it from running away they will need to withdraw some of the money supply. The big question is "How much and When" .. If you do it to soon the system collapses through Deflation. Do it to late and not enough, you risk high levels of inflation that may or may not be containable..

[edit on 7/23/2009 by Rockpuck]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Don't you know?

There is NO money in the Federal Reserve. Nada. Zippo!

No one can get into the Federal Reserve to check them out because it does not house and gold or silver or copper.

It's only used for biochemical warfare. You know, all these incurable viruses that are created in labs? That is what it's for.

HIV/AIDS, Bird flu, Swine flu, whatever is next.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Thanks for the well-put replies, I appreciate it, truly.

It really seems like the monetizing debt process isn't corrupt, per say, it's just a way to make more money without having anyone on the open market purchase it (suck on that, China.
).

My take on the Fed is that it was designed to Cartellize the banks (probably with heavy lobbying by the biggest of the big banks in America). I don't think the Fed is hording any money, or stealing, or whatever. I think they're acting on behalf of Citi, JPM, BAC, GS, etc, to force all the banks in America to comply to a set of standards that helps these mega-banks make as much money as possible, while keeping the economy in relatively healthy shape.

I mean if the Fed is owned by some secret cabal of shareholders (which the first bank of America WAS, as indicated by Jackson's Bank of America veto speech, but I don't think the Fed is), they would have enough money by now to buy every industry in America twice over.

That just doesn't seem feasible. Maybe I'm wrong? But I don't see any evidence that there is a global cabal of bankers that control everything.

Maybe I'm wrong. But if I am wrong about the cabal of bankers, it has nothing to do with the Fed. It's because we don't know how/why/where they are manipulating the world economy.

Just my 2 cents. The Fed is looking like more hype than anything else, to me.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 




It really seems like the monetizing debt process isn't corrupt, per say, it's just a way to make more money without having anyone on the open market purchase it (suck on that, China.).


Very wrong.. here is why. When we Monetize our own debts, we basically inflate our currency, reducing it's value. This hurts countries like China, Japan, Europe etc who buy our debt. The debt they purchased is eventually worth less than when they invested it, as inflation out strips interest rates. It also decreases the Dollar, making international trade more profitable for American companies, while more expensive for our importers. Do you know why the World is calling for a new reserve currency? .. Because by injecting trillions of dollars into the economy and monetizing hundreds of billions worth of Tbills, we rendered many Nation's investments in us worthless.



to force all the banks in America to comply to a set of standards that helps these mega-banks make as much money as possible, while keeping the economy in relatively healthy shape.


Except that they have been working to de-regulate the Banking sector, in order to produce "Bubbles" which don't keep the economy healthy as much as it is putting the economy on steroids to prevent it's death. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, America has been a Consumer Nation, with negative trade balance and producing little to nothing. An astounding 70% of our GDP is internal circulation of wealth, not wealth generation. The outcome will be someday, eventually, the smoke and mirrors will vanish and a massive financial crater will be left in it's wake, and we will go the way the Soviet Union did.



they would have enough money by now to buy every industry in America twice over.


no one "owns" the Federal Reserve, however, the banks that make up the Federal Reserve DO have shareholders, and as the banks run the Reserve, the bank's shareholders indirectly influence the Reserve.. Do they have enough money to buy every industry? when we look at mega banks like BoA, Chase and goldman and how they have been manipulating the markets, "Taking the companies for a ride" so to speak, injecting a hostile volatility we can assume that while they may not be able to "buy" all our industries, they can manipulate and crash our entire economy on a whim. Which they have.

When we first said "No" to the bailouts, the investment banks dumped there funds, as promised, as a "see what we can do" to the Congress.



That just doesn't seem feasible. Maybe I'm wrong? But I don't see any evidence that there is a global cabal of bankers that control everything.


Almost every car is owned by a bank. Almost every house, farm, commercial building, small business, etc is owned by a bank. Your house, if you have a Mortgage, is owned by a bank. It is the same throughout the Western World... The banks.. literally own everything. If you have credit cards, by all means, the bank owns everything you bought with it. They even own your education... how sick is that?

Usury is a form of enslavement, and the entire Western World, including our governments, are the salves to Usury.. and the issuers are the masters. If the issuers retract their credit, the system grinds to a halt.. everything.. as seen in October.. we fell off a cliff. Tell me, should our society be controlled by such means? They may not overtly say "We Own You" .... it's a subtle in between the lines... kinda like how the vast majority of our senior government officials/advisers seemingly are related to a single bank, Goldman Sachs?



Just my 2 cents. The Fed is looking like more hype than anything else, to me.


Most of it is, because most don't understand what the Reserve is and does.... including most Congresspeoples.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join