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.

 

Bernanke Tries to Manage Expectations of Fed Role

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Bernanke Tries to Manage Expectations of Fed Role




JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. — Federal Reserve officials and economists appear increasingly united in their view that the partisan gridlock on fiscal policy in Washington has clouded the prospects for a faster and stronger recovery.


If ever there was strong evidence to the fact that banking institutions have little to do with thriving economies, it would lie here in Bernanke's own words:


“Central bankers alone cannot solve the world’s economic problems,” Mr. Bernanke said in what became a theme of the annual Fed policy symposium here, organized by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.


Central bankers can certainly, alone, cause all sorts of economic problems, but when it comes to solving problems, as Bernanke admits, they cannot solve those problems alone.

Economic problems are caused when the economy is mishandled by people who have little to do with actually adding any value to the economy. Economic problems are fixed when those who do add value to the economy are able to do so free from the restraints of government.

www.nytimes.com...

[mod edit: to add link]

[edit on Mon Aug 30 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Do Bankers' selfish action carry equal weight to the less-selfish actions? In other words, can they more easily damage or strain an economy than revive one? Their very presence would seem to be a resource drain in the form of usury.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
Do Bankers' selfish action carry equal weight to the less-selfish actions? In other words, can they more easily damage or strain an economy than revive one? Their very presence would seem to be a resource drain in the form of usury.


Bingo!

I have no problems with rational self interest, and indeed, I advocate such a notion, but when currency is controlled by central bankers and legislation passed that forces people to choose between living outside the system, or doing business with banks in order to live inside the system, economic problems are sure to follow.

There can only be two contributions a bank adds to an economy, one is the opportunity to store wealth, and the second is to offer loans. The first only applies to those who have wealth, the latter can all too often amount to usury.

If there were no banking institutions, economies would still function, and even thrive. If there were no banking institutions it would be governments who would be most effected as they would have to reevaluate the way they operate their indebtedness.




[edit on 30-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Economic problems are caused when the economy is mishandled by people who have little to do with actually adding any value to the economy. Economic problems are fixed when those who do add value to the economy are able to do so free from the restraints of government.


A viled threat and warning to elected govts to 'lay off' with regulations in the market?

So they can decide how and when they profit from taxpayers uncionably, but taxpayers have no right to say anything about it?

They call the shots? In a democracy? Let's just cut the BS and call US as what it is, a facist dictatorship. The sacred Constitution hard won with the blood of the founding fathers for freedom is no more.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 





So they can decide how and when they profit from taxpayers uncionably, but taxpayers have no right to say anything about it?


The term "taxpayer" is specifically defined by The United States Code, not once, but twice. A "taxpayer" as defined by that Code is any person subject to a tax under applicable revenue laws. This is an important distinction to understand when referring to the American people as "taxpayers".




Let's just cut the BS and call US as what it is, a facist dictatorship. The sacred Constitution hard won with the blood of the founding fathers for freedom is no more.


Fascism can only exist by agreement of the people. The Constitution still stands and the people can, at any time, demand that the clear restrictions and prohibitions placed on government by that Constitution be respected and followed. This, in a large part, what is happening today. Any veiled threat made by the Federal Reserve can only be taken seriously if the people are more willing to accept fascism than they are willing to fight for the rule of law.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I seriously debate with myself on what should and what should not be done for profit motive. My final conclusion: absolutely nothing.

Why? Based upon my own participation in free (libre) software, my own personal wish to contribute motivates me to produce on the highest level I know how and improve myself. I do it with no expectation of return and yet, I receive return in various ways from others that specialize in different things than I. So, there's no profit, nothing is expected in exchange, so, no "point-of-sale" barter either, yet we still mutually benefit.

It's actually a pure sort of communism of the nature I do espouse while still a free market at that.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 





I seriously debate with myself on what should and what should not be done for profit motive. My final conclusion: absolutely nothing.


When I was younger and an aspiring artist, the idea of communism appealed to me very much. It was Karl Marx, and a statement by Vladimir Lenin that convinced me that capitalism was the better system. It was Lenin's remark that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency.

It struck me that what Lenin was saying was the best way to destroy capitalism was by first breaking components of it making it appear as if the system didn't work. A debauched currency, (the currency we have right now has been debauched), means a currency with little to no value.

In other words, according to Lenin, the only way to destroy capitalism is to make capitalism appear to be something it is not. Why would it be necessary to manipulate the truth about capitalism in order to destroy it and replace it with communism if communism were the better system?

This got me to thinking quite a bit about communism versus capitalism, and what I realized is that capitalism is a one on one system more in line with freedom, but communism is a collectivist system that demands individual subservience to the collective. Under a one on one situation, if I don't want to buy your product I don't have to, and if you don't want to sell it to me, you don't have to. Such a reality is nonexistent under communism.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I'm really talking about killing currency. I notice if I attempt to use a loaded word with a fairly novel connotation, all hell breaks lose.


There is no subservience to a state in what I speak, none at all, since there's no state. You could also call it "capitalism without monetary capital". I don't think we're ready for that level, yet-- too much personal responsibility.

As I recall, it was actually the ultimate end goal for Communism. I fully endorse it, without the disregard for the individual that is espoused and practiced in order to get there. Yes, I want to destroy this country, and all its little dogs too.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 



"Capitalism without any monetary capital" is wholly possible in a capitalist system that holds true to a free and unregulated marketplace. While it is true that the ultimate end goal of communism is a stateless society, at least according to Marx, that "stateless" society can seemingly only come into play by first creating a Leviathan state to begin with.

The Leviathan sate will not go away voluntarily.

I am fine with the advocacy of a stateless society, and I have discovered that there are many anarchists who seem to respect the rule of law much more than most advocates of government. If communism could be achieved without achieving it by using the sate to enforce it then it would be fine. In fact, under a free and unregulated marketplace, those who chose to live in communist communities could do so without any interference. Could a capitalist community exist under a centrally regulated marketplace?


[edit on 30-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I think the state would go away when there aren't enough in numbers above a critical mass willing to work on its behalf to maintain itself by coersion. As long as enough share loyalty to it, it will attempt to remain by force if need be.


Could a capitalist community exist under a centrally regulated marketplace?


I'm trying to imagine a capitalist community in the way we tend to think of capitalism, in the sense of being profit-driven private ownership. It seems like an oxymoron since it's basically the opposite of community.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 





I'm trying to imagine a capitalist community in the way we tend to think of capitalism, in the sense of being profit-driven private ownership. It seems like an oxymoron since it's basically the opposite of community.


It is unclear how you are defining community. The standard definition is simply a unified body of individuals. A little less simply it is defined as the people with common interests in a particular area, or more broadly the area itself.

Under that definition there is no oxymoron, and those who share a profit driven motive and cherish private ownership can just as easily be a community as those who see the profit motive as not worthy and private ownership as something to be reviled. Both can have their communities unfettered by the other, but neither can coexist peacefully in the same community.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


For the most part I agree with you 100 percent, however, unbridled
capitalism, unregulated gamblers, and free for all speculators,
not to mention a complete disregard of standard ethical business principles,
free market (rape your own daughter), or sell her to the highest bidder,
lack of global standards of human rights,anything goes Ayn Rand and
Alan Greenspan type of economics has proven to be misdirected.

The intelligence suggests a massive market correction via default.
A massive reset of structure. Jesus smashing the scales at the temple.
So to speak. Anything less would perpetuate the descent into the Maelstrom.
Perpendicular to Aristotles great society with a thriving and productive middle
class as example the U.S.A. circa 1945 to 1985. The concentration of wealth
rapidly focused and with unrestrained leverage will catapult American
Society into corporate oliagarchy and psuedo monarchy.
At this point civil unrest will be manifested in methods previously unimaginable. The truth is that the Self Absorbed Consuming Units who
constitute less than 5% of the populace but control more than 95% of the wealth will be the primary targets. The forsaken populace will run amok,
and the elites last line of defense(the middle class)will no longer be there
to buffer the chaos.The shoe will drop,heads will roll,rape, pillage,theft,
and complete destruction of the social structure will ensure.

All for what? So you could out bet and show off a ferrari to your inept club.
There is no where to hide when there is no culture to return to.
Muffy, wheres the keys to the Mercedes.She'll find out. .The Hard Way.
Darwinism in Tornado mode. Truth is fulfilling,and your outnumbered.
Prepare to suffer and die painfully. e pluribus unum



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Are you sure? A competitive, self-interested, profit-seeking and unified body of individuals? If I were to resolve the cognitive dissonance of that conundrum, I'd call it a "corporation."

ETA: I'll think I needs me some zzzzz's now. After the melatonin from my pineal gland is metabolized, I'll back to silently sitting in the corner and cracking occasional jokes. I've been awfully confrontational tonight. Seez ya!

[edit on 8/30/2010 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Wildmanimal
 


The philosophy of Ayn Rand is often misrepresented and sadly you have done this in your first paragraph. Consider this quote of Rands, on ethics:


"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."


Rational self interest does not equate to "free for all" speculation, and certainly does not equate to a disregard for standard business practices. The free market does not equate to "rape your own daughter". Human rights mean nothing if they are not unalienable rights that exist with or without government approval of them. Unalienable rights include life, liberty, and property.

While Greenspan has shown himself to be a different breed than Rand, and I certainly hold no affinity towards Greenspan, it should be noted that Greenspan was the chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve in no way equates to a free and unregulated market place, and that institution is not at all a pro capitalist institution. The Federal Reserve is not an institution that Ayn Rand advocated, and in the United States, indeed the world, the Federal Reserve is a huge problem. Hence this thread.

A massive correction is indeed what is necessary, and that correction needs to happen by first demolishing the Federal Reserve, which for all intents and purposes, are the modern day money changers that Jesus took to task.

The productive middle class that existed between 1945 and '85 did not thrive because of government interference, it thrived in spite of it, and it was only a matter of time before the intrusions of regulation, combined with the opening up of global markets where U.S. regulations had no effect, would rear its ugly head.

The corporate oligarchy, or oligopoly that Gailbraith referred to, can only exist by the will of the people. Corporations are statutorily defined creatures, and can not exist without a charter. A corporation, any corporation, can be destroyed by simply revoking their charter. The rise of corporatism exists by either conscious approval, or tacit approval of the people. Indeed, I took great pains to point out how a corporation can be destroyed in this thread here.

While that thread was largely ignored, (evidence that people would rather bitch about corporations than actually do something to stop their encroachment), there was one member who actually came to the defense of corporations in that thread, claiming they provided better jobs than small businesses do. That represents the conscious decision to embrace corporatism. The tacit approval of corporatism is represented by all those who simply accept corporatism as an inevitability.

It is also a common mistake to equate capitalism with corporatism, and claim that corporatism comes through capitalism. However, this is demonstrably false. The first corporation was chartered in the 14th Century. That corporation is Stora Kopparberg. The Dutch East India Company was chartered in 1602, just to give two examples of corporations that predate capitalism.

The chaos that you describe happening will only happen once all rational self interest is fully abandoned, and I don't mean by the so called "elites", I mean by all people. There is plenty that can be done in the mean time to stave off a total collapse and ensuing calamity, but will the people act in their rational self interest, or will they instead sit back and expect others to act rationally on their behalf?

Waiting for others to act on your behalf is ludicrous, and waiting for civilization to crumble so that chaos can ensue is so far from rational it boggles the mind.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 





Are you sure? A competitive, self-interested, profit-seeking and unified body of individuals? If I were to resolve the cognitive dissonance of that conundrum, I'd call it a "corporation."


A corporation is a statutorily defined body, and hardly a community of people. People can be competitive, self interested, profit seeking, and still be a unified body. In fact, sports teams are just one example. Trade associations are another. The corporation is riddled with psychosis, and hardly fits the mold of rational self interest.

The thing about self interest is if you don't hold a chief concern for your own interest, just who do you imagine will?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
I flagged your thread, because I think what you said was critical, intelligent and illuminating, and could keep up with you. Unfortunately, I find that you depended a significant portion of your message upon 'legalspeak'.

It is of no wonder why lawyers are often vilified. The ordinary layman is not going to spend half his life ploughing through law books just to comprehend reality. His 5 senses is already good enough. In cases of legal issues, then it would be lawyers to sort them out for him at a price agreed upon.

But on the aspect of politics, the onus on the elected are to simplify its actions on social issues in plainspeak so that more may understand, or he would only lose touch with his constituents, whom not everyone is a lawyer.

Very often, Corporations get away with issues through the 'fine print', as many, espacially americans are a trusting lot and will honor a deal over just a handshake. As a result many get conned and have to go to court to settle cases.

I am more than sure that the Corporations, cabals, oligarchies, etc would have such 'fine print' on paper all worked out in their favour to justify their existance, so that when the layman challenges them, there is no way the common John Doe will win or hope to win.

Whatever these oligarchy elites wishes to term themselves as, they are a Capitalist community and exists in reality. They do have rational interest, even self interest and it is called greed. They exists solely to steal and rob legally from the common masses, the way a 'barbarian' collective exists to rop and plunder from peaceful community.

The US citizens - the non elites community - are a collective unto themselves, and many ways behave in a socialist manner if not by its label. No one is higher than another, and all work towards a common good for the majority in the socia-political and economic arena, and thus the taxes for social spending and sons for defense institution - others before self.

While every US citizen cherishes freedom, and take pride in the presumed 'Capitalist' system, unfortunately, not many have the ability to enter into that community, for it is a pyramid system where there is little room at the top and needs many to form the base inorder to be stable.

For those that made it inside, they are warped into that community's beliefs and behave in similar 'rational' fashion - profits before self.

Samuel Huddington got it wrong with his famous book 'Clash of Civilisation', misled and misdirected many unfortunately into believing that the next great war will be caused by religions.

As the financial crisis had shown, revealing the nature of the beast in full, the next big clash will be between the Capitalist community as defined here against the Socialist Community of humanity.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Killing corporations is as simple as placing enough pressure upon Attorney Generals to do their job and have the charter revoked. It does not require a knowledge of legalese, although knowledge of the law is presumed of all people, and ignorance of the law will never work as an excuse when confronted by legislatures or law enforcement. Knowledge of the law, however, does not at all require a knowledge of legalese, or "fine print" concocted by lawyers. The priest class lawyer set have conspired to make law seem difficult to understand, but law is self evident.

Law, as I stated earlier is the collective organization of lawful self defense. When corporatism rises to a level of threat of harm to the populace, then lawful self defense demands stopping the corporations causing this harm, or threat of harm.

As I said, it is by demanding Attorney Generals respond to the will of the people by revoking the charters of those corporations that are causing harm to the general populace, but this must be the will of the people. A handful of protesters will not do the job, it must be the will of the people en masse. Thus far, efforts to have certain corporations charters revoked have been done by a few people, but not enough.

Of the 50 States, 43 Attorney Generals are elected by the people directly, 5 are appointed by Governor, and one by Legislature. Of the 43 States the ability to put pressure on Attorney Generals is rather simple since they are elected directly by the people. The 5 States where AG's are appointed by Governor means putting pressure on the elected Governor, and the one State where the AG is appointed by legislature, (Tennessee), the job of the people becomes a little harder as pressure must be placed on both the Representatives and Senators elected to that legislature. However, most corporations tend to have their charters granted by the State of Delaware, where the AG is elected.

As you stated, when it comes to the elected, the onus is to simplify issues into plainspeak, and if that is their onus, then understanding plainspeak would be as well. How much more plainly can a simple demand of revocation of charter be? I have read countless threads in this site where people self righteously declare the corporation the problem and hope to lay the blame on capitalism, but when offered a simple solution, the maddening crowd gets awfully quiet, a few mustering up enough courage to act in defense of corporations, all in the name of jobs.

The "fine print" you are so sure exists to keep corporations protected from the will of the people is just more justification as to why the corporation should remain in existence. When the people are ready to destroy corporate entities, no amount of legalese will save that corporation.

Equating corporations to capitalists is just more bluster, but it is a bluster that willfully ignores the simple tenets of capitalism, which are a free and unregulated marketplace, massive competition, and a value based currency. None of those tenets exist in the corporatist world of today, and certainly does not exist in The United States. Corporations are not for a free and unregulated market, and in fact, due to their statutory nature, they can not exist free of regulation, as the independent business person not liable to statutory grants of existence can exist in a free and unregulated market.

The corporation cannot compete with a free and unregulated market so they lobby for regulation. The corporation does not advocate massive competition which is why they do not advocate a free and unregulated marketplace. Any cries that may come from a corporation for less regulation are not cries for no regulation. They must be licensed in order to exist, and thus, the want you to be licensed in order to exist. If you are not a statutorily defined person then you need no license to do what you have the right to do.

Finally, the value based currency that is supposed to exist does not exist in today's system of fiat money. The Federal Reserve has debauched the currency, and in doing so ensured that capitalism cannot exist. They have done what Lenin suggested be done in order to destroy capitalism, and that is that they have debauched the currency, and this was done in 1972, and since that time we have witnessed the steady rise of corporatism.

I offer this in plain simple language, but that is not enough. Plain simple language will never convince the socialist that capitalism is not the same as corporatism, and they will never listen to the simple and reasonable suggestion that corporations love the fact that advocates of socialism swear that capitalism is to blame.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Thanks for you explanation and message.
Let's put it more in more plainer and simpler hypothetical terms:-

Currently, many US citizens had woken up to the fact that the Fed had been wrong to loan money for the govt to use, and the debts to be repaid by the next generations, instead of using its tax revenues from the people and the economy for social spending, to spend within its means and not for the prolifigate spending we had witness over the years.

Thus in order to close down such institution, by your suggestion and theoratical approach, can the charter for the Feds NOT be reissued when it expires in 2012, or simply revoke today by the elected legislatives through legislation?

( And also consider what would happen to the capitalist community...er...no..the 'corporatist' as you defined community would do in backlash for axing their cash cow?).



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


It is not necessary for anyone to wait for a charter to expire in order to have it revoked. A certain amount of malfeasance has to be shown in order to have a charter revoked prior to its expiration date, but as with the Fed, and several other corporations, proving such malfeasance is not so hard.

Pressure can and should be placed upon Congress to revoke the Fed's charter. In fact the Congress did the people a great favor by not going along with Ron Paul's legislation to audit the Fed. At this point, an audit is not needed to know that the Federal Reserve is bad for not just American economy, but for the world's economies. It is Congress who has been mandated with coining and printing monies, and while they do have the authority to delegate such a mandate, that authority to delegate doesn't mean squat when the people demand they do not delegate such authority and coin and print money backed by intrinsic wealth.

In terms of what the banking institutions and/or corporatist's would do in response to such a move, it is irrelevant. If the limited amount of people that actually profit from banks and corporations honestly believe they can handle the wrath of the people then they are more insane than I believe they are. In fact, so sane do I think these people are that the closer we get towards actually doing away with the Fed, and having many corporate charters revoked, the sooner those "elite" will begin advising a return to a sound fiscal policy that includes a currency backed by wealth, and a freeing up of markets not seen since before the mid 1970's.

In order to keep their privileges, those who have them will do what is necessary to keep them, and if that means backing the hell off and allowing the market place to thrive for all people, not just a limited few, then this is what they will do.

An earlier member brought up Aristotle, and it was Aristotle in Politics that described the cycles of revolution. What he described was a constant struggle between the haves and the have not's. When the gap between the have's and the have not's becomes so big that the have not's can no longer comfortably survive, then they revolt. A wise "elite" would not wait for such a revolution and would simply do what is necessary to stave it off. Staving off such a revolution means allowing the economy to thrive. The economy, when left alone and not manipulated will thrive. Once it thrives, all they have to do is what Aristotle described as being the next cycle of revolution, which is when the have not's, after regaining enough to comfortably survive, become apathetic, allowing the have's to begin the process of amassing wealth all over again. This is the cycle of revolution as Aristotle described it, and more than 2,000 years after his death, this cycle continues to spin.

Whether the have not's ever gain the wisdom to fully understand how to end the cycle for good, and ensure wealth for every person, so that all may flourish and prosper is uncertain, but what is certain is that we are all ready at a point where any threats by the "elites" have little value, and it is the threats by the have not's that need to be heeded. Offering the have nots a socialist system will not stave off economic disaster. Offering the have nots a free and unregulated market, where massive competition can thrive, and use a currency that carries real value is what will stave off economic disaster.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
The problem is AG's answer to higher powers when appointed and those higher powers are generally in bed with said corporations. In the case where AG's are elected directly, campaign funding and media smear and spin via corporations, effectively keep the legal realm in check through monetary punishments or rewards. The Federal Reserve is the epitamy of this collusion in that they DO affect political and legal decisions though they mask it under the guise of interest rates and the threat/ability to print and revaluate currencies. This is how they were able to gut the audit bill that passed.

The whole and singular problem with all of these political "ideals" is something called human nature. We, as a people, have not yet evolved to the point where the negative tendencies to control one's surrounding to the point of exerting pressure on another are no more. That is why all of these ideas; capitalism, communism, socialism are nothing more than frameworks for those with to control those without.

Good to see another JPZ thread


[edit on 30-8-2010 by djvexd]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join