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.
The Fed will return about $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury for 2009, according to calculations by The Washington Post based on public documents. That reflects the highest earnings in the 96-year history of the central bank. The Fed, unlike most government agencies, funds itself from its own operations and returns its profits to the Treasury.
Federal Reserve earned $45 billion in 2009
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing."
~ President Thomas Jefferson, 1798
With an eventual return to gold convertibility in mind, the Funding Act of April 12, 1866[17] was passed, authorizing McCulloch to retire $10 million of the Greenbacks within six months and up to $4 million per month thereafter. This he proceeded to do until only $356,000,000 were outstanding in February 1868. By this point, the wartime economic boom was over, the crop harvest was poor, and a panic in Great Britain caused a recession and a sharp drop in prices in the United States.[18] The contraction of the money supply was blamed for the deflationary effects, and led debtors to successfully agitate for a halt to the notes' retirement.[19]
United States Note - Post Civil War
The hard times which occurred after the Civil war could have been avoided if the Greenback legislation had continued as President Lincoln had intended. Instead there was a series of money panics – what we call rescessions’ – which put pressure on Congress to enact legislation to place the banking system under a centralised control."
~ The Truth in Money book, 1980
The United States Note was a national currency whereas Federal Reserve Notes are issued by the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.[26] Both have been legal tender since the gold recall of 1933. Both have been used in circulation as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them came from different statutes.[24] United States Notes were created as fiat currency, in that the government has never categorically guaranteed to redeem them for precious metal - even though at times, such as after the specie resumption of 1879, federal officials were authorized to do so if requested. The difference between a United States Note and a Federal Reserve Note is that a United States Note represented a "bill of credit" and was inserted by the Treasury directly into circulation free of interest. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by debt purchased by the Federal Reserve, and thus generate seigniorage, or interest, for the Federal Reserve System, which serves as a lending intermediary between the Treasury and the public.
United States Note - Comparison to Federal Reserve Notes
"The underlying idea in the greenback philosophy... is that the issue of currency is a function of the Government, a sovereign right which ought not be delegated to corporations."
~ Dr. Davis Rich Dewey, Professor of Economics and Statistics, 1902
"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
~ Hazard Circular, London Times, 1865
"It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious Press, as will oppose the greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money. To repeal the Act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support our interest that we may control legislation."
~ Letter by James Buel, Secretary American Bankers' Association, 1877
"Without the use of either gold or silver, Rome became mistress of the commerce of the world. Her people were the bravest, the most prosperous, the most happy, for they know no grinding poverty. Her money was issued directly to the people, and was composed of a cheap material - copper and brass - based alone upon the faith and credit of the nation.
With this abundant money supply she built her magnificent courts and temples. She distributed her lands among the people in small holdings, and wealth poured into the coffers of Rome..."
~ Howard Milford, The American Plutocracy, 1895
"Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
~ President James Garfield, 1881
Yeah, bitcoin.
Originally posted by Chevalerous
Got any solutions?
my mind was blown when they described how the FED essentially loans out money to the Government by buying Government bonds, and they also attach interest to those loans.
So basically, Federal Reserve notes actually represent a debt to the FED, and as you may know the FED isn't really a Government entity, it's some sort of quasi-government entity that seems to be more like a private company then anything else.
the FED actually returns its profit to the United States Treasury. So why don't they just give the money to the Government interest free in the first place if they're going to return the profit generated via interest?
that doesn't change the fact that the Government has to pay back everything it loans
This is the golden question in my opinion.
Now correct me if I am wrong about that, because I would like to think that I am. I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul, but I do not support a gold backed currency.
"backed by debt", what ever the hell that is supposed to mean...
Since that time the main form of currency in circulation has been the Federal Reserve Note, a debt-based currency.
But inflation would only happen if the Government kept needing to borrow more and more money, which means the FED would would need to keep printing more. That's the root cause of the problem of inflation, they shouldn't need these silly methods to counter the effect of inflation, because it clearly doesn't work anyway, the dollar has lost so much value since the implementation of the FED.
Golden answer: Inflation!
So either way (gold backed or gold standard), it's not a good idea right? I can see why I gold backed currency is a terribly bad idea, but I think if Ron Paul believes a "gold standard" would be a good thing, then there must be something to it. Wouldn't he be able to predict what you are saying?
Ron Paul supports a Gold Standard, but a Gold Standard is not entirely the same thing as a Gold Backed currency.. a Gold Standard simply means that a Dollar at face value can be converted into Gold at market value, whereas today we buy the market value. Subtle difference. Basically what it comes down to is that under a Gold Standard when a country buys our debt they can take the maturity in Gold. Look at our national debt.. if that were to happen the USA would be bankrupt over night. So a Gold Standard is impossible.. hell .. that's the reason we abandoned it.
I don't see the difference. You just defined debt. If I have credit with someone, I am in debt to that someone, right?
In economics "Credit" is actually the meaning of debt that you're thinking. Credit, in economics, means the promise of one party to provide services without value being fairly exchanged until a later date.
Pffft, a limited quantity commodity is the only thing that works. The only alternative is a currency that continues to lose value for infinity, and beyond! Bitcoin ensures sufficient granularity by being divisible by up to 8 decimal places.
As for bitcoin: A limited quantity currency creates a wealth disparity like nothing we've ever seen in our life time.
But inflation would only happen if the Government kept needing to borrow more and more money, which means the FED would would need to keep printing more. That's the root cause of the problem of inflation, they shouldn't need these silly methods to counter the effect of inflation, because it clearly doesn't work anyway, the dollar has lost so much value since the implementation of the FED.
So either way (gold backed or gold standard), it's not a good idea right? I can see why I gold backed currency is a terribly bad idea, but I think if Ron Paul believes a "gold standard" would be a good thing, then there must be something to it. Wouldn't he be able to predict what you are saying?
I don't see the difference. You just defined debt. If I have credit with someone, I am in debt to that someone, right?
Pffft, a limited quantity commodity is the only thing that works. The only alternative is a currency that continues to lose value for infinity, and beyond! Bitcoin ensures sufficient granularity by being divisible by up to 8 decimal places.
Exactly. And that act of borrowing requires the printing of more money. The end result is continuous inflation. The same thing would happen even with Government issued currency, if they kept printing too much it would cause inflation. Thus the answer is a limited quantity currency.
If you spend more than you make you have to borrow. Since we spend more than the World can ever possibly loan us we borrow from ourselves.
I just cannot completely agree with that statement. History makes it clear how the bankers have done everything possible to implement their semi-private central banks and wrap their claws around money creation, history also shows how multiple Presidents have done everything in their power to abolish these institutions. The Government should just print it's own debt-free currency that it doesn't have to pay back to anyone. It's as simple as that.
My long winded point being that GOVERNMENT in general is the cause of the problem, not the Reserve. the Reserve is a tool, a pawn .. if the Reserve somehow limited or stifled government action or inaction they would tear down the Fed instantly and put something else in its place. It serves the Government and the Government serves... the Government.
But perpetual growth is a myth. The population can't grow forever. The currency supply should be constant, and it should fan out among the population. As growth continues, the currency will deflate, because more people want it, but there's only a set amount of it. Now I don't know about you, but I certainly would prefer my savings to grow in value, not continuously decrease. Infinite inflation is a scam, a hidden tax, a god damn insane delusion that people are brainwashed into thinking is a good thing.
Yeah. That's the point. It's a theory.. called "Keynesian Economics" .. the point is perpetual growth, perpetual inflation.
Exactly. And that act of borrowing requires the printing of more money. The end result is continous inflation. The same thing would happen even with Government issued currency, if they kept printing too much it would cause inflation. Thus the answer is a limited quantity currency.
I just cannot completley agree with that statment. History makes it clear how the bankers have done everything possible to impliment their semi-private central banks and wrap their claws around money creation, history also shows how multiple Presidents have done everything in their power to abolish these institutions. The Government should just print it's own debt-free currency that it doesn't have to pay back to anyone. It's as simple as that.
But perpetual growth is a myth. The population can't grow forever, and only a certain amount of buildings can ever exist. The currency suppy should be constant, and it should fan out among the population. As growth continues, the currency will deflate, because more people want it, but there's only a set amount of it. Now I don't know about you, but I certainly would prefer my saving to grow in value, not continuoly decrease. It's a scam, a hidden tax, a god damn insane delusion that people are brainwashed into thinking is a good thing.
Gold never really goes 'away', there is always a relatively constant amount on Earth. That's why it goes up in the long term and always seems to hold it's value well, that's why people buy gold, to protect themselves from inflationary currency. If the dollar wasn't designed to constantly lose value, then perhaps people wouldn't be so inclined to horde gold and take it 'away' from circulation. People do the exact same thing with bitcoin, but I still see plenty of people buying things with bitcoin.
And limited quantity DOES have inflation .. called supply and demand. When Gold is plentiful costs go up .. when Gold goes away, costs decline.
How many people do you think can fit on Earth? Not to mention, inflation is happening at a much faster rate then the growth, so the argument is flawed, there is no balance between growth and inflation, just epic devaluation of the dollar.
First rule to perpetual growth is a positive Birth Death Cycle. Old people die, young people are born.
That's a typical argument against limit quantity currencies. I doubt anyone has died over Bitcoin so far, and even if they have, you can't blame the tool for how it is used. I don't see a problem with 'hording', it's exactly the same as saving. People should be allowed to have savings that don't inflate over time, not be discouraged from saving because the currency wont hold its value.
I'll horde it.. I might even kill you for it ..
And yet, many experts still say we should "worry about falling prices" because they represent a "destructive force" (according to Martin Wolk at MSNBC, for example). He explains as follows: "As prices keep going down, money grows more valuable. . . ." So far so good!
But he goes on to say that this is actually a bad thing because it creates "an enormous disincentive for consumers and businesses to spend money. Economic activity slows, unemployment rises and demand continues to decline." Well, but that presumes that consumers have something to gain by forever stocking up on dollars and never buying anything, which is absurd. It's true that falling prices create incentives to save, but so long as the preference of consumers is to save instead of spend, that can only prepare the way for a future of economic growth. Consumers save for a reason, namely, to spend later.
---
In economics, it is a good rule that what is good for individuals and families is also good for the economy. Everyone wants a bargain, which is to say a low price. Sadly, in our present age of inflation, lower prices mostly affect specific products and sectors. May the joy we take in falling prices for electronics be expanded to anything and everything we buy. Let the commentators fret and worry about what their fallacious macroeconomic models tell them. The rest of us can sit back and watch our standard of living rise and rise.
Sadly, I doubt we will see any deflation. Even based on the last ten years of data, overall price increases are still the norm.
In fact, since 1913 and the founding of the Fed, the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value. It is far more likely that this robbery will continue rather than for our lost purchasing power to be restored to its rightful owners: you and me.
The Blessings of Deflation
Gold never really goes 'away', there is always a relatively constant amount on Earth. That's why it goes up in the long term and always seems to hold it's value well, that's why people buy gold, to protect themselves from inflationary currency. If the dollar wasn't designed to constantly lose value, then perhaps people wouldn't be so inclined to horde gold and take it 'away' from circulation. People do the exact same thing with bitcoin, but I still see plenty of people buying things with bitcoin.
How many people do you think can fit on Earth? Not to mention, inflation is happening at a much faster rate then the growth, so the argument is flawed, there is no balance between growth and inflation, just epic devaluation of the dollar.
That's a typical argument against limit quantity currencies. I doubt anyone has died over Bitcoin so far, and even if they have, you can't blame the tool for how it is used. I don't see a problem with 'hording', it's exactly the same as saving. People should be allowed to have savings that don't inflate over time, not be discouraged from saving because the currency wont hold its value.
You can't be scared of a currency simply because you think everyone will save it and not spend it
In fact, since 1913 and the founding of the Fed, the dollar has lost 95 percent of its value. It is far more likely that this robbery will continue rather than for our lost purchasing power to be restored to its rightful owners: you and me.
I'm not talking about it's value in comparison to the dollar, I'm talking about it's overall value compared to all currencies. It slowly goes up because of growth, but the amount of gold can't grow at the same rate, thus it will slowly go up as more and more people want a piece of the limited pie.
The reason Gold always goes up is because of inflation
You can't move people if there's no place to move them pal. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it, you can't ignore the simple logic that infinite growth is impossible. Not to mention you sound like some sort of Human curator trying to manage people based on what an economy is doing, it's absurd.
Second it's not about "how may can fit on the planet" it's about moving people.
I don't think this even deserves a response. You do realize that the majority of money isn't even printed on paper, and is simply numbers on a computer? Bitcoin represents a symbol of exchange, it doesn't need to be backed by anything, and that is the whole entire point I was trying to make in this thread, but you mustn't have understood what I was trying to say.
I really didn't want to get into the retardation that is Bitcoin. Yeah, no ones ever died from someone stealing bitcoins because bitcoins don't exist. It's a figment of your imagination .. little numbers on a screen, backed by nothing ..
Uh huh... so by your logic, the way to stop the rich having so much money is to simply print some more? Your logic is slowly degrading into pure nonsense my friend.
You don't see a problem with hording gold, in a gold backed society? The poor become poorer, they will never see a gold coin, and the rich will have all the power ..
--
It's not about spending .. think if there was a limited amount of Dollars how fast do you think ALL of the Dollars would be in the hands of the few? Already the top 1% hold the vast majority of the wealth in this country, and that's even with a constantly ever increasing monetary supply.
I'm sure I understood some of it.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
lol.. I don't think you've understood anything I've said... sigh.
I'm sure I understood some of it.
You seem to be flip-flopping on basic concepts in order to rationalize different parts of your argument.
The main thing you seem to be saying is that the FED is fine, and does it's job (we'll just ignore their secret loans for now) properly
and that the Government is to blame for most for the problems.
Considering how much the dollar has been devaluated since the FED came into existence
it's fiat money vs sound money
Your idea that inflationary currencies are good because we can print more so the rich don't have it all, is just, quite frankly, quite stupid imo. Explain it to me properly.