|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 12, 2005 11:17:21 GMT -4
Not to mention that the interest charged is USURY!
Well, guys, we know who to borrow money from!
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 12, 2005 11:29:43 GMT -4
Not to mention that the interest charged is USURY!Well, guys, we know who to borrow money from! Even in countries with sharia banking system, no one will lend money without charging interest. But all transactions must be structured to give interest appearance of some thing besides interest... Martin
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 12, 2005 21:26:49 GMT -4
That alone does not mean the Fed is not a private corporation. The below text is from the link, and explains through Court cases, that there is only an "illusion" that the Fed is a wholly owned Government Agency. The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency’s day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency’s employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker’s compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees travelling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.
The Banks are listed neither as "wholly owned" government corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 846 nor as "mixed ownership" corporations under 31 U.S.C. Sect. 856, a factor considered is Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956), which held that the Civil Air Patrol is not a federal agency under the Act. Closely resembling the status of the Federal Reserve Bank, the Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit, federally chartered corporation organized to serve the public welfare. But because Congress’ control over the Civil Air Patrol is limited and the corporation is not designated as a wholly owned or mixed ownership government corporation under 31 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 846 and 856, the court concluded that the corporation is a non-governmental, independent entity, not covered under the Act.
Additionally, Reserve Banks, as privately owned entities, receive no appropriated funds from Congress. . . .
Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims. In the past, the Banks have defended against tort claims directly, through private counsel, not government attorneys . . ., and they have never been required to settle tort claims under the administrative procedure of 28 U.S.C. Sect. 2672. The waiver of sovereign immunity contained in the Act would therefore appear to be inapposite to the Banks who have not historically claimed or received general immunity from judicial process.
[3] The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." . . . The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant’s activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.
[4, 5] The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. . . . The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . . The Reserve Banks, which further the nation’s fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function.
Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. . . . State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity’s ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. . . . Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal’s ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. . . .
Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. Sect. 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act’s humanitarian purpose of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.
Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.
For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
It is clear from this that in some circumstances, the Federal Reserve Bank can be considered a government "instrumentality", but cannot be considered a "federal agency", because the term carries with it the assumption that the federal government has direct oversight over what the Fed does. Of course it does not, because most people who know about this subject know that the Fed is "politically independent".
The only area where one might disagree with the judge’s decision is where he states that the Fed furthers the federal government’s fiscal policy, and therefore performs an important governmental function. While we would like to think that the federal government and the Fed work cooperatively with each other, and they may on occasion, the Fed is by no means required to do so. One example is where Rep. Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking Committee, said in the Congressional Record back in the ‘60s, that depending on the temperament of the Fed’s Chairman, sometimes the Fed worked with the government’s fiscal policy, and other times either went in the complete opposite direction, or threatens to do so in order to influence policy.
The common claim that the Fed is accountable to the government, because it is required to report to Congress on its activities annually, is incorrect. The reports to Congress mean little unless what the Chairman reports can be verified by complete records. From its founding to this day, the Fed has never undergone a complete independent audit. Congress time after time has requested that the Fed voluntarily submit to a complete audit, and every time, it refuses.
Those in the know about the Fed, realize that it does keep certain records secret. The soon-to-be-former Chairman of the House Banking Committee, Henry Gonzales, has spoken on record repeatedly about how the Fed at one point says it does not have certain requested records, and then it is found through investigation that it in fact does have those records, or at least used to. It would appear that the Fed Chairman can say anything he wants to Congress, and they’ll have to accept what he says, because verification of what he says is not always possible.66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:m1Q0cWETnIEJ:www.apfn.org/apfn/money.htm+ponzi+president+appointed+board+federal+reserve&hl=en&client=firefox-a
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 12, 2005 21:33:01 GMT -4
A further example of the true nature of the Fed is from this link www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm. The phone call is quite funny and enlightening.... Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982. It reads in part: "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentality's . . but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations - federal reserve banks are listed neither as "wholly-owned' government corporations [under 31 USC Section 846] nor as 'mixed ownership' corporations [under 31 USC Section 856] . . . 28 USC Sections 1346(b), 2671. ' Federal agency' is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentality's of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States . . . There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of the federal government control over the 'detailed physical performance' and 'day to day operations' of that entity. Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . . whether the government is involved in the entity's finances, . . . and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities ... It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks . . . The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act . . . Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services . . . Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 USC Section 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims . . ." According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, "When the Federal Reserve was created, its stock was sold to the member banks." ("The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears," published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia). The original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller's, JP Morgan, Rothschild's, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. The MONEYCHANGERS wanted to be insured they had a monopoly over our money supply, so Congress passed into law Title 12, Section 284 of the United States Code. Section 284 specifically states, "NO STOCK ALLOWED TO THE US" * Monopoly - "A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right [or power] to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity, A form of market structure in which only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service. 'Monopoly,' as prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior power, business acumen, or historical product. A monopoly condemned by the Sherman Act is the power to fix prices, or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use and preserve that power." (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) The Federal Reserve Act goes one step farther, "No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or director of a Federal Reserve Bank." They didn't want We The People to have any say in the operation of their monopoly through our elected officials. ___
ge-griffin.gif (15594 bytes)
If Congress had been "creating," spending and issuing into circulation the necessary increase in the money supply, there would be no national debt. Trillions of dollars of other debts would be practically non-existent.
Since there would be no original cost of money except printing, and no continuing costs such as interest, Federal taxes would be almost nil. Money, once in circulation, would remain there and go on serving its purpose as a medium of exchange for generation after generation and century after century, with no payments to the Bankers whatsoever!
The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation. CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System? MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government. CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country? MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress. CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve? MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks. CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything? MR. SUPINSKI-Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people. CALLER - Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve? MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets. CALLER - What are these assets composed of? MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities. CALLER - What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books? MR. SUPINSKI - I don't have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold. CALLER - Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes. CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from? MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury. CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note? MR. SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents. CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note? MR. SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents. CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn't it? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct? MR. SUPINSKI - That is probably close. CALLER - Doesn't the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that. CALLER - Basically, that is what happens? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct. CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation? MR. SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage. CALLER - Where did they go? MR. SUPINSKI - Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money. CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation? MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know. CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt? MR. SUPINSKI - No CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy? MR. SUPINSKI - About $7. CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were "created out of thin air " in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation? MR. SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason. CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nation's money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country? MR. SUPINSKI - Basically, yes. CALLER - I smell a rat, do you? MR. SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can't answer that, I work here. CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited? MR. SUPINSKI - We are audited. CALLER - Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting? MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know. CALLER - Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes CALLER - Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it? MR. SUPINSKI - I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department. CALLER - I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn't it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation? MR. SUPINSKI - I don't think so, but we were created by Congress. CALLER - Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution? MR. SUPINSKI - I understand what you are saying. CALLER - Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn't this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights? MR. SUPINSKI - (Declined to answer). CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court? MR. SUPINSKI - I believe there has been court cases on the matter. CALLER - Have there been Supreme Court Cases? MR. SUPINSKI - I think so, but I am not sure. CALLER - Didn't the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? ["The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons." Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...] MR. SUPINSKI - I don't know, I can refer you to our legal department. CALLER - Isn't the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off? MR. SUPINSKI - It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution. CALLER - What is the solution? MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card. CALLER - Do you mean under the EFT Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn't that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it's agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the EFT they will literally know everything about us. Isn't that kind of scary? MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder. CALLER - I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren't we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers? MR. SUPINSKI - I can't call it tribute, it is interest. CALLER - Haven't all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn't the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy? MR. SUPINSKI - I can't say that. CALLER - Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn't the punishment of treason death? MR. SUPINSKI - I believe so. CALLER - Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am. MR. SUPINSKI - It doesn't look good. CALLER - May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse. MR. SUPINSKI - Unfortunately, it does not look good. CALLER - Have a good day and thanks for your time. MR. SUPINSKI - Thanks for calling.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 13, 2005 11:21:11 GMT -4
MR. SUPINSKI - Thanks for calling.
That why he is a public affairs officer and I am not.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 13, 2005 12:52:44 GMT -4
Was that a real conversation or just one that played out in some conspiracy theorist's head one evening?
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 13, 2005 13:20:38 GMT -4
That alone does not mean the Fed is not a private corporation. The below text is from the link, and explains through Court cases, that there is only an "illusion" that the Fed is a wholly owned Government Agency. I can not find the court case in the link, so I can not find what is "the Act" from the case. I do find many things about the "secret" of the ownership of the federal reserve banks, which is a "secret" contained in the law creating federal reserve system, published in proceedings of congress, and available at federal reserve (government) web site. Information on machine which generates free energy is also interesting. Let us examine the arguments. More silly arguments first: 1. Turbonium says federal reserve is not part of government, and says there is "proof" because it charges the government interest. I point out that social security administration does this also, and ask if social security administration is private organisation. No answer, twice. I am asking now for third time. 2. Turbonium says federal reserve is not listed in government section of telephone book. I do not have his telephone book, but lunar orbit quickly says that federal reserve has a .gov web site. I say business cards of federal reserve employees have great seal of united states. Now for less silly arguments: 3. Turbonium says federal reserve creates money out of nothing. This is true! 4. Turbonium says government borrows money from federal reserve, and repays with interest. This is partly true! Turbonium does not say that all profit made by federal reserve is returned to treasury each year. I and others here say this, and turbonium does not answer. Why not? What motive does he have, not to tell us this? 5. Turbonium says government is in debt because federal reserve charges interest on money created. This is false! Interest paid to federal reserve in excess of expenses is returned to treasury. Can you think on any one else, who will lend money and then return all interest after each year? When the federal reserve creates money, this reduces debt of US relative to scenario where government borrows from private party. This is called seigniorage. Which is better, to borrow money from federal reserve, which will return interest each year? Or to borrow from some one else, who will not? Seigniorage is like a tax, because creation of money makes inflation, and this is reducing value of money held by public, which is transfer from public to government. Governments which have hyperinflation usually are doing this because they can not find enough tax in other ways to pay what they are spending, so they tax through creation of money. 6. Turbonium says federal reserve is owned by private banks. By legal organisation from law creating federal reserve, this is true! See this link: www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.htmlMyth#4 is most interesting for this question. Now, what kind of owners are these? They are owners who do not have power to appoint management, and do not have power to receive profits. Government has these powers. When I am an owner of Microsoft Corporation, but Bill Gates can manage how he likes, and he keeps all profit for himself, I do not feel much like owner... Theory that US government has a budget deficit because of secret conspiracy by federal reserve to take over world is rubbish. Governments are always misbehaving, they have genocides, they are violating human rights, they are fighting aggressive wars, and having corruption. When there are so many real conspiracies, I do not see what is the need of imaginary conspiracies. Martin
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 13, 2005 13:31:08 GMT -4
Was that a real conversation or just one that played out in some conspiracy theorist's head one evening? I am sure it does play in the heads of conspiracy theorists. But if it is real, I do not know. From a search, I can not find any thing which can confirm or refute...this appears at conspiracy sites, I do not see it at debunk sites. Martin
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 13, 2005 14:44:17 GMT -4
I am just guessing from context that it is real. The Fed official seems to give reasonable and correct answers to the callers increasingly leading and obnoxious questions. He maintains politeness and defers answering questions where he doesn’t know an answer or questions that are more accusations than queries.
This is what a good spokesman is supposed to do and it if someone fabricated this it means they actually knew the answers and the proper tone to take. The funny thing is that is appears turbonium posted it thinking that it would somehow support his cause. All I see is an belligerent ideologue being pestering a polite spokesman.
edited for typo
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 13, 2005 15:45:32 GMT -4
I am just guessing form context that it is real. The Fed official seems to give reasonable and correct answers to the callers increasingly leading and obnoxious questions. He maintains politeness and defers answering questions where he doesn’t know an answer or questions that are more accusations than queries. This is what a good spokesman is supposed to do and it if someone fabricated this it means they actually knew the answers and the proper tone to take. The funny thing is that is appears turbonium posted it thinking that it would somehow support his cause. All I see is an belligerent ideologue being pestering a polite spokesman. Maybe it is not fair to give a better answer with time to think on it, be he should ask why is it important to pay off all debt at one time? Federal reserve notes do not disappear when they are used to pay debt... Martin
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 13, 2005 22:01:40 GMT -4
I have had only a semester of economics--at a community college, nonetheless--and have read a few books on banking, all too long ago, so I have trouble making sense of the Caller/Supinski post.
Is this fellow suggesting that the Fed should simply print up money to cover the debt? Maybe economics has changed since I learned it, but I don't think that plan will work out the way he imagines.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 13, 2005 22:47:10 GMT -4
Martin wrote: Which is better, to borrow money from federal reserve, which will return interest each year? Or to borrow from some one else, who will not?
I would say it is better for the government to borrow from the someone else, the private individual or institution. Just for once I would like a politician like George Bush to have to sit down with a loan officer at a bank to borrow money to finance his next war, and have the bank turn him down because (a) war doesn't look to be a good investment for the bank, or (b) his excessive borrowing in the past has jacked up interest rates so high that the bank doubts his ability to repay the loan.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 13, 2005 23:51:08 GMT -4
I have had only a semester of economics--at a community college, nonetheless--and have read a few books on banking, all too long ago, so I have trouble making sense of the Caller/Supinski post. Is this fellow suggesting that the Fed should simply print up money to cover the debt? Maybe economics has changed since I learned it, but I don't think that plan will work out the way he imagines. That is the reason for the Great Depression - the Fed purposely stopped printing money. Banks refused loans, and demanded payment on outstanding loans, which were not possible to pay back as there was little money in circulation. When the loans were defaulted on, guess who scooped up all their property and assests? My father had always been at a loss to figure out why there was a depression while he was young, as there was lots of industry, healthy agriculture, a solid workforce, and businesses popping up to meet the needs of the community. The only problem was that there was NO MONEY!! These businesses were not risky undertakings that should have been avoided by lending institutions. The communities were vibrant and growing. They were left blowing in the wind by the banks!! Then afterwards, as happened before the Depression, suddenly there was PLENTY of money to finance the Second World War!! Hmmm...the economy was in a plummet, but suddenly the money is flowing, and a booming War Economy was born!! Imagine that!!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 14, 2005 0:40:42 GMT -4
Banks refused loans, and demanded payment on outstanding loans, which were not possible to pay back as there was little money in circulation.
Nobody pays loans back in currency, do they? I don't understand this obsession with currency.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 14, 2005 0:40:50 GMT -4
First, interest being charged back to oneself is, as I have stated, not something any sane monetary system would do. The social security system is also a scam, but not the same type as I was giving as the example. www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/BG1256.cfmI am discussing the Gov't creating money, spending that money, then needing it's own money repaid to itself with interest! Social security is a system taking money already created from the workforce in the form of a deduction (which is of course a tax)., much like income tax but intended for a dedicated fund. It's basically another income tax - taken by the Gov't from the citizens while that Gov't never needed to spend any money itself (the work or services were all done by the taxpayer in exchange for money). The Gov't never spent any money in this example, unlike where it appears to create it then spend it, and is repaid to itself with interest on top.
|
|