Five Moderate Dem Senators Reject Biden’s Pick for Top Bank Watchdog

[joko104]

You could cite this alleged paper. But you didn't because you're full of shit.

Being ignorant of an issue doesn't make you right, it just means you are ignorant of the issue.

 

[RetiredUSN]

You know for a fact none of those are Democratic Party values.

Just don't make any $600.00 transactions with your bank.

Joe wants to know.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Just don't make any $600.00 transactions with your bank.

Joe wants to know.

President Biden does not care if I spend $600 at one time or not. There is no reason to think he would.

 

[Good4Nothin]

You could cite this alleged paper. But you didn't because you're full of shit.

You have been reported. Meanwhile here is the paper, and her proposal about citizens' bank accounts starts on page 1257.

https://vanderbiltlawreview.org/lawreview/wp-content/uploads/sites/278/2021/10/The-Peoples-Ledger-2.pdf

 

[Rawley]

Stunning that only 5 Democrats rejected a self declared communist educated in Moscow and vowing to nationalize the American banking system.

Hard to believe Biden's handlers put her up the first place. Even harder to believe they haven't withdrawn the nomination yet.

 

[Kushinator]

Being ignorant of an issue doesn't make you right, it just means you are ignorant of the issue..

It's you folks who speak of issues that you're not familiar with in an effort to induce fear. It's a cheap and pathetic tactic.

You have been reported.

Meanwhile here is the paper, and her proposal about citizens' bank accounts starts on page 1257.

Nothing in this article, "The People's Ledger" supports your position. Nothing. The creation of Central Bank Digital Currency in accordance with now-accounts at the Federal Reserve has no comparison to Soviet era banking practices. Furthermore, such a policy shift in accordance with a New Discount Window and Open Market Operations + effectively eliminates the systemic risks inherent in a 20th century financial system framework. For example, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would no longer be necessary, the pay-for-privilege depository institution consolidation would cease to exist, the use of leveraging and rehypothecating assets to further leverage margin trading, and the subsidizing of risk via federally insured depository institutions would no longer occur.

In essence, you folks have nothing, because you're parroting a trash article without having the ability to comprehend what the article in reference is talking about.

 

[Good4Nothin]

It's you folks who speak of issues that you're not familiar with in an effort to induce fear. It's a cheap and pathetic tactic.



Nothing in this article, "The People's Ledger" supports your position. Nothing. The creation of Central Bank Digital Currency in accordance with now-accounts at the Federal Reserve has no comparison to Soviet era banking practices. Furthermore, such a policy shift in accordance with a New Discount Window and Open Market Operations + effectively eliminates the systemic risks inherent in a 20th century financial system framework. For example, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation would no longer be necessary, the pay-for-privilege depository institution consolidation would cease to exist, the use of leveraging and rehypothecating assets to further leverage margin trading, and the subsidizing of risk via federally insured depository institutions would no longer occur.

In essence, you folks have nothing, because you're parroting a trash article without having the ability to comprehend what the article in reference is talking about.

I don't know who you mean by "you folks." Some imaginary enemy I guess. If you read what she wrote starting on page 1257 you would have known that what I said was accurate. Her proposal is to get rid of commercial private banks, forcing everyone to deposit their savings in the Federal Reserve. Interest rates would be set easily, and money could be credited to or debited from depositors accounts. That is central planning, Soviet style. We have central planning now, but at least we also have private banks and free competition.

 

[Kushinator]

I don't know who you mean by "you folks." Some imaginary enemy I guess. If you read what she wrote starting on page 1257 you would have known that what I said was accurate. Her proposal is to get rid of commercial private banks, forcing everyone to deposit their savings in the Federal Reserve. Interest rates would be set easily, and money could be credited to or debited from depositors accounts. That is central planning, Soviet style. We have central planning now, but at least we also have private banks and free competition.

The uninformed GQP cultists.

I read the article in its entirety. She did not advocate getting rid of commercial private banks. Instead, the proposal for Fed accounts in conjunction with a CBDC eliminates the rationale for banks to take on deposits as a means of facilitating credit creation. If you'd bother to read more than a page or two, you'd (probably not) see that private credit creation would still be a function of what currently constitutes commercial banks, but the funding source would come from a New Discount Window.

In terms of debiting and crediting accounts, the author was speaking in terms emergency fiscal policy, i.e. helicopter money.

Implementing a contractionary monetary policy by debiting FedAccounts, in turn, presents a different set of ex ante institutional choices aiming to minimize the economic and political fallout from what is likely to be perceived as the government “taking away” people’s money. This tool is to be reserved only for extreme and rare circumstances, when the Fed is unable to control inflation by raising interest rates and deploying its new asset-side tools, discussed below. It is nevertheless important to have a mechanism in place for draining excess liquidity from these accounts with minimal disruption of productive activity. One potential approach could be to set up each account as a two-tiered structure, in a manner functionally similar to the familiar combination of a checking and a savings account. The first tier—a “transaction sub-account”—would be used for making and receiving payments, including regular governmental disbursements like tax refunds, social security benefits, and so forth. The second tier—a “reserve sub-account”—would be explicitly reserved for use as the destination account for the receipt, transfer, and holding of funds designated by the Fed as subject to a specific monetary policy action. If and when the Fed injects monetary base into the system, each reserve sub-account would be credited with the appropriate “helicoptered” amount. If and when the Fed seeks to drain money from the system, the appropriate amount would be transferred from the transaction sub-account to the same holder’s reserve sub-account, where it would be effectively escrowed until the Fed ends its tightening policies. These temporarily “reserved” funds would pay a higher interest than the regular interest paid by the Fed on money held in transaction sub-accounts. Importantly, raising this reserve interest rate would enable the Fed to incentivize depositors to move more of their money from transaction into reserve sub-accounts voluntarily. Strategic use of this tool, therefore, may decrease the need for the mandatory “reserving” of people’s money, which would also help to counteract negative perceptions of this policy. In effect, the tightening of the money supply would be achieved through a compulsory but economically attractive investment scheme.

As always, you are trying to punch well above your level of knowledge, and therefore i will come down like a hammer.

 

[RetiredUSN]

President Biden does not care if I spend $600 at one time or not. There is no reason to think he would.

You better go read up.

 

[Good4Nothin]

The uninformed GQP cultists.

I read the article in its entirety. She did not advocate getting rid of commercial private banks. Instead, the proposal for Fed accounts in conjunction with a CBDC eliminates the rationale for banks to take on deposits as a means of facilitating credit creation. If you'd bother to read more than a page or two, you'd (probably not) see that private credit creation would still be a function of what currently constitutes commercial banks, but the funding source would come from a New Discount Window.

In terms of debiting and crediting accounts, the author was speaking in terms emergency fiscal policy, i.e. helicopter money.


As always, you are trying to punch well above your level of knowledge, and therefore i will come down like a hammer.

"In principle, FedAccounts can be made available as an alternative to bank deposit accounts, upon a person’s request.127 As explained below, however, the more effective option would be to transition all deposits to the Fed."

 

[Patriotic Voter]

You better go read up.

Huh?

 

[Kushinator]

"In principle, FedAccounts can be made available as an alternative to bank deposit accounts, upon a person’s request.127 As explained below, however, the more effective option would be to transition all deposits to the Fed."

So? As i already stated, it removes the need for commercial banks to take deposits in order to partially fund credit creation. Currently, the Fed doesn't impose required reserve ratios. The author is correct. Having side-by-side accounts only serves to undermine the policy overhaul. If you read more than a page or two, you'd have a better understanding of the author's position.

 

[Good4Nothin]

So? As i already stated, it removes the need for commercial banks to take deposits in order to partially fund credit creation. Currently, the Fed doesn't impose required reserve ratios. The author is correct. Having side-by-side accounts only serves to undermine the policy overhaul. If you read more than a page or two, you'd have a better understanding of the author's position.

Many experts see it the same way I do. That is why she is not being approved.

 

[Kushinator]

Many experts see it the same way I do. That is why she is not being approved.

I'm not replying to many experts and many experts are not quoting me. The rationale is based on fear mongering because most people are ignorant of government finance. You are not equipped to be having this conversation.

 

[Good4Nothin]

I'm not replying to many experts and many experts are not quoting me. The rationale is based on fear mongering because most people are ignorant of government finance. You are not equipped to be having this conversation.

Oh really? So we should let "experts" like you take control of the financial system. The ignorant public can just sit back and let Big Brother decide everything.

By the way, I call this the "cult of expertise," which is one of the greatest dangers facing our civilization.

 

[VanceMack]

How could anyone with a fully functioning brain think that submitting her for the position was a good idea in the first place???

 

[Roadvirus]

How could anyone with a fully functioning brain think that submitting her for the position was a good idea in the first place???

We're talking about the Biden Administration here....the same lot that put up an Eco-Terrorist for the Bureau of Land Management. So....no functioning brains.

 

[Kushinator]

How could anyone with a fully functioning brain think that submitting her for the position was a good idea in the first place???

She's arguably the top financial regulatory scholar in the world. Nominating her for a position as OCC is a no-brainer.

 

[Bum]

Regardless of what she advocates, perception is everything in politics; I think she is done.....no conservative will vote for her, and there are more than a few dems indicating they will not vote for her.
I think the administration needs to start looking for a replacement nominee.

 

[Kushinator]

Oh really?

Yep.

So we should let "experts" like you take control of the financial system. The ignorant public can just sit back and let Big Brother decide everything.

This is how it works. POTUS wins election and gets to nominate various government positions. You represent the ignorant public, and have not done yourself a service with respect to learning about this topic prior to posting.

By the way, I call this the "cult of expertise," which is one of the greatest dangers facing our civilization.

Who cares what you think?

 

[Kushinator]

Regardless of what she advocates, perception is everything in politics; I think she is done.....no conservative will vote for her, and there are more than a few dems indicating they will not vote for her.
I think the administration needs to start looking for a replacement nominee.

We shall see.

The banking lobby will do a full-court press on this issue. At the core of her position, it's that big-finance has been self-serving at the behest of what's best for the country and our economy.

 

[Roadvirus]

I think the administration needs to start looking for a replacement nominee.

I think the administration needs to start looking for a replacement nominee vetter, because it's become obvious the current one ain't hacking it.

 

[Bum]

I think the administration needs to start looking for a replacement nominee vetter, because it's become obvious the current one ain't hacking it.

They really outdid themselves with David Chipman.

 

[StillBallin75]

Yep.

This is how it works. POTUS wins election and gets to nominate various government positions. You represent the ignorant public, and have not done yourself a service with respect to learning about this topic prior to posting.

Who cares what you think?

lmao she talking about "cult of expertise" i.e. people who actually know what the **** they're talking about.

No, the biggest threat is the "cult of ignorance" which is people who haven't done a lick of studying and are not equipped to discuss certain topics having ignorant, half-baked opinions based on what they see on social media.

 

[joko104]

She's arguably the top financial regulatory scholar in the world. Nominating her for a position as OCC is a no-brainer.

Because Stalin is dead?