The Business of Money

[medi]

I will present this thought process to this community before I begin any formal studying and then the keeping of the subsequent notes.

I am beginning to wonder when the citizens of a nation are mature enough in understanding the business of money to then be given a substantial amount of power over the business of money, in the form of a fourth branch of government --- SCOTUS; Executive; Congress; Money.

Of course, that is very crude at this stage --- just using the title "Money" but that can be fixed later.

You see, folks, it becoming clearer and clearer to me that money is where we may very well be in peril. We citizens are learning more and more about how all this business of money works and we are not gaining any extra control over that money, even though we are gaining that knowledge. Maybe it is time to consider changing that.

But how?

 

[Individual]

Are you equating the Federal Reserve with money?

 

[medi]

Are you equating the Federal Reserve with money?

As I wrote, I have not yet begun formal studying, which means I am not equating anything with anything. Have not yet defined in my own mind who's money, where it is, how it is made, how it is spent, and all other matters related to the business of money. I am just getting started.

But as you have asked me a question, let me now ask you a question: Are you satisfied that you, as a citizen, have sufficient control over the business of money in the United Sates?

 

[ataraxia]

As I wrote, I have not yet begun formal studying, which means I am not equating anything with anything. Have not yet defined in my own mind who's money, where it is, how it is made, how it is spent, and all other matters related to the business of money. I am just getting started.

But as you have asked me a question, let me now ask you a question: Are you satisfied that you, as a citizen, have sufficient control over the business of money in the United Sates?

You really should get back to us when you have your thoughts fleshed out a little more. No one knows what you are talking about.

All this is not sounding intriguingly mysterious. It just sounds confused with half-formed thoughts and concepts.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Are you satisfied that you, as a citizen, have sufficient control over the business of money in the United Sates?

Define, in your terms, "the business of money" please.

 

[Individual]

As I wrote, I have not yet begun formal studying, which means I am not equating anything with anything. Have not yet defined in my own mind who's money, where it is, how it is made, how it is spent, and all other matters related to the business of money. I am just getting started.

But as you have asked me a question, let me now ask you a question: Are you satisfied that you, as a citizen, have sufficient control over the business of money in the United Sates?

I'd have to know your definition of "the business of money" to try and answer your question.

 

[medi]

Do any of you believe you have control over how the federal government spends the money it has been given control of?

And I think that can be classified as a 'Yes' / 'No' question.

Do any of you believe you have the right to have control over how the federal government spends the money it has been given control of?

 

[ataraxia]

Do any of you believe you have control over how the federal government spends the money it has been given control of?

And I think that can be classified as a 'Yes' / 'No' question.

Do any of you believe you have the right to have control over how the federal government spends the money it has been given control of?

I don't even think I have control over the money our neighborhood condo association has been given control of. I never wanted those shrubs at our entrance, but got it anyway. Tyranyyyyy!

 

[medi]

I don't even think I have control over the money our neighborhood condo association has been given control of.

Does that mean your answer is 'No.' to both questions in that quote box you used?

 

[ataraxia]

Does that mean your answer is 'No.' to both questions in that quote box you used?

Yes. My answer is no- beyond voting once in a while.

So what do you suggest we do about it?

 

[medi]

I have already thought of questions that need to be asked before addressing your question.

Has there ever been a nation in which the citizens could answer with a "Yes." to the question of whether they have control over how their government spends the money it is provided?

Another question that comes to mind is whether it is right for the citizens to have such control over how their government spends the money their government is given? But using that vocabulary in that way "is it right" could be incorrect. Maybe the question should be whether ordinary citizens have the ability to have that control? Maybe in even these days when the average citizen has a better understanding of economics --- the business of money --- maybe the citizens still don't have enough understanding. Which leads to the question of whether citizens will ever have enough understanding?

The reason I came to start asking the main question is because it seems that the business of money, however that will eventually be properly defined, has become the single most important factor in the lives of the citizens of nations that are run in some manner that falls into the category of a democracy of some sort, but the citizens have very little control over that very important aspect of their lives. It is increasingly controlled by professionals and also by those that are simply good at accumulating wealth. Accumulating enough wealth that they can influence how governments spend money. The ordinary citizen seems to be sort of left out in the cold. No control at all, except for some sort of idea that they elect some individual that will make those decisions about how the government will spend money. I don't think (a rough estimate) 95% of a nation's citizens have any real say in how their government spends money. And I have begun to ask myself how that could be fair? And if it is not fair, how can that be changed?

Then there is the obvious question as to whether we even have the right to ask these questions I have placed in this post? Maybe most people think it is none of our business because we are simply too stupid to understand all this. And, yes, I am being crude when I use that vocabulary "stupid". Some well-educated folks would phrase it in some clever way that makes it seem not so crude, but the basic idea would be the same: You don't know what you are on about, so shut up. Leave that stuff to the experts and trust them. And I could write a lot of sentences that all have the same idea; we're too stupid.

And some people are simply afraid to ask such questions. They are afraid of what the answers might be.

 

[medi]

And I will admit that I am jumping way ahead by advocating that a fourth branch of government would need to be created for citizens to really have control, IF there is a consensus that citizens do have a right to have direct control. We would obviously need to come up with something completely new. Maybe one of our community members is smart enough to come up with that "something completely new" because I think I am only good at asking stupid questions. Hopefully more than one member in this community is smart enough to create that "something completely new".

 

[dmpi]

Instead of calling it the 'business of money', you should just use the phrase 'capitalist system'.

 

[medi]

Instead of calling it the 'business of money', you should just use the phrase 'capitalist system'.

I thought of that, but then I thought that maybe it is exactly that which may have us in trouble. So I decided to try some different description. I went through a lot of vocabulary as I thought about that title and admit I finally gave up trying to be clever and just went for some really basic style. And I knew I would get roasted for that.

You see, the capitalist system may be bad. Sorry for that repeat.

 

[medi]

Do any of you believe you have control over how the federal government spends the money it has been given control of?

And I think that can be classified as a 'Yes' / 'No' question.

Do any of you believe you have the right to have control over how the federal government spends the money it has been given control of?

I have to define the use of the vocabulary I use here - - - "control" - - - and that requires a slide back to the thread where I am studying (trying to identify) what the "spirit" of our nation may mean.

There was a time when a "frontier" family could set themselves down on a piece of land, say in what is now Oklahoma, - - - they could decide upon a piece of land and then work hard and produce enough to feed themselves and their children they eventually had while on that "land" and they could hunt and go find wood for building and I suspect they felt they had "control" of their lives and the ins-and-outs of that life.

I think it has been written by some, that many have admired, that there was in that time a "spirit" of the plains. A spirit of the mountains, if this settling down was done in a mountain area of the United States.

So that demonstrated something in the United States that was a difference from what others on other areas of the planet could experience because of the age of settlement in many others areas went much further back in time and landlords had already taken claim to land and so their was no "control" by those that may be upon a piece of land in maybe France or Russia, or many other areas.

And that is what has happened now in the United States, the "landlords" have moved in and few actually have any "control" over their lives, They are dependent upon all sorts of other factors and those "factors" are tied to big business and the government and that "business of money". BUT can that be changed?

Do we have the spirit in the United Sates to find a way to change that so that ordinary citizens can once again have that sort of "plains spirit" and regain control? Or are we just going to give up and ridicule nutcases like myself that dream about change? And let others control our lives, to include our government? Are we doomed to servitude to others?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I am not sure what's being asked here.

 

[medi]

I am not sure what's being asked here.

It sure took me a few hours to come to a proper answer, Slartibartfast.

And I finally figured out that I am also not sure what's being asked here.

Yes, I did ask two specific questions of ataraxia earlier in this thread, but that isn't anywhere near the finish line. In fact, there isn't really any "finish line" if we wish for this nation to remain active on this planet for as long as this Earth can support us humans.

I'm exploring. I stayed with this community to learn about the citizens of my nation outside of what I have experienced over the past many decades that basically was with government and military types, when it came to my fellow citizens. That can be a problem sometimes, when you are staying within a certain kind of folks within the larger community. In this case, I refer to the "larger community" as the nation itself.

I have been fortunate to also be amongst large communities of citizens of two other nations in recent decades, and that is also an excellent learning experience.

But of my own citizens, it has been here since last year that I realized I could pick up a few hints on certain matters.

And it has more recently been coming to me that we humans are treading down a path that leads to trouble. We are losing control over our lives. And we haven't been paying attention. And the number one loss of control is over that stuff that folks call money. I mean, some 90plus percent of us really don't have any control over money. We think we do, but the source of your money can be cut off without you having any control at all. But most of us don't think about that. Maybe we are scared to.

So I am starting to look for answers. And I am starting to try and find the correct questions. As I wrote around here recently, the shelf of questions and answers is the key. One of those shelves contains the proper questions.

And here I am looking for the correct question about why we have lost control of something so important. What is that "something" being an obvious smaller question? I think that "something" relates to money. Who controls the money? And why? And do we care enough, if we find out that we have zero control? And "we" is about 90plus percent of us.

So the "what's being asked" is not yet defined. That is going to be the big question. Right now, with this post, it is still the stage of the little questions that might lead to the big question. And "might" is the key.

There is also the key point that this site is primarily an entertainment site. Folks come here and participate here to rant and throw verbal barbs at other humans that are on the other side of the political aisle and they also like the barbs thrown at them and it is all a sort of game. It is entertainment. And that is fine. No sweat. Yes, some of you are here to learn and study, but most are not. So when some nutcase like me starts to ask stupid questions it doesn't fit in the "game" or the "entertainment" and it even upsets some folks. So that can cause problems. But they are problems of the mind, for the most part.

But the "entertainment" aspect of this community has been a teaching process for my weird mind. Let's face facts, I am not a normal human type.

 

[medi]

Wait, I erred a bit. Here:

So the "what's being asked" is not yet defined. That is going to be the big question. Right now, with this post, it is still the stage of the little questions that might lead to the big question. And "might" is the key.

I actually got into a bigger element right at the start when I offered that maybe a fourth branch of our government could be an answer. That might be the "big question" BUT I am not sure about that.

Still, I should have qualified what is showing in the quote box in this post; when I wrote in the above post what is in that quote box.

 

[medi]

Seems appropriate to start getting technical:

A Series of Checks and Balances

What checks and balances are in place to allow the Federal Reserve to make monetary policy decisions based on economic grounds rather than political considerations?

www.stlouisfed.org

Paragraph one of the landing page of the link above:

Independence + Accountability

The tricky issue is that accountability means being subject to some political oversight, which weakens the perception that the central bank is independent. So, there is an inherent tension between having independence to conduct policy and being accountable to the electorate. Furthermore, if central bankers are not elected, then they must be chosen in another way. The question was, by whom?

Paragraphs three and four:

What are these checks and balances? First, rather than have a single central bank, the founders created a system of central banks. This system includes the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., and 12 regional Reserve banks. This arrangement avoided the problem of having strong federal government control of the central bank. The idea behind the regional banks is that the further these policymakers are from the day-to-day political process, the more likely that monetary policy decisions would be made on economic grounds rather than political considerations. Furthermore, the policymakers would be less susceptible to pressures to create seigniorage. The opposite concern is that the regional banks would focus too much on their own districts. Therefore, the Board of Governors (seven members) was created to ensure that the entire nation's welfare was considered. Thus, policy was to be set by the 12 presidents of the regional banks (those who served as direct contacts with the states) and the seven members of the Board of Governors (those who were intended to have more of a national view).

Second, who would choose these 19 policymakers? One concern of the founders was that if all of the central bankers are political appointees of the president or Congress, then the Fed would not have the independence it needed to conduct policy in an appropriate manner. It therefore was decided that the presidents of the regional banks would not be political appointees but would be chosen by the citizenry of the district in a nonelectoral manner. This ensured that the presidents would be independent of the political process and less likely to engage in seigniorage creation. One method of choosing regional presidents in a nonelectoral manner was to create a local board of directors for each of the 12 regional banks. Each board, in turn, would select its regional bank president. To achieve a broad perspective on the economic well-being of each district, the board was to be composed of individuals from a wide range of sectors. This ensured that the regional bank presidents would be chosen based on their professional qualifications as opposed to their political connections or sectoral ties.