No just seperate, private.
We are just being repetitive. The Fed is not like other private banks. If you will not acknowledge how the Fed and every other private bank is different, prove that what I have posted about how the Fed operates is wrong, or you are just wasting time.
No, but in conjunction with the fact that a FULL audit of the Fed has been repeatedly denied, how can you say for certain that this is not the fact. Consider that the gov't is borrowing money from these people @ interest. (when they are fully capable of creating their own interest free notes) Assume YOU are a shareholder of the Fed & only take %6 profit. You would be rich, rich, rich, at the current National Debt. What incentive do they have to see the National Debt paid off? All they here is 'cha ching' every time Bush asks to borrow more. If they also control interest rates... the potential for corruption is vast.
The Fed is regularly and fully audited. I gave you the cites.
It's only a 'theory' that O.J did it. It's only a 'theory' that Bush lied about Iraq. O.J was found not guilty, and Bush has never been tried. Almost everyone knows both of them did it. There are enough professional, respected people asking about the Fed and pushing monetary reform - Friedman included. Just because the news doesn't cover it, doesn't make it unsubstantiated. The media is famous for giving unsubstantiated, biased opinions...
Right. The difference between theory and fact is whether there is evidence that substantiated it. There is evidence that OJ did it and even more that Bush misrepresented the case for Iraq.
You have provided no evidence for you theory that the Fed operates to maximize the profits of Reserve Bank member bank shareholders, that its shareholders control the Fed Board and the US President.
And what? Why are so many prominent people so vehemently opposed to a private Fed? Why doesn't the Fed appease those (excluding 'conspiracy theorists') asking for a wide open, FULL audit, and just put this **** to bed?
I have actually seen very few knowledgeable people that oppose the Fed for the reasons you argue.
Within 4 years of the Bank of England going private, their National Debt went from a little over $1 million (pounds)
to $16 million. 40 years later, their debt hit $140 million (absolutely monstrous for mid 1700's)
If you think that the concept of Govt borrowing should be outlawed, there is some basis for that, and you should be supporting a pay-go system of Govt financing.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your friends that the answer is to abolish banks and give the US Govt the power to print up as much money as it wants.
They also lacked a central bank, and their were indeed flaws to the system. A couple hundred years have passed since then to refine it. A central bank would still be needed, just not in private hands.
Again we are being repetitive. You either continue to be confused about how the Fed operates, in which case I have failed to explain it effectively, or you understand what I have written and the sources I have given you yet you continue to maintain the false implication that private entities control the Fed, in which case you are just wasting my time.
The Federal Reserve Board makes the money supply policy decisions. No one owns the Fed Board. Its members are chosen by the president, ratified by Congress. Unless you say they are all bought off or bribed (which could happen with any elected official) there is no basis for asserting that private interests in any way control the decision making entity, the Board.
The decisions of the Board are implemented through the regional Federal Reserve Banks. The Fed Banks do not make money supply decisions. They just implement them. The Fed Banks owned by shareholders which are member banks of the Fed, these are the banks that borrow money from the Fed and then distribute that money into the economy. The member banks earn a fixed 6% for their investment in the Fed Reserve banks. The member banks have no authority over, right to vote on, or control over the Fed Board, which makes the decisions.
The decision making authority, the Fed Board, is not a private corporation. It is not owned by shareholders. It is not in any way under any control of the member banks.
This is all a matter of statutes that created the Fed system. If you do not understand this, it is useless to go around and around in circles. If you dispute this, provide credible evidence that it is wrong. Otherwise we are wasting time and I'm not going to continue doing that.
Not true. Further down that list they touch on 'lending institutions', including credit cards. Banks will simply store money for a fee, which is what they were originally created for.
Banks don't make nearly enough money from deposits to justify operating as a security vault merely holding deposits. They currently pay you for the privilege of holding your money. Why should I pay a bank for the privilege of holding my money? They should (and do) pay me. If a bank is going to charge me interest for holding my money, I'll put it somewhere else.
What are lending institutions if not banks? What do they have to lend if deposits cannot be lent?
Yes. As the Fed (debt based) notes are constricted, US notes (a new non-debt based currency) will be proportionately introduced. I am certainly not a monetary expert, and I don't quite understand all the details. I do know Milton Friedman had his hand in it, so IMO it's worth a look.
I have tried to find a source that talks about Friedman's supposed support for this, but have found nothing other than the vague excerpt on there website. Is there anything else that talks about whether Friedman supported the plan they propose? I question exactly how far Friedman supported abolishing lending authority for banks and giving the Govt power to create money. But maybe he did.
With the National Debt gone, reduced taxes, and 'lending institutions' handling the lending, my guess is it's a good thing.
Hyper inflation is not a good thing. Not having banks to lend money for business expansion is not a good thing.
The fact that we have had financially irresposible governments for most of the past 25 years is not a reason to give them the athority to print money to pay off the debt the have run up. To the contrary. It is saying, "here Govt, you have shown to be horribly irresponsible running the fiscal part of the Govt. So we are going to give you that power to create money and run the money supply as well."
That would be the height of stupidity, don't you think? Yet that is exactly what the "money master" guys propose we do!
All of that will still exist. 'Usery', as it was called, was illegal way back when. It wasn't until the late middle ages that 'interest' or usery was allowed because of growth, opportunity, and risk to lenders. Lending @ interest will still exist for these purposes.
Therefore you acknowledge that lending is a good thing. So why do you want to abolish banks, which exist for this purpose?
Fair enough, though MoneyMasters is not my only source...
I just noted your exact arguments parrotting the segment I watched. There are a lot of inaccuracies and misimplications in the video. But it was interesting, I'll try to watch the rest of it when I have time.
RE: Fractional Reserve Banking...
I didn't rebutt this one...
Yes the original $1,000 existed, but it got 'recycled' and turned into $10,000. 9 grand of this never really existed.
So what? None of the money exists in a sense. It is just a medium for exchange. The issue is maintaining the controlled supply of that medium of exchange, whether it is multiplied thru fractional banking or not.
I'm going book shopping this weekend...
Friedman, and Hayek...
Peace
Peace.
Just look at my signature