What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
183 Comments
- chupavacas, on 05/21/2009, -22/+125Jesus, how much did the Fed pay to have that dribble produced?
The Fed is a cartel. Like all cartels it is set up to benefit its members (banks). They print money out of thin air and force us all to use it. The newly printed money benefits those that get it first, the rest of us suffer from the constant debasement. To say that the Fed is central to our economy is like saying a tape worm is important for digestion. 1. Audit the Fed. 2. End the Fed. - NSResponder, on 05/21/2009, -7/+73Superficial and misleading. Buried.
-jcr - F34RInc, on 05/21/2009, -6/+65The Federal Reserve is no more "Federal" then Federal Express
- Cowboy1015, on 05/21/2009, -2/+60this visual guide is mostly texts inside boxes
- GregDude, on 05/21/2009, -6/+57I particularly liked the part "By the 19th century people had grown tired of the turbulent banking industry. Panics, bank runs, cash crises, and lack of credit were all hindering people's livelihoods..." Thank God for the Fed, we don't have anything like that anymore.
- shallowpro, on 05/21/2009, -6/+46If conspiracy theories are for such crazy tinfoil people, why do "smart, educated" people spend so much time trying to prove them wrong? If only whackjobs and basement dwelling paranoid schizophrenics believe in crazy conspiracy theories, why do we hear about them and argue about them every single day?
Hilarious at the end by the way; it's pretty common knowledge that kennedy was killed for attacking the fed and international bankers. - defendliberty, on 05/21/2009, -4/+40Paid for by Ben Bernanke and friends.
- MacroDaemon, on 05/21/2009, -1/+33For some reason, the word INFOGRAPHIC has started to annoy me.
- bakedpajamas, on 05/21/2009, -7/+36What a steaming pile of *****.
- entelekhia, on 05/21/2009, -5/+34Now we have inflation AND bank crises
- inactive, on 05/21/2009, -1/+25"They are non-profit entities owned by the thousands of privet member banks across the country which have bought shares of their regional reserve bank."
"so that is the public privet part?"
"You got it."
Well well, that doesn't sound like there is any public at all, owned by bankers and making choices for bankers. Where is my say in this? I don't have it. And people act surprised when Bush and Obama appoint hard core banking insiders to guard the treasury. We are so ***** it's almost funny. - KooperG, on 05/21/2009, -3/+27Yes, presenting it this way would have 90% of the people believe it is true, valid and a working scheme. But:
6% is WAY more then any investment without risks will ever get anyone.
6% is trice the average annual inflation, thus making sure the banks will never ever be losing money.
14 years in function, with a small group of people: This means that any established core group will be able to fully influence new members, since they are all in for the long haul. It creates a group of people that are ABOVE the normal economic laws, this group will always try to get money out of the hands of the average john doe, and into the 'system'
and much, much more is flawed in the whole structure.
Please can anyone check who paid these guys to suddenly come up with a nice infographic making the fed seem like a philanthropic institute? - dmelo, on 05/21/2009, -8/+32Good video on the federal reserve http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ...
- mah2cent, on 05/21/2009, -3/+22This article must have been written by/for the Fed, since there is a strong move afoot (sponsored by Ron Paul and co-sponsored by another 170 congressmen) to audit the Fed.
For a better view of the reach of the Fed, Google a Fed publication entitled "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions." In addition to recklessly manipulating the money supply and causing boom-and-bust cycles for more than ninety years (including the Great Depression and the current one), the Fed "has supervisory and regulatory authority over a wide range of financial institutions and activities." That’s an understatement if ever there was one. Among the Fed’s "functions" are the regulation of:
* Bank holding companies
* State-chartered banks
* Foreign branches of member banks
* Edge and agreement corporations
* U.S. state-licensed branches, agencies, and representative offices of foreign banks
* Nonbanking activities of foreign banks
* National banks
* Savings banks
* Nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies
* Thrift holding companies
* Financial reporting procedures
* Accounting policies of banks
* Business "continuity" in case of economic emergencies
* Consumer protection laws
* Securities dealings of banks
* Information technology used by banks
* Foreign investment by banks
* Foreign lending by banks
* Branch banking
* Bank mergers and acquisitions
* Who may own a bank
* Capital "adequacy standards"
* Extensions of credit for the purchase of securities
* Equal opportunity lending
* Mortgage disclosure information
* Reserve requirements
* Electronic funds transfers
* Interbank liabilities
* Community Reinvestment Act sub-prime lending demands
* All international banking operations
* Consumer leasing
* Privacy of consumer financial information
* Payments on demand deposits
* "Fair Credit" reporting
* Transactions between member banks and their affiliates
* Truth in lending
* Truth in savings
Source: Thomas J. DiLorenzo, is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.
As you can see, the Fed has complete control of banking, interest rates and money creation.
And to see the effect of the Fed's money counterfeiting check out:
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl. Enter any sum for the year 1913 and then calculate the 2009 value. That is the result of monetary inflation (manufacturing currency out of thin air). - juk3box, on 05/21/2009, -5/+23You are dead wrong when you say, "Nor does the Fed have anything to do with forcing you to use a particular currency".
The United States government FORCES you to use Federal Reserve Notes. Want proof? Go look up why the Liberty Dollar (alternative currency in the U.S.) offices were raided by the F.B.I. on November 14, 2007: http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/pr_nl/11_14_2008.h ...
Everybody in the United States is FORCED to use Federal Reserve Notes. No competing currencies are allowed in the United States, other than foreign currencies. How come the powers-that-be in the United States are so afraid of a competing currency based in the United States? - juk3box, on 05/21/2009, -2/+19it's not actually audited. Go look up who does these supposed "audits" then just try asking them a few questions about the Federal Reserve. This stuff is kept secret, they won't tell you what they see happening at the Fed.
- Jerrbear1, on 05/21/2009, -9/+25Can we get this pro federal reserve propaganda of the front page plz?
- inactive, on 05/21/2009, -3/+191. I am quite unconvinced by that obvious and blatant propaganda.
2. It's not really a picture if it's just a picture of a whole lot of text. - Berkana, on 05/21/2009, -6/+21For those who don't understand the problems that Fed objectors are concerned about (and it's not merely allegations of conspiracy), please take a look at the at the documentary "Money as Debt":
http://vimeo.com/2244372
The problem is that the Federal Reserve system is unsustainable and utterly dependent on the growth of debt just to not collapse, and prone to manipulation. That's why the whole system is so utterly dependent on getting "consumer confidence" up so people will borrow, because under this system (fractional reserve banking), all our money is borrowed into existence, and needs to be continually borrowed just to remain in circulation. Any cessation in borrowing leads to a monetary contraction as each debtor's debt payments un-makes the money they borrow into existence; those with outstanding debts during a contraction who can't make their payments (because there simply isn't enough money going around) get foreclosed on.
The present monetary crisis should shake everyone's faith in a "public/private" central bank. - juk3box, on 05/21/2009, -1/+16There are some things missing from this. For example, the Federal Reserve used to keep all of the profits generated. It wasn't until Wright Patman raised hell in the 1960's that the legislation was changed so that the profit was returned to the Treasury.
- CrookedFed, on 05/21/2009, -4/+17My cousin on the internet told me this is *****. (What's with the cousin on the internet?)
Coincidentally there is a grassroots "Audit the Fed" movement going on. Public sentiment towards the Fed is very,very low. People are learning about money as debt. People are learning that there is a private banking institution loaning money to our Gov't with interest when we should just be printing our own money. Our income taxes do not go to infrastructure, they go to paying this interest.
This is just an attempt to discredit criticism of the system and to discredit the internet. Nice try, boys. - lyonsban, on 05/21/2009, -1/+13The Fed doesn't "print" money much any more. There's just not much cash these days, instead they use a computer terminal to magically create a few billion dollars in a bank.
First off remember that banks have to keep reserves of cash on hand to meet demand. We -don't- want bank runs so this is kept fairly high and is controlled by the Fed. As of 1980 The Federal reserve allows notes payable by the Federal reserve to be used as cash reserves. By shrinking and expanding this money reserve the Federal reserve keeps the economy growing at a slow 3% pace, which experience has determined to be optimal and not "too" inflationary. A little inflation is good, because it keeps cash out from under grandmas mattress and in the economy working.
By raising interest rates between banks the economy will slow and
the economy cool down, too much growth and the economy starts buying stupid over priced crap (sound familiar?). This actually works really well, which is why the Federal reserve is so hesitant to use it. Politics says "grow baby grow", even when it's bad for us long term.
By lowering interest rates the economy (well actually banks) have large amounts of cash on hand to start lending money out for anything someone is willing to get a loan for. This heats up the economy and starts the growth patterns all over the country. Unfortunately this works very slowly, in fact the usual term is "pushing on a string", so it can take time to get the economy started. Another unfortunate by product is that by the time the lowered interest rates start working the economy is heading towards being over priced and the low rates just inflate everything.($5 hamburgers and $4 gas anyone?)
Of (much) less concern is the banks %6 interest and of more concern is 1) the actual components of "cash" on hand. Mortgage securities are a bad bet and should have been caught by the Fed and SEC. 2) Politics getting involved. The war in Iraq caused political pressure to keep the economy hotter than it should have been, additionally no President or Congress wants to sit on a cooling economy and risk their next term because jobs stall. Even though it is for our long term good... they would still rather risk pushing a string than face a slow economy. - evodevo1, on 05/21/2009, -3/+14This article is really lacking in depth of any kind. First of all, please cite references for all the claims that you make like member banks receiving 6% annual dividend and the Fed buys currency at 4c per bill. Second, 6% annual growth is awesome for a no-risk investment! When was the last time you got a 6% CD?
And the article is full of misinformation. First of all, the Fed can lend money to member banks at very low interest rates, especially like right now when the Fed funds rate is at 0%! Remember last fall-winter when the Fed auctioned off hundreds of BILLIONS for next to nothing? That is money created out of thing air. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way that those funds had to be printed at all. With everything being electronic now, currency is just a number in an account somewhere. There is hardly any tangible cash.
Plus, it says that the Fed needs to provide Treasury securities as collateral to raise currency. Well, where did the treasuries come from, don't they just get conjured up out of thin air? This article is totally misleading and disingenuous. Shame on you!!! - StripeyMagee, on 05/21/2009, -0/+11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_no._1 ...
- inactive, on 05/21/2009, -5/+16The saddest part is that they don't even adresse monetery activism, and what effects ***** with the interest rates has on consumption
This is my question: "My crazy cousin on the internet says that when the market is at full employment and the fed artificially lowers interest rates for political reasons to spur consumption all that will happen is there will be inflation fueled by the increase in now cheaper debt, and asset bubbles formed, is this true"
To which he will have no response that isn't a talking point becuase the last 4 years prove it.
Destroy the fed and link the interest rate to GDP. ***** those ***** before our vaginas and dicks get covered in even more *****. - jamdogg, on 05/21/2009, -1/+11Thank God for that otherwise they could gain more and more power over the biggest institutions and thus the whole economy...er...wait...
- Hamakuas, on 05/21/2009, -0/+10Never fear, this wasn't an infographic, it was text in .Jpg format.
- valarking, on 05/21/2009, -1/+11Is it really an infographic if it's mainly just speech bubbles? I mean, there are a few nifty graphical representations of the content in there, but it's still a stretch.
- tvnews, on 05/21/2009, -0/+10Only certain sections of Fed are audited and those are not the important parts.
Try asking who the bailout money went to, Ben Bernake is shown on film saying he will not disclose that information as it is trade secret. - juk3box, on 05/21/2009, -6/+15Go look up information about the Jekyll Island meeting, which is where the Federal Reserve System was conceived. This graphic downplays that meeting too much with this sentence:
"Well if it was a conspiracy it clearly failed. In 1913 the populist Democrats controlled the White House and both chambers of congress, and were strongly opposed to a Wall Street controlled system."
There are several assumptions in this statement that are incorrect. Here are some, if others can add some, please do:
1) Only Republicans are conspirators. Democrats are totally innocent and only represent supreme goodness. Republicans are the bad guys whereas Demcrats are the good guys.
2) That the Federal Reserve System is not controlled by Wall Street.
Truth: The recent bailouts prove that the Fed is controlled by Wall Street.
3) That the system hasn't been changed since 1913.
Truth: There have been constant changes to the Federal Reserve System since then.
4) That the top-secret Jekyll Island meeting had no effect whatsoever on the resulting structure of the system.
Truth: What was formed with the Federal Reserve Act was in fact the Aldrich Plan with a different name. The Aldrich Plan was concieved by the banksters at Jekyll Island.
5) That Wall Street never gained control of the Federal Reserve System since then, and that even if Republicans were to gain control of congress and the presidency, that the Republicans wouldn't be able to put the Fed into the control of Wall Street. - inactive, on 05/21/2009, -2/+11So... Where's the infographic of the IMF drinking milkshakes of third world countries?
- jamdogg, on 05/21/2009, -1/+10They will all remember WHY THEY NEED US!
- juk3box, on 05/21/2009, -4/+13You guys need to stop talking so much about the Federal Reserve. As Thomas Cooley, a man heavily involved in Federal Reserve activities, published last week at Forbes, "The Federal Reserve Needs to be BORING AGAIN": http://digg.com/business_finance/The_Federal_Reser ...
We need to keep the Federal Reserve out of public sight, but when people do see it, make sure it's boring so no one pays attention to what's going on. Because you guys keep on talking about it, the people who control the Federal Reserve are getting worried that they won't be able to control it anymore. As Cooley mentioned in the article:
"Congress is now clamoring to audit the Fed, and some of the policy proposals currently under discussion at the Federal Reserve will only increase the threat to its independence."
Can you all quit scaring the people who control the Federal Reserve? Go read magazines about celebrities for find some that's actually fun to do. - Mazrin, on 05/21/2009, -1/+10Ok, to me, uneducated in the ways of complicated economics, can someone please say in a non-tinfoil hat way whether this is legit or not.
A few people have said it's crazy propaganda and full of evil-sauce, which may very well be true, but please explain why (try to keep it simple for those of us who aren't familiar with economics), or, explain why this -is- legit, in a way that if someone disagrees, they can debate you on it. - MindStalker, on 05/21/2009, -0/+8Yes, the most effective parasites are the ones that don't kill the host.
- StripeyMagee, on 05/21/2009, -4/+12The FED does 'print' money, it happens on a computer. Not all money is represented by actual paper. Fractional reserve lending is basically printing money out of thin air. The banks only need 10% in reserves, in other words if a bank has $1000 in reserves, they can make loans for $9000.
- RonPauls, on 05/21/2009, -3/+10Lol whoever produced that needs to read some Rothbard
"History of Money and Banking in the US" will do
Their explanation of panics in the 1800s is just wrong - Berkana, on 05/21/2009, -4/+11It is not legit because they don't tell you the implications of a monetary system that is dependent on debt, which is one of the big objections against the Federal Reserve System. This system ends up funneling vast sums of wealth into the shareholders of the Fed.
See this 45 minute documentary for an explanation of this:
http://vimeo.com/2244372
The Federal Reserve is the Federal Government's biggest creditor. All the cash we have is printed by the Fed to buy government bonds, which the government has to pay interest on. Your taxes go to pay this interest, but the dollars the Fed used to buy the bonds are backed by nothing, like money out of thin air.
During the Regan administration, Regan comissioned Peter Grace to audit where all of our taxes were going in an attempt to reduce the size of the government and cut taxes. (He failed at the former.) Peter Grace's findings were published in the Grace Commission Report, and his findings were that NONE of the personal federal income tax went towards paying for goods and services; 100% of it ended up paying for interest the government owed on its debt.
Ask yourself this: why the hell is the government indebting itself to the Federal Reserve to obtain money when it could just as easily obtain the money with no interest? Granted, printing money and expanding the money supply in lieu of taxing causes inflation, but the present system has both inflation and a tax burden on the citizenry to pay for the interest. Ideally, the government would only resort to expanding/inflating the money supply to meet the liquidity needs of the economy when the existing supply is not enough and save taxes when excess liquidity threatens inflation (a.k.a. Friedman-modified Keynesian economics). There is no need for the government to borrow the money it needs from private banks at interest. - KooperG, on 05/21/2009, -2/+9actually, by the 19th century, people understoond quite well.
-Keep you main sums in an international valued substance (Gold).
-Dont borrow to those who cannot pay back
and more similar common sense real-life stuff like that. All of this has been done away with by the Fed over the last century. - MCav, on 05/21/2009, -5/+11Jesus, this would be more effective if you knew the difference between 'dribble' and 'drivel'.
- GregDude, on 05/21/2009, -0/+6You need some INFOTAINMENT to cheer you up then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infotainment
- inactive, on 05/21/2009, -2/+8Historical video is historical: The Money Masters
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560 ... - kemp34, on 05/21/2009, -4/+9I would like to have a public debate with the Fed-apologist moron who produced that piece of semi-truth trash.
- akhomestead, on 05/21/2009, -0/+5Only a percentage is returned and we don't have the power to audit them so how do we know what they made. They won't even tell us how they spent 2 trillion dollars.
This is alos central planning of the economy. That's the last thing from a free market but when ***** goes down they have the people so fooled they think we need more planning to fix it.
Plus it put us on a system of credit. All money is created thru debt, and it can never be paid back since they only created the principle. Now we have to get even larger loans to keep the system afloat. It put us in a state of perpetual debt. - sofaking30, on 05/21/2009, -3/+8Central banks are fine, if there's no deficit, however the Federal Reserve is used as a tool for the U.S.gov. It's basically a self-fulfilling credit machine that is funding government programs right now. Because their expenditures exceeds the taxes that they can collect from citizens, the gov ends up financing their own credit directly from the source, and this causes U.S. currency holders to lose purchasing power. Even if the gov pays back the money, it'll be through taxation or stealing wealth from another country.
- inactive, on 05/21/2009, -6/+11The common argument from proponents of the Fed is that we had recessions (then called panics) before the creation of the Fed. This is true but it happened because the fraudulent practice of fractional reserve banking was allowed to persist. People would deposit real money, gold or silver, into the bank and the bank would give them a demand deposit in return. People started circulating the demand deposits in place of the gold or silver because they did not want to be bothered redeeming their gold or silver every time they had to make a purchase. Banks caught on to this, then they realized that they could just print more demand deposit paper and collect interest on it.
The same problem existed, the over extension of credit, malinvestment caused by artificially low interest rates, then the inevitable bust. People would then try to redeem their demand deposits for their real money, gold or silver, but the banks could not honor their commitment since they had their were far more demand deposits than gold in reserves. This is simply fraud. The government would bail them out of this fraud (a practice that continues to this day) by declaring bank holidays and allowing the bank not honor their commitments to their "panicking" depositors.
What is needed is a 100% gold standard, where all demand deposits are backed by gold. If banks want to loan money then they can offer depositors time deposits where the depositor could not redeem their gold until an agreed amount of time and be compensated with an agreed amount of interest. This would be an honest system and we would no longer have to suffer the booms and busts of the business cycle. - euming, on 05/21/2009, -4/+9No, it buys it newly printed cash from the Treasury for $0.04 per bill. Because "printing money out of thin air" is such a hyberbole for buying a $100 bill for $0.04, or an instant 250,000% return.
- SirRankerous, on 05/21/2009, -0/+5And Obama's Secretary of Treasury used to be president of the New York Fed
- ryleyleckie, on 05/21/2009, -2/+7buried for misinfographic
-
Show 51 - 100 of 185 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is