digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Fed Cuts Key Rate by .5% Point

msnbc.msn.com — The Federal Reserve Tuesday responded aggressively to a housing downturn that threatens to spread to the broader economy, cutting its main benchmark interest rate by a half-percentage point and broadly lowering borrowing costs.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gdutton, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Wow! Was only expecting .25%
    • donwilson2, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Digg frontpage article is expecting double digits in a few years. Almost as bad as the Carter years.
    • podrag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I suspect there are some big fat skeletons waiting to fall out of the closet.
  • michaelstokes, on 10/10/2007, -9/+83I guess some genius at the Fed decided that the solution to the problem--was more of the problem.
    • crazydiode, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7short term vision. Check this out.. http://www.elliottwave.com/features/default.aspx?cat=emw*aid=3331*time=pm
      • chaserm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0My belief is that it is the deliberate policy of the neo-cons to so weaken our money that Americans will gratefully welcome the new Amero. In addition, I believe the Red Chinese have been assured by Treasury Secretary Paulson that the Chinese reserves will be given favorable treatment from dollar devaluation by the US Government. Ditto for other governments holding large dollar reserves. Most likely accomplished through a two-tiered currency structure; simple: Americans get to convert their dollars at 1-for-1 for each amero while privileged central banks can convert through a Federal Reserve administered Clearing House at, say, .75-for-1 amero. Presto! a 25% REvaluation for the central banks. The bottom line is that it will mean a massive wealth transfer scheme of Americans' wealth. You simply cannot implement a currency union without leveling the wealth distribution first. The hegemony of America's wealth as it exists now is certainly not compatible with that of Mexico and Canada. Political union will follow.
    • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19Everyone talks about the out of control spending, which is a very valid point, but then they turn around and ask for universal health care. Pick one folks, you either get "free" stuff, and crushing debt, or we all collectively tighten our belt and cut unnecessary services. Then, after that's done, DEMAND that we have a Constitutional amendment for a balanced budget except for in times of war or emergency. If your political leader doesn't adhere to fiscal responsibility (like most Democrats like John Murtha, but lately Republicans have fallen to out of control spending), then vote them out of office.

      If you're fiscally responsible like I am (sorry for tooting my own horn), you weather fiscal storms like this one with ease. While everyone else panics, you find that you get bargains on real estate and other goods because of everyone else's greed.
      • utahnkid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8EXACTLY.. I hate how everyone thinks universal health care is this magical free system that grows its resources on trees. The more "programs" our government has, the more money they need and the more power they get after all is said and done. I'm pretty sure that the government having too much power is exactly why we started this country in the first place, right?
        • sigintop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are many forms of "universal health care". For instance, one would require that everyone pay into the system and that copays amount to $XX (say $40) per visit. So those idiots who like to abuse the system and come everyday for the smallest things don't clog the lines and don't waste resources.

          There are many possible solutions out there. To disregard them all is wrong.
        • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0The alternative is a lot of tiny non-universal health cares, and a large pool of uninsured people that are already soaking up tax money in the form of emergency care. Yes, someone always has to pay, and right now, there are a large number of people who benefit but don't pay. Like lawyers and illegal aliens.
      • Leo21k, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I'd rather spend our tax dollars on universal health care which would save american lives and ease their suffering then spend on a war.

        Either way I wont get anything out of it since I dont need the health care but at least with the universal health care I'd know our money was going to help americans in need.
        • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ummm, your tax dollars aren't spent on anything. The FED is a private bank. The Federal Income Tax goes to pay the interest on the debt that we accrue from the FED. When you think Federal Reserve, think Federal Express. Both private companies, both out for a profit.
      • Tilon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You guys would have a point if we didn't already blow so much money on useless *****.

        The solution is spending less on guns and potheads, and more on health care. Not more taxes.
      • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Why would I demand that we have a balanced budget at all times when I don't even want that? Not all debt is bad.
      • generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Everyone talks about the out of control spending, which is a very valid point, but then they turn around and ask for universal health care.
        "
        Because universal health care costs less than private health insurance. Take a look at the numbers.
        It's not only fiscally responsible though.

        Private insurance
        33% administrative costs
        Double growth since the 1960s. 15% of GDP spent on multiple private insurers
        Don't get what you pay for as they look for ways to deny you coverage

        Universal health care:
        14% administrative costs
        9% of GDP, only 2% growth since the 1960s.
    • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Also give the President, and future President, line item veto powers. That way politicians can't sneak in pork into spending bills that are more important then the pork. That's what politicians do. They know that X bill will pass because it's popular or is desperately needed, so they put in literally BILLIONS in extras that don't need to be there, and the bill passes and we become further into debt.
      • thecolor11, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Um, you realize the line item veto is unconstitutional, right?
        • OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4The line item veto is not unconstitutional.
          • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Actually, the Supreme Court ruled in unconstitutional Oswald in the link I put down below. President Reagan and Clinton both asked for the power but neither got to use it or got to use it for long.
        • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't have a Constitution in front of me. Care to show me?
        • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Nevermind, found it:

          http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/

          As a side note though, don't you think that it might be a good idea to give the President line item veto power? That way certain portions of a bill that everyone agrees on can be approved and those that they don't have to go back and get the 2/3rds majority all the while the first item that everyone agrees on can't get done yet.
          • venom8599, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No, because just imagine the horrible things that could've happened if Dubya had a line item veto. It essentially gives the President the ability to rewrite the law to fit whatever he wants. It would undermine the checks and balances that are inherent to our system of government.
      • billmccartney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Actually, the president should simply veto bills that are filled with pork, and force congress to put a better bill together. That's the idea of it in the constituion.
        • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Agreed in principle. However, with recent military spending bills that needed to be passed for Afghanistan and Iraq, Congress loaded up the bill with $24 billion dollars worth of pork to get the President to veto it. That's not how it's supposed to work. If Congress wanted to defund the war in Iraq, they should have simply voted it down before it got to the President.

          Good in theory, bad in practice.
        • TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thats why congress loaded that military spending bill with billions more than what was needed to fund their own pet projects. Since it was for the military, the President can't really veto that bill he's been asking for all this time, no matter how much pork is in it.
    • donwilson2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Everyone's an expert.
    • sjbdallas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Very unfortunate that they've chosen to do this. What needed to happen was for this whole "crisis" to continue until everything evens out on its own. There are people that needed to lose their homes and businesses that needed to close. Cutting the rate and trying to stimulate the housing market will only delay the inevitable. The same idiots that started this whole thing are going to make it last longer.
      • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It will give some people a shot at refinancing into affordable 30 year fixed loans and I'm not sure thats a bad thing. At least it might spread the foreclosures out, giving the economy more time to adapt.

        Not that I mind seeing the assholes that ramped up house prices out on the street.
    • BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In our country the Dow index is pretty much the rate at which FED is printing money, offsetting debts into inflation, not an indicator of economic wealth.
      • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not true, there is plenty of foreign investment, that's why the international markets all took a hit when the hedge funds dropped.
  • digghasnoethics, on 10/10/2007, -4/+50Ooo, so the dollar dives, investment escapes and oil inflates. Wow what a wonderful idea to protect deadbeat home 'owners' and poor financial charlatans.

    Dumb dumb dumb
    • pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2it doesn't protect homeowners - homeowners came into the deal with $0... bought a $300,000 house with $300,000 borrowed from the bank...

      homeowner realizes immeditately he can't pay:

      "i can't pay"

      banker says:

      "he can't pay! lower rates so his home price can go up, his interest can go down so he can pay!"
    • Y0tsuya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Right. Legislations to keep homeowners in their homes are NOT designed to help homeowners. Those homeowners are already beyond help. This only helps the banks. Anyone who thinks otherwise (and there are many) need to have their heads checked.
  • Genthree, on 10/10/2007, -3/+30Well *****...there went the dollar.
    • divrekku, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2My sentiments exactly. Remind me to invest in the euro.
  • Hawker400, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10This was bound to happen. While I don't necessarily agree to the cut, it was needed. Inflationary pressure has cooled for the time being, not to mention the fact that the Fed raised interest rates 17 consecutive times prior to holding rates at 5.25% for over a year. Don't be surprised if the rate drops to 4.25% by 2008.

    I would expect the European banks to follow.
    • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The UK banks will, but the Euro banks have no need.
    • TrevorBradley, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Canadian Banks are considering *raising* our interest rates. The economy is on fire here.

      1 CAD = 98.6 cents US this afternoon. We're going to see 1USD=1CAD by the end of the year for sure. Predictions are for the Canadian dollar to surpass the US dollar by as much as 5 cents too.

      I'd order way more from the US online (considering prices in Canada often feel like they still think our dollar is 65 cents), but US shipping rates are atrocious.
      • computergod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3>We're going to see 1USD=1CAD by the end of the year for sure.
        More like end of the week, it closed today up 1.5 cents up from yesterday.
    • pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0you are clever, hawker
      • Hawker400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1how's that?
        • pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0i agree with everything you said... "european central banks to follow suit"...

          good stuff. good to see someone who knows their central banking as opposed to seeing a bunch of "money as debt" "experts"
  • macman2k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Gold, Silver, and Oil are all up!
  • bluefaced01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11The US dollar is going to tank in value now. I guess they are trying to stabilize housing prices in hopes that federal spending is somehow controlled (pull out of Iraq is unlikely, so I have no idea where "less spending" will come from).
  • strafefire, on 10/10/2007, -8/+39Good Bye American Dollar...we hardly knew yee....

    Hello............................Amero?
    • AlbinoRaven, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Man I hope not. The peso and the canadian dollar would have to adjust and absorb US debt loads to properly get into sync with the idea of the amero.
  • vault, on 10/10/2007, -17/+85You know what the Fed should do? Ask the 16-year-old economic strategists on Digg for advice on monetary policy.
    • Ngai, on 10/10/2007, -5/+28and also do away with the Federal Reserve....
      • JPOOPOO, on 10/10/2007, -10/+21The people on digg are 16 when you're against them and 32 when you're with them...
    • Gryffydd, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8Or the could ask Ron Paul, or read some Mises or something...
    • kije, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8"Ur Momz going down on my 10 point rise in inflation LOLz!"
    • TheSpore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Guess what?

      1) Not all Diggers are 16.

      2) Well-respected seasoned economists are saying many of the same thing Diggers are.

      3) Economics really is not that much of a mystery. Even a 16 year old can understand the consequences of this, if they study economics at all. Like the fact that inflating the money supply causes, well, inflation. And that makes the dollar worth less. And then the prices of things go up. This isn't quantum physics here.
      • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Economics on a macro scale is much more complicated than you put forward, nobody is certain what the right thing to do is in order to avoid possible national and maybe global recession. Some think that dropping rates right now will rally the markets and get foreign investment back in which will temper the obvious rise in inflation, others, like many diggers, think it's a short term bs move. Everyone agrees that dropping rates raises inflation in general, and vice versa, but that's a pretty simple statement.

        It's ok to be 16, don't rush it, real life comes at you quick.
    • RockJohny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0you're all just a bunch o dirty diggers
  • lalalalamppost, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Too bad us poor folk don't qualify for these handouts. If we'd just have billions to write obvious bad loans, then we'd get bailed out of our own mess. But they need us worker drones to show up at work every day.
    • Joshuarr, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Get over it already.
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Too bad us poor folk don't qualify for these handouts."

      Ahh, the poor people who can't afford their lousy mortgages will benefit from this.
    • Y0tsuya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Ahh, the poor people who can't afford their lousy mortgages will benefit from this."

      Yes they benefit by being forced to keep paying their monthly nut.
  • Dextrose, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Say hello to our new friend -- 1970's style STAGFLATION! It's coming -- and don't you think for one second that it's not. Bookmark this post and revisit it this time next year -- thank you very much!
    • AlbinoRaven, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Not to say this out loud, but I and others here plotted this exact scenario about a year and half ago. Strange how nobody listens sometimes. But since it's into the downturn all I can say is invest in comfort goods. Starbucks will probably see a revival on the market as will coffee. For some reason specialty coffee becomes an important treat during economic downturns.
      • mozzep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3VICEX: Tobacco, Guns, Alcohol, and Gaming.
        • covertbadger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Dugg up. In times of hardship, there's always money for booze and betting.
      • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you ***** kidding me? Where did you get this gem about specialty coffee and downturns? What a load.
        • AlbinoRaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Review the investment portfolios from 92 - 95. Large consumer goods took a crap, housing was destroyed, comfort consumer goods that didn't cost very much was the stock rage. Doesn't mean they were bulls, closer to bears. Beats losing money in a market.

          Besides with the inflation about to go bananas you could always invest into saving accounts. Early 90's were awesome. I had a savings account pulling 11%! Plus starbucks which did quite well.

          How old are you anyways? Late 80's and earlier 90's were terrible times for investments. Blue chips sucked donkey balls. Tech industry was -erm- less than stellar. Bonds were for idiots (remember Bush senior bailing his boys out for junk bonds?). Most of the commodity market was flat or shrinking, except oil and uranium, there always room for oil and uranium.

          Basically when it goes flat, the idea of guys staying at home day trading disappears because there is no traction to trade against or with. Nobody can manufacture investment money. Especially the next hit to the market is coming along, the boomers. All of those dollars wedged into 401k's/RRSP's with mutual fund have to come out sometime and that time is soon. Why the market is inflated right now is only one reason, boomer investment capital rolled into easy to procure no load mutual funds. The boomers won't keep it all in there forever, they will have to spend it sooner or later on things like food, electric bills, first wives, kids, school for second batch kids, etc.

          It will be fantastic and amazingly destructive. The problem is the first person to withdraw their Mutual fund is the first one out of the ponzi scheme first.
          • krebcycle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm 35, and none of what you said has anything to do with boutique coffee being a good investment. I live in Seattle, and I remember quite well the starbucks explosion during the early 90's. However, that's such a specific market segment that has largely come and gone that your assertion it would be a good investment again during a downturn I still find laughable. You might as well say that investing in grunge music during a downturn is a good idea. In fact, if the potential future recession is bad enough then I would assert that luxury goods like 3 dollar lattes would take a hit. I'm quite old enough to be aware of this stuff at 35, but thanks for the age question which you clearly asked in order to insinuate that I'm an idiot.
  • Ghoztt, on 10/10/2007, -6/+30Can we just get rid of the Federal Reserve now? (which isn't Federal at all FYI)
    • Charles07v, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If only we had a presidential candidate who was in favor of that...
      • LysanderSpoon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I hope you're just being sarcastic. We do have a presidential candidate that favors getting rid of the Fed...
  • JPOOPOO, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4But what does it all mean, Basil?
    • anbe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Just wait for the US to adopt Basil II and you will truly find out...
  • anbe, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11"Fed Cuts Key Rate by .5% Point"
    Try: "Fed cuts target rate by half a point", or
    "Fed cuts target rate by 50 basis points"
    "Fed lowers target rate to 4.75%"
    Sorry.

    • Lennalf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Don't be sorry for being correct. "0.5% point" reads as "0.5 percent of a point" ...a half of a percent of a point. The title is just wrong. Also, "federal funds rate" would have been more descriptive. In August they cut the discount rate by 50 basis points, and now they are cutting the federal funds rate by 50 basis points. This new cut is much more substantial.
      • anbe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree on the fed funds rate part Lennalf, but Fed cuts Fed Funds Rate, even if correct, sounds somewhat redundant...plus I hate the misconception that the fed changed the actual overnight lending rate banks charge to each other for reserve requirement purposes. It's really more of a substantial influence. Anyways, I apologized for detracting from the article's point, no pun intended.
    • cliffzdude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why the ***** are people digging down anbe's point? He's spot on. The Fed cut the discount rate by 50 basis points, 100 basis points make up one percent.
      The title is ignorant and wrong. I'd hate to walk around telling people the Fed cut the discount rate by .5 percent of a point, and sound like a complete buffoon.
      • computergod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Diggers are dumb and don't like this being pointed out.
  • goodfellaNW, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Off to the bank to buy some Euro's!

    Viva la France!
    • Lonewolfsanscub, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Vive la France!
      • goodfellaNW, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5was too late when I noticed it...

        Viva Las Vegas ;)

        why dugg down? The US is going to hell, and we will be the poor civilized nation.... and for those of you who are going to tell me, well move then.... well, that is why I plan to do!
    • osbjmg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You can sell that apostrophe while you're at it. You don't need one there.!
  • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Bandaid on a broken leg!
  • sentime, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Lol big deal, just more imaginary money and 99% of the nation in debt to bankers.
  • 8bitclassics, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6House foe sale :)
  • sentime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Love the people cheering market going up when the tanking dollar makes the real value negative.
  • dankCIA, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Judging by most of the comments it seems like digg readers are big fans of recessions.

    The borrowers should not be the ones who have the hammer fall on them it should be the lenders who knowingly deceived and lured borrowers into mortgages the lenders knew they would be unable to pay off unless the market kept its ridiculous pace. It's unfortunate that to bail out the homeowners and prevent millions of foreclosures you also bail out the money grubbing lenders who got us into this mess.



    • OswaldKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9You are simply wrong. It's the borrowers that caused this credit crisis. If the American public was not so greedy and into immediate gratification, there would be no credit crunch. A guy who can only afford a $180,000 takes out a loan on a $400,000 house, and the lender is to blame? That's crap. Maybe Americans should stop spending their money like it's in endless supply. To those Americans who are fiscally responsible, ignore this post and thank you for trying to make America great.

      • dankCIA, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Money spent to bail out the credit market or money spent to house millions of homeless - either way you slice it we're paying for the lender's greed. Not everyone has the financial knowledge to read through their mortgage and understand EVERY ONE of the outcomes in every instance unfortunately. Part of the lender's job is to be responsible and insure that people aren't being lent money they can't repay, but instead they chose to deceive and flat out LIE to consumers. It's like handing a baby a marker then blaming it for drawing on the wall. The lenders are the ones who should be accountable for the lies they sold these people on. They were given the responsibility of lending out money correctly and it's their greed that led them to lend sub prime borrowers at teaser rates who they KNEW didn't fully understand what they were getting into. But hey ***** everyone for not being a financial guru and questioning the mortgage company who was telling them "yes yes yes" they don't deserve a house - throw their families on the street and teach them a lesson, and let the mortgage companies slide - they already sold the mortgages they knew would default in the futures market and make money anyhow.
      • nouns, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No problem man. I've been waiting for this stupid bubble to pop. BURN! BUUUUUUUUURN!
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Recession is inevitable when the market has gone up beyond reality. Speculators drove up the price of houses. Someone has to pay for that sooner or later. If you don't want a recession, you need to keep growth at a real pace.
  • trer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7This story immediately follows the story about Greenspan predicting raising to double digit rates to curb inflation.
  • AaronS2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Tax & Regulation here we come!
  • mjl5629, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7...so how are they going to fight the inflation caused by the government spending on the Iraq war?
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The Iraq war is a drop in the bucket. Maybe you should look at the trade deficit with China.
    • kenplaysviola, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Easy, once we secure Iraq, we'll have all their oil! The pay off will be worth all the lives lost so we can drive around in our Hummers and SUV's.
      /sarcorgasm
  • uptown, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This all lines up nicely for the possible pre-Sept 21st crash. Stocks build up today ... investors in-the-know short their holdings ... and cash in when the market crashes. More info about the mystery investor that stands to lose billions unless the market tanks before 9/21 is here:
    http://www.financialnews-us.com/?page=ushome&contentid=2448565379
    • covertbadger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Tell you what, if you're so convinced by mindless speculation, why don't you follow suit and short the market for everything you have? Remember it's a European index that has been shorted too, so you have to be real confident that an interest rate change in the US will wipe 30% off the European markets.

      Or are you just full of hot air?
  • nycmac247, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5another Depression within 18 months
  • SvenJolly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Heads -- Depression
    Tails -- Hyperinflation

    TAILS --- HYPERINFLATION IT IS!
  • funkytaco, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Holy hell.

    Usually it's a quarter of a point. This is nuts!
  • j.carcinogen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Great, just weaken the dollar more.
  • Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Were all *****, bend over and kiss your american dream life goodbye, print out those depression recipes for onion soup and cabbage sandwiches, they will come in handy.. Stock up on flour and other staples while you still have some extra cash in you pocket..
  • Inspiron700m, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sweet Jebus! This is even better for us Canadians to buy more iPhones! :)
  • jessechan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's going to take a while to recover, according to this article: http://fishtrain.com/2007/09/16/can-the-federal-reserve-help-alleviate-the-mortgage-crisis/
  • TheEditor1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Greenspan says on Monday that 'he sees double digit interest rate in the near future'. Today the fed drops the rate .50%. I guess Greenspan should shut the ***** up.
  • themoosejuice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0QUICK, CRASH!!!

    Us generation Z cant afford anything in a baby boomers world. I need a good deal on a house, if the market crashes, I'm taking your house.
    • StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Um, no, if the market crashes you might be able to rent one of my houses.
  • nouns, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Man, I can't wait for the lights to go out. Then we get to watch all the Lawyers and Stock Brokers start eating each other. I'd pay a whole bunch of whatever's-valuable to watch.....
  • jlhoben, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How does the fed work anyways? I don't understand these central banks and what they do. Who sets their policy? The government?
    • podrag, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2They print money and lend it to the American people who must then use their notes of debt to pay taxes. In order to earn interest on the money borrowed the American people create goods and services i.e. work. The Federal Reserve never does any work when it just prints the money. The interest paid to the federal reserve every year by the American people is effectively equivalent to the entire incoem tax intake of the United Staes every year. That interest paid back on pieces of paper printed out of thin air by an unnaccountable, unconstitutional, privately owned quango of bankers who pocket the free money given to them by the American people. The constitution states that all debts shall be settled in gold and silver coin. The IRS and the federal reserve were created in the same year, 1913, by Woodrow Wilson who later admitted that he had 'signed away his country'. Income tax is also unconstitutional as the 16th ammendment did not give new taxing powers. The IRS is a protection racket for the Federal Reserve.

      The role of central banks is to interfere with the market for the enrichment of bankers.

      Anyone who disagrees... name one paper currency that hasn't been destroyed/devalued by the idocy and greed of those who issued it. There aren't any. KMA.
      • mookiemookie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21. The interest paid to the Fed is remitted back to the Treasury.
        2. The Federal Reserve Banks themselves are privately owned, but all they do is execute the policy decisions of the publically elected Board of Governors.
        3.The United States Constitution prohibits states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts ... Federal Reserve Notes are taxable dollars. Coinage Act of 1965, §102, 31 USCA §392; USCA Const. Art. 1, §10.
        • podrag, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21. Bullsh*t
          2. Bullsh*t
          3. Bullsh*t

          'Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." USA Banker's Magazine, August 25 1924

          “Allow me to control the issue and the nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws!” — Amshell Rothschild

          The Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing notes at the expense of the public, which does not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is obliquely designed for the benefit of an idle monopoly to rob, blackmail, and oppress the producers of wealth [you and me and our ability to work and be productive].... No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve Notes are acquired through the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud. The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. Slavery and all its incidents, including peonage, thralldom, and the debt created by fraud is universally prohibited in the United States. This case represents but another refined form of slavery by the bankers. Their position is not supported by the Constitution of the United States." Judge Martin Maloney The First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly, December 7, 1968: (See 17 Am. Jur. 85, 215, and 1 Mer. Jur. 2nd on Actions, Section 550)

          Two weeks after Judge Mahoney ruled in favor of Daly, and wrote the above, he was assassinated.

          YA DIGG!? There really is no arguement to be had here. I'll tell you what mookie, you invest in fithe dollar, I invest in real money like say, silver, and we see who is rich in five years. YADIGG!?
    • generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Bank for international Settlements is a central bankers club.
      Involved in Nazi gold.
  • RegalGSX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I am going to kill my dog.
  • 4UIDigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They are either incredibly smart, or incredibly stupid
  • podrag, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Imagine you’ve woken up on a Sunday afternoon with a thumping headache in a strange bed, beside a Lithuanian stripper. You can’t really remember how you got there. Both your mobile phone and your wallet are missing and we were supposed to meet your fiance for lunch two hours ago to attempt to resolve your ‘alcohol problem’ or whatever. You know she’s not going to be happy, especially when she finds out where you were to last night from her stupid big-mouthed friends of hers. The stress of this predicament makes your head hurt even more, and the room starts to spin as you projectile vomit over your pants… again. Then, as if by magic, this stripper’s brother (or cousin or pimp or whatever) hearing the commotion from his sister’s room, out of compassion offers you a swig of the local moonshine that he’s using to disinfect the latrines. Upon asking why they him and his sister still use outdoor toilets, he replies that it is not unusual in Lithuania and that you are actually in Lithuania and that you have been kidnapped for ransom by his gang of former KGB agents. He tells you that they have used your wallet to steal your identity and all your money, and that you effectively don’t exist any more. You ask him what day it is, and he replies Friday. You wonder where the week went and what your boss is going to say about the presentation for the board that you were supposed to give on Wednesday, until that Soviet rocket fuel kicks in… and suddenly it all seems OK! GREAT! YEAH! LET’S PARTY! WHOOOO!!! You, he and the stripper dance around the garden in joyous merriment, despite the ruinous situation you find yourself in. In fact you can even hear your brain telling yourself ‘What ruinous situation?’ ‘Baby where’d you get your body from!? Baby where’d you get your body from!? I got it from my momma! I got it from my momma!’ So to recap, because of alcohol we’ve lost our clothes, our wallet, our phone, our fiancé of three years, our job, and our identity and in 24 hours we might be dead. But it’s because of more alcohol that we just don’t give a damn! I think I have a new found respect for Mr Bernanke and Co at the Federal Reserve. They must have been recalling their college fraternity days when they decided to cut the Fed Rate by half a point yesterday. The must have really partied hard in their time to be able to stomach a move like that. I always knew that Bernanke was a dark horse! I bet there’s a few women out there who could tell a story or two! WHOOOOO!! ALRIGHT! BEN BEN BEN BEN!!!
    • Nightwish224, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wow, why don't you just type your whole life story while you are at it!
  • Hawker400, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Had the Fed decided to raise rates, all of you naysayers would be screaming about what a terrible decision that was as well and how they don't look out for the little guys who are facing the very real possibility of losing their homes.
  • RockJohny, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0we need universal health......i don't have insurance and i think the taxpayers should help a bro out!!
  • rawgreed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I wrote an article about this days ago on my stock blog http://www.rawgreed.com

    Janet Yellen gave us the first solid indication that a rate cut was coming. I covered her recent speech in an article on my blog.
  • MrColdheart, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why do I still have this gut feeling that we're (US) is still gonna hit a recession?
  • relaxrelaxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Related article here on the impact of rate cuts on the economy:
    http://www.digg.com/business_finance/Study_shows_F ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.