What is Digg?Sponsored by openforum.com
5 Questions with Seth Godin view!
openforum.com - Seth Godin is the leading voice of marketing for this generation
70 Comments
- royalecraig, on 04/27/2009, -8/+29The Bank of England and the Federal Reserve are PRIVATE COMPANIES, they raise and lower interest rates, and control the flow of money for THEIR benefit, not ours.
http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty - Acrinimiril, on 04/27/2009, -6/+15
Good sense, uncommon in media.
People realize the simple truth when they hear it.
Deception has to be much more complicated and repetitive in order to influence people
What do you hear on TV every day? - zaffir, on 04/27/2009, -0/+8He says the Constitution doesn't give congress the power to print money, and yet it says:
"The Congress shall have Power To ... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
Someone mind explaining Schiff's conclusion? - XxtraLarGe, on 04/27/2009, -4/+11In before the bury brigade! Front page, but not for long. Audit the Fed!++
- brad3378, on 04/27/2009, -6/+13According to this link, http://www.babylontoday.com/index.htm#faux_dough
"........the money supply has been growing 7 times faster than material or industrial goods production."
We can all agree that Inflation happens when we have too much money chasing too few goods.
I also believe that most of us can agree that stable prices are desirable.
So hypothetically speaking, what would happen if completely took the Federal Reserve out of the equation and we pegged our currency to an index based on our trade deficit? In other words, the more legitimate wealth we create (manufacture) in *this* country, the stronger we would allow our dollar to become by issuing fewer loans. The hotter the economy becomes, the more we would chill it by discouraging loans.
On the flip side, we can't just print more money to discourage our $800 Billion per year trade deficit. Our incredible appetite for imports has proved that an inflated money supply by itself won't do enough to slow the bleeding caused by our trade deficit...... Especially when other countries are willing to subsidize their industries or unfairly manipulate their currencies. So rather than just relying so much on cheap money to stabilize our trade deficit, what if we also made our import tarriffs proportional to our money supply? Hypothetically speaking, we could even end the Fed if our money supply was based on a simple formula rather than secretive meetings done in a back office.
Thoughts? - 1x253, on 04/27/2009, -5/+11The Federal Reserve is NO MORE FEDERAL than Federal Express.
I tell people this and they just don't comprehend it; they still cannot shift their perception to where they see the Federal Reserve as a PRIVATE bank that does not belong to the U.S. gov't or the American People.
Abolish the Fed; they have usurped the power of the American People and have hijacked the Dem & Rep parties. - Waiting2awake, on 04/27/2009, -6/+11Who would have thought that putting private bankers in control of a nations money supply, behind close doors and away from any scrutiny would have ended up so poorly.....
Really... a shock. - Trekhawk, on 04/27/2009, -5/+10http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111 ...
- RonPauls, on 04/27/2009, -6/+10Warfare-welfare state needs to go
Up with freedom - rdsmith1, on 04/27/2009, -0/+3MrFunStuff is right. The Constitution gives Congress the power to coin and issue money, and to regulate its value, RELATIVE to gold & silver. As in, the Treasury Department can issue coins and paper notes that hold their own specific value in gold & silver (notice how the passage that you quoted also states that no state shall make anything but gold & silver legal tender).
What the Federal Reserve does is print money, that isn't backed by anything but sub-prime mortgages and bad debt, out of thin air. There's a reason why the Fed didn't have this power when it was first created, and that's because it would've been unconstitutional. If you listen to whole speech, he talks about how the Fed was later given this power by Congress so that the Wilson administration could fund our involvement in World War I. However, doing so was also unconstitutional because they delegated regulatory power over the money supply to the Federal Reserve (when the Constitution prohibits any branch of government from re-delegating power), and it was a specific power that even Congress itself never had. - kkonarik, on 04/27/2009, -1/+4Yet the head of the Fed doesn't have to do what he Prez says.
- ostracize, on 04/27/2009, -7/+10Peter Schiff == Dugg
Is there any man anywhere who makes more sense than him? - bobt39, on 04/27/2009, -0/+2"To claim that people behaved criminally and irresponsibly because fed reserve rates were low is very small minded. That's like saying that people murder because guns are cheap. Or blaming your credit card debt on Capital One for giving you such a large spending limit."
This is a straw man
Here is a much deeper explanation of Austrian Business Cycle theory. If you dont feel like reading it thats find, but keep in mind you do not really understand the theory you are criticizing.
http://mises.org/story/672 - rocke86, on 04/27/2009, -4/+6Contact your representative today support them if they are a cosponsor or persuade them if they are not.
Check here
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.0 ...
Contact here
http://www.Congress.org - brettsmaname, on 04/27/2009, -3/+5um... by saying mostly, you just agreed with me, the federal reserve is not mostly private anyways, so instead of getting your information about the fed from conspiracy websites, why don't you try looking up the actual laws that created it and run it for yourself. The bank that President Jackson shut down WAS a private entity, and that is why they had so many problems with it, but without money and market regulation you end up with problems in the market too... I for one would rather that I had some voting power on the fed (even if they are limited) than to have none at all. Oh, and I also enjoy the fact that we have FDIC and bank runs are almost never an issue because of that now too...
- byronm, on 04/27/2009, -2/+4But i thought the private sector was supposed to be our saving grace?
- Waiting2awake, on 04/27/2009, -0/+2I love how people can bury, but never refute. Don't worry though, the neo-cons couldn't either.... hey, yet another similarity.
- Wag3Slav3, on 04/27/2009, -2/+4brad3378: That sounds like a reasonable solutions. However you forgot to include the incentive. What incentive have the in trenched super rich that leverage the current corrupt private banking system to make insane profits on war material and made up money "loans" (learn about fractionaly reserve banking if you want to make $2,000 out of an imaginary $1 in banking) to allow them to gain ownership over hard goods and land.
If you don't have a way for these social leeches to make billions what reason do they have to use their bought and paid for politicians to make this into law? - ostracize, on 04/27/2009, -2/+3No. Your analogies are flawed. It's like releasing foxes in the henhouse and then blaming all the dead chickens on the foxes. They just do what their instincts tell them. The morons who put the foxes in there in the first place are the ones to blame.
- brettsmaname, on 04/27/2009, -6/+7The Federal Reserve is not a private company... It's owned, run, and regulated by the u.s. government. The head of the Fed is even appointed by the President of the United States, and when Obama was elected he had the choice to replace the current head of the fed.
- ostracize, on 04/27/2009, -1/+2Bills go to committee before going to a vote.
- L8blumR, on 04/28/2009, -0/+1Who is Ron Paul? (I still buried you for crassness.)
- Waiting2awake, on 04/27/2009, -0/+1Nice, and you don't see anything slightly condescending about what you just said?
Continue on with the two party system. If you keep doing what you are doing, you'll keep getting what you are getting.
If I told you you were a retard, you'd see how that would be insulting, and yet you don't see any problem with you doing it... No wonder you vote for one of the two sides of the coin. - inactive, on 04/27/2009, -7/+8You know what's really interesting? That there's someone burying these comments.
- inactive, on 09/19/2009, -1/+2They don't have to do what the president says (unless they want to be appointed chairman) and they have proven, on National Television that they don't have to answer questions from Congress. If THAT is a government program it's a pretty strange one.
- MrFunStuff, on 04/27/2009, -4/+5Notes do not equal money. When the Constitution was written, when somebody was talking about money they meant gold or silver. People would store money(gold or silver) in a bank and the bank would give out a note that was redeemable for your gold or silver. The note was not the money only the voucher, the money was the gold or silver. What we consider money now is the Federal Reserve notes back by nothing(Fiat).
"The Congress shall have Power To ... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; No State shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a Tender in Payment of debts."
FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329 ... - Waiting2awake, on 04/27/2009, -4/+5Well it looks like the bury brigade is out in full force again.
- Wag3Slav3, on 04/27/2009, -2/+3And never should have in the first place.
Talk about the fox watching the hen house, international bankers in control of the throttle of our economy? Who would have ever thought they'd use that to pump up bubbles then tell their buddies to get all their cash and property out right before they call all the loans back and pop the economy with their little pin.
*pop*
Wow, follow the money. Who with influence over the economy made trillions of dollar from this *****.
That's right, the Fed and the bankers.
Look at the BANKERS, not the bank. The bank officers made hundreds of millions of dollars, then just let the banks "fail" causing their buddy the fed to leverage THE WHOLE COUNTRY and socialize the costs by just giving them fat stacks of made up money that we have to honor because we gave them a blank check to print money.
A large percentage of "loss" on the banks books is in the bank officers personal accounts right now. - inactive, on 04/27/2009, -6/+7nicegeek, even if it isn't a big conspiracy, there's still something seriously flawed with our current system and the fed is part of it.
- MrFunStuff, on 04/27/2009, -5/+6Peter Schiff Was Right Again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7aQXuauR9g
Peter Schiff predicted the housing market bubble bursting before anyone else. - Waiting2awake, on 04/27/2009, -3/+4nicegeek - It isn't a conspiracy - That term has keep more people from honestly looking at things because they fear being labeled, as they label (right mr. paultard?). It is really just their fear of being outside the box, not part of social-norms. So they will gladly live in ignorance if that means they can be accepted. Sad really, but part of the human condition so don't feel bad.
However, as I was saying to you the other day it isn't a conspiracy, it is merely powerful people, doing what powerful people do - try and maintain their power.
You do it, I do it, we all do it - we just don't have the pockets, resources or connections that allow a full formed reality to be produced for the public daily. If we did, we would try to do the same - and what we would be doing would be for our benefit not the benefit of the masses - which is EXACTLY what is happening.
Don't call it a conspiracy theory. - Waiting2awake, on 04/27/2009, -5/+6And it appears it has now been pulled off the front page... The bury Brigade wins again and the USA is a little bit more dead inside.
‘Beware those that would withhold information from you as they believe themselves your master.’ - MrFunStuff, on 04/27/2009, -2/+3The Crisis of Credit Visualized
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0zEXdDO5JU
When the dot.com bubble busted, the Federal Reserve lowered interests rates to 1%. This created cheap credit for Wall Street, which used that cheap credit to buy mortgages and repackage them to be sold to investors. When Wall Street ran out of mortgages to sell, they created subprime mortgages, creating the housing market bubble.
The Federal Reserve lowing interest rates gave Wall Street the leverage they need to buy up risky mortgages(subprime mortgages).
If they didn't have such cheap credit, it wouldn't have been profitable to buy up so many mortgages with loans. But they did, so they could get loans with 1% interest. Which made it profitable to by up as many mortgages as they could, which them flooded the housing market causing prices to fall and the bubble to busted.
The Federal Reserve causes our boom and bust economy. - brad3378, on 04/27/2009, -1/+1Touche'
I apologize for forgetting that the Austrian School has a completely different definition for the word "inflation". I subscribe to the more mainstream definition that says "inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation
Generally speaking, even the Austrian definition of inflation correlates with rising prices, so cut me some slack.
Why is it necessary to obfuscate economics with a redundant definition for the word "inflation" (Austrian School)? Why not just use terminology we can call agree on such as "Money Supply" , M0, M1, M2, or M3? - thespiff, on 04/27/2009, -1/+1I don't think that was a straw man argument. Maybe I stripped some of the intricacies of the Fed out when I made that analogy, but I feel that it was an accurate one.
I did read your article. My first comment will be that the author should not have felt the urge to give a complete primer on basic economic theory in order to make his point about the Fed. His argument very much gets lost in a berry picking analogy that he does not effectively tie back into his point. And one could safely assume that the reader has enough economic IQ to do without it.
But my editorial critiques aside, I was surprised to see that this seems to be a general damnation of the concept of credit. His contrived berry example assumes that any technological advancement can be made by saving enough capital so that you can meet your needs during the time you spend upgrading technology. But what if current production does not exceed your needs? Is it not appropriate to borrow while you upgrade technology, and then pay it back later via increased production from better technology?
The author says "Money is property, and under a monetary system which makes it appear that more property exists for production than actually exists, failure is inevitable." This is only true if and when technology developed with borrowed funds fails to live up to investor expectations. You may argue that some percentage of investments are doomed to failure even though they look profitable up front, and thus a pool of easy credit is always dangerous. But shrinking the size of the credit pool is equally damaging to all attractive investments, not just the ones that will eventually fail.
The best way to reduce failed investments is to ensure that investors have the most accurate possible information to effectively assess their risk. This is achieved through regulation. Without it, you see things like the bundling of bad assets into securities that can, via hand waving, suddenly become valuable. Then you see credit-default swaps being made on these assets, so that the wall st. players who know what's going on can double-screw the investors who don't know. Sure, easy credit helps to facilitate investors who want to take these risks. But if they didn't think these risks were going to pay off to some degree, they would not have taken that easy credit. And regulation is the answer to that. - Wag3Slav3, on 04/27/2009, -2/+2No. Don't elect anyone as a representative if they are democrat or republican. The Fed has NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER other than to make money for the owners of the Fed.
This comes directly out of our pockets via taxes.
The Fed doesn't need to be audited. It needs to be abolished.
Congress has the right to print money, it does not need to borrow money from any bank. It can make up it's own fake money without giving the Fed XX% off the top per dollar we make up out of thin air. - amorrise, on 04/27/2009, -1/+1I thought he was setting Peter Schiff TO Dugg. Whoever Dugg is
- inactive, on 04/27/2009, -1/+1== is equality not assignment
- inactive, on 04/27/2009, -7/+7That's right Paultard, it's all a big conspiracy.
- thespiff, on 04/27/2009, -1/+1The only time it is profitable to spend more money on something than it is worth is if you have a chump lined up who will buy it from you for more than you paid. Unless the Fed is paying me to take their loans, I am still taking a risk along with that loan.
The problem is not the Fed who enables. The problem is the chump who buys junk from me, at inflated prices thus prompting me to borrow even more money so that I can buy even more junk and unload it on the chump. How do we clean the chumps out of the system? A good start is to not give great ratings to bad assets. Another step is to make convoluted investment practices like credit-default swaps illegal or at least responsibly regulated so that chumps aren't able to take risks they can't afford in the interest of short-term profit with no personal long-term consequences. - inactive, on 04/27/2009, -2/+2Nope, just someone who despises Paultards
- RonPauls, on 04/27/2009, -7/+7We can all agree that Inflation happens when we have too much money chasing too few goods.
No. Just you. Inflation is not the increase in the price of goods.
It is the increase in the supply of money and credit - BrokenVisage, on 04/27/2009, -4/+4No, I'm sure they don't work for the Fed, and that's what makes it shamefully worse. It's like these people ENJOY being fleeced and downvoting gives them a sense of "OK I'm taking it up the ass but so are all you losers so let's go with the flow!" Now please downvote this so it can help me gauge how rampant this willful, misanthropic ignorance is.
- inactive, on 04/27/2009, -2/+2He's saying that (Peter Schiff == Dugg) is implicitly a true statement.
- inactive, on 04/27/2009, -5/+5yes, with the ***** that these wall street bankers pulled which resulted in Trillions of dollars in bailout, nobody in America should ever trust Wall Street or the Federal Reserve.
- amorrise, on 04/27/2009, -1/+1The likely problem is that they see Federal Express and the United States Postal Service as one and the same.
- inactive, on 04/27/2009, -2/+2True. But this bill is going to the committee that is chaired by Barney Frank.
- amorrise, on 04/27/2009, -2/+2I feel like you're saying, "Yay, finally someone expressed my opinion in public!"
- aheinzm, on 04/27/2009, -0/+0well actually if he sees the Fed creating an economic system with great disparity of income because the system benefits those at the top and punishes those at the bottom from inflation, then if you think back to the economics of crime you can see that as an individual's situation worsens the cost-benefit analysis tends to favor criminal activity. As Dylan once sang "When you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose."
- inactive, on 04/27/2009, -5/+4In before teabag calling, liberty hating ignorants.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
