The dumbest video I've ever seen on economics.

The sad thing is? Half of SD would probably agree with this video. Before I dissect it and tear apart its half truths, outright lies, and blatant anti-government propaganda...I'll let you guys decide how much sense this video makes to you.

[color=#2e1a6b]If you think that's sad, look at the like bar (and the comments).

I actually disagree/see lots of problems with most of the video. This is a much better critique of Keynesian economics

This video is very political, and thus lying about many facts it states. One such lie which I see common is that the Fed is a private instituion, which is really pathetic and petty. Overall it's a Libertarian oriented video that doesn't try to deconstruct the economic or monetary system in any practical way. I rarely say this, but I actually hate this video.

I hate this video because it thinks that using conspiracy theories as some sort of fact check, and demonizing industries. I hate it because it turns facts up to 11, and because it's so loud, I can't figure whats hyperbole or simple statements. I frankly want to burn a tree after seeing this.

Hold the phone here a minute, you're saying that the Fed is not a private institute? What rock are you living under? Everyone knows that the government is bought and owned by several different lobbying groups pouring millions if not billions of dollars to keep the sway of government in their direction especially the federal reserve.

You want concrete proof of this statment, lets look at the last 6 people to be head of the fed reserve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McChesney_Martin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_F._Burns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._William_Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke


What stands out most about these people are these things...

William Martin:
"He eventually became president of the New York Stock Exchange at age 31,"
"Harry S. Truman, a fellow Democrat, appointed Martin head of the Export-Import Bank"
"his career in public service ended, but he continued to work, holding a variety of directorships of corporations and nonprofit institutions"

Arthur Burns:
"At the Watergate break-in of 1972, the burglars were found carrying $6300 of sequentially-numbered $100 bills. The Fed lied to reporter Bob Woodward as to the source of the bills. Burns stonewalled Congressional investigations about them and issued a directive to all Fed offices prohibiting any discussion of the subject"

G.William Miller:
"In 1956, Miller joined Textron, Inc as an assistant secretary. He became a Vice President of the company in 1957 and President in 1960. In 1968 he became Chief Executive Officer of Textron and was elected Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in 1974, a post he held until he came to the Federal Reserve Board."
"After Carter's administration ended, Miller founded G. William Miller & Co., a Washington private investment company that he likened to a discreet, Swiss-style merchant bank."
"He also was chairman and chief executive of Federated Stores Inc. (now Macy's, Inc.) from 1990 to 1992."

Paul Volcker:
"In 1952 he joined the staff of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York as a full-time economist. He left that position in 1957 to become a financial economist with the Chase Manhattan Bank."
"After leaving the U.S. Treasury, he became president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 1975 to 1979"
"After leaving the Federal Reserve in 1987, he became chairman of the prominent New York investment banking firm, Wolfensohn & Co"

Alan Greenspan:
"Greenspan has also served as a corporate director for Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa); Automatic Data Processing; Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.; General Foods; J.P. Morgan & Co.; Morgan Guaranty Trust Company; Mobil Corporation; and the Pittston Company"
"Immediately upon leaving the Fed, Greenspan formed an economic consulting firm, Greenspan Associates LLC"
"In August 2007, Deutsche Bank announced that it would be retaining Greenspan as a senior advisor to its investment banking team and clients."
"In mid-January 2008, hedge fund Paulson & Co. hired Greenspan as an adviser"

Ben Bernanke:
"Bernanke attended Harvard University, where he lived in Winthrop House with the future CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein"
"Bernanke was mentioned along with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in allegations of fraud concerning the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America"
"According to a January 26, 2010, column in The Huffington Post, a whistleblower has disclosed documents providing "'troubling details' of Bernanke's role in the AIG bailout"."


You want to talk about private interest, it's all right there. The people that I have mentioned were the last 6 HEADS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE. These are the people in charge of all the money, and look at thier private histories, all of them have worked and controlled private means companies, all of them have private interests.

What other proof is their than that? The people who control your tax money are privately owned.

This doesn't prove the Fed as a private institute. It just proves that high members of the Fed are corrupt, which I agree with. Your argument does not show proof that:

-The Government can't Audit the Fed
-Congress inability to Fire the Chairman of the Fed
- Restructure or dismantle the Fed

Corruption ≠ Private. It can only be Private when the Federal Government has no power or control over the Fed.

In order for a bailout to be done by any current ruling administration of the federal government, it has to be approved by the fed reserve, but the fed reserve does not need approval by the federal government, thus the AIG bailout.

Plus one very important thing, how can corruption exist in a democracy unless that democracy is owned by private interest? Does it not seem pretty odd that all those rich people got bailouts when it's the people that vote for democracy.

What is there to argue against, corruption = privitization.

If we are going evaluate their powers, then yes they can do that. The Fed can increase/decrease money in an economy to promote growth. However, that is not enough to prove its private. It just proves powers given by Congress, nothing more.

The Board of Governors are appointed bit the President and Confirmed by Congress. Their salaries are dictated by Congress. The Chairman can be impeached, etc. The line I am going with is something much worse than a private institution, which is repeated way too much. It's Quasi-Government.

Meaning that it's a mix of Public and Private enforcing and investment. If the Government wanted to destroy the Fed, they can do it. If they wanted to Fire Bernanke, they can do it. These are powers the Federal Government can do, but are highly unlikely won't do.

Federal Reserve Transparency Act Bill shows that the Fed can be managed by Congress if they put enough muscle into it. Politics play the filter to any real reform or change over it. Yet this does not mean it's Private, it means that the system is broken.

You keep pointing over about the corruption, but I find that fact irrelevant over my main point: The Fed is not a Private institution. You can throw as many examples as you want, it doesn't change the ground base rules that the Fed must follow. Yet, just because it's not private does not mean it has no Private aspects.

Banks can and do invest in the Fed and get around a 6% return. Banks can be on lower boards but not the higher ones, unless by Congress. The does show Private power in the Fed, but not complete and total power of the Fed. The Fed is complicated in its power structure and how much power is given & how much power is exercised.

So, no, it is not a Private Institution. It's a loosely attached branch of Government with a lot of independent freedom and Private investment. In the core of the Fed, it can be Audited, it's leaders can be fired, and it can be dismantled. This is actually worse than no power at all for the Government. As before, how likely is Congress going to audit, fire, or destroy the Fed? Not likely, but they have the power to do it, even if they don't exercise it.

You're acting as if congress isn't bought and paid for as well, yet we all know that congress has recieved money from many sources especially drug/health companies to keep the laws within their ball park. There isn't as single aspect of the government that isn't privitized. A president can't run his campeign for election without having the support of the privite industry to back his/her campeign.

This is all public knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGN7b37dn4c

People can knock micheal moore but he's right.

Huh, thought I was on IB for a second.

I think you should check out the rules op, and try expanding the OP and your thoughts on why this video should be discussed.

I don't like to discuss about this topic, especially on the ground that is as shaky as sand. My opinion is little at best, but basically here is a short summary of what i do know is true:

1. The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

The Federal Reserve System serves as the Central Bank of the United States, and is comprised of the Federal Reserve Board — a federal agency located in Washington, D.C — and 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks. Congress has oversight over the entire system.

2. When the FED creates money, it buys Treasury Bonds ( with a coupon rate or "interest") with the newly printed money. Thus, the FED makes a loan to the US Treasury.
Most of this is done electronically.

3. It has been (by keysian perspective it still is) widely disputed, but has come to a general consensus by monetarist economists that the FED played a large role in the Great Depression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFmMm9NPj3U

Basically, my main point of view and issue with all of this is that putting the trust into a very few amount of people, (chairmen of the federal reserve.) is not exactly a good idea.

I'm not against controlled inflation, but what i am against is "corrupted" inflation.

If you want to talk about congress, corruption, and influence from lobbyist, you can do it on a different topic. The points I made about the Fed have not been refuted. The Fed is not a Private Institution, it's a hybrid of public and private powers.

Whether Congress and the Federal Government is corrupted to the point of no influence from the general public is not relevant to the topic. It is related to it, but not relevant.

Since you didn't raise any arguments about the actual structure of the Fed, how the Board & Chairman are elected, their salary, the powers Congress has over the Fed, and the powers of auditing, deconstruction etc. You either agree with them or don't have any arguments against them. Therefore, since my main points about the Fed not being a Private institution have not been challenged or deemed false, it is safe to say that my original point remains true. The Fed isn't a Private institution.

http://whistleblowers.freehosting.net/federal_power.htm
http://www.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/fed.html
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_reserve_system/index.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/22/power-grab-at-the-fed/
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/wall_street/31040431_1_interest-rates-big-banks-member-banks


Is there anything more I can link that proves that the fed is a private institute, the only control congress has over the fed is that they appoint the members. They can't even audit the fed.

[color=#2e1a6b]If you get rid of everything else you've said in this thread and just make an argument based on this source from your last link, you'd have a pretty good case for claiming that the fed is a private institution.

http://whistleblowers.freehosting.net/federal_power.htm :

Where do I begin? The site hasn't been updated since 2003. The site has several interesting articles about brain washing and mind control. The actual article doesn't have an author, nor sources for verify claims. Web of Trust seems to question this site.

Overall, with the broken links, lack of verified sources and articles that just cry out for a tin foil hat, I won't accept this link.

http://www.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/fed.html

This unusually makes my case about the Fed not being private, but a hybrid of private/public.



The power elite grabbed me, so in further look:



So even this site claims that they must follow the rules and manipulate the system to point.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_reserve_system/index.html :

Good article, but this doesn't support your claim. It actually reinforces mine by the way congress is discussing the Fed.




So it seems they can just strip the Fed of their power, if enough of Congress gets together and does it.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/22/power-grab-at-the-fed/ :

Okay, this one didn't even take me a paragraph to dig into to find anything. Seems the article is about the Fed bitching about being gimped from the Fed.




This supports my claim of Federal power and control in my statement of the Fed being a private/public entity

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/wall_street/31040431_1_interest-rates-big-banks-member-banks

So the first topic is about the Fed being private.



Two sources and paragraphs later this link: http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/faq/topics/fed_basics.cfm





Which is pretty much what I have said before. It is an institution with public and private aspects to it. Which goes back to my original statement, The Fed isn't private.

I am so not surprised at all that this landed in IB.

LOL, ended up in IB.

so this was originally in SD? Ha! shows how incoherent your seriousness is

Wonder who reported it?

Either way, let's have some vlogbrothers, just for the hell of it.

might as well throw some cats in here....







cats to come soon

I'm interested to see what you have to say, sadly I'm gonna have to watch that animation later.