The dumbest video I've ever seen on economics.

Hmmm...not one of Big Lundi's better posts.

I'll be fixing that probably...I'd say Saturday. When I have time to make the essay long amount of shit wrong with the video.

Like anyone cares anymore?

Good good....

I'll be fixing it in the forum section that does care :P

You should have written your argument against the video first, or the overall message of the video. And then put the video in spoilers.

I hate everything about you. It grates me seeing you use shitty videos about a topic I adore to make the baboons in SD comment and "debate" on idiotic points.

There is no government oversight, it's never been audited. The stock holders are all banks(private institutes). How is it answerable?

I think the question should be WHO do they answer to?

Can't be the IRS, since it's NEVER been audited, (at least as long as I've been alive), and it certainly doesn't answer to the people.

Hell, the government already admitted some time back that the Federal Reserve, despite the name, is a PRIVATE institution.

Well it has been audited. So that's wrong.

The Federal Reserve has frequent internal audits performed by its Office of the Inspector General, which is appointed by Congress.

So there's that.

The other way it's answerable is that the people who run the fed are also chosen by congress, and as such they're sort of dependent on the people(as all governmental branches are, to some extent) to approve of their actions, otherwise they simply lose their positions.

And as I said, yes, there are some private parts to the Federal Reserve. Nobody denies that. It's still a federal entity answerable to the federal government. WHERE do you think they got their powers from?

And when something grants powers, can that something take those powers away? Because that tends to be the way things work in government and legislation.

By the goddesses you're moronic.

Yet you don't feel the need to expand on why. Interesting.

Have you ever considered the possibility that some people see you as a person full of hot air, and think that trying to explain something to you is almost pointless?

Or maybe it's just because it's IB and he doesn't really owe you.

Well that might be the case from his perspective. I didn't say he owed me an explanation, I simply stated that a simple insult without any clarification is an interesting tactic to take from my own frame of reference.

I will of course assure you guys that explaining things to me is in fact not pointless. I'm vicious when I'm right, and I'm tentative when I'm not certain I'm right, but either way I also accept the always possible chance I could be wrong about whatever it is I'm saying.

The "audits" which you speak of are joke audits that are entirely internal and:



Audits that can't audit everything? Sure...

Ill give you one more quote just to put my point over the top:



So let's clear that up: the federal reserve are banks which are sometimes held up to be "federal instrumentalities for some purposes" but are not federal agencies, and are in fact independent privately owned and locally controlled.

Aw yeah, threads like these make my kidney tingles.

I SAID they were internal, but I also said that the agency within the Fed that audits the fed is employed by our federal government. Nothing you've said or cited goes against this. All you've done so far is quote wiki at me saying there are critics of the Reserve that agree with you. That's...about it. And you know, that's fine, I'd actually like to discuss the facts, not argue from authority.

Also, upon further reading I found out we're both wrong. In fact the audits are fairly regular, generally on a monthly basis, and they're done by independent agencies, internal agencies, and also a congressional agency known as the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12784.htm



I'm not sure how accurate that list is, but let's presume it's accurate. If that's a way in which you prove an organization is private, then SCOTUS is private.

Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch have any ability to overturn a SCOTUS decision, no matter what. In fact, it's far harder to get rid of a Supreme Court Justice than it is to get rid of anyone running the Fed. Congress can do the latter fairly easily, the former...not really.

So SCOTUS is able to just rule however it wants with no control over those decisions by the other branches of the government...is it private? Obviously not. Regardless of the lack of power the other branches have over the actions of SCOTUS, it's still considered a branch of the government...which is much like how the Fed acts, only the Fed actually DOES have some restrictions put upon it by the other branches, and Congress, at least, as I've pointed out above, does have oversight over their transactions. Are you concerned because, given your above list, they don't have absolute oversight? Well...I'm gonna have to say you're going to have to learn to get over it, because there is no government in the world at any time ever that is completely transparent to anyone who isn't within that organization, and even then that privilege is limited.



I actually think it puts my point over better than yours, I'll highlight why.





Yes, let's clear it up. If anyone would like to go to a website known as HowStuffWorks you can begin to get a little information on some of the reason why there's independent ownership within the Fed, and how this serves our government.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/fed.htm

What the 'independent' parts of the Fed are, are what's called 'open market operation'.

Open market operation is essentially a federal agency acting independently within a chosen market to do what they think is best for that market, generally by regulating money supply, interest rates, and all that, in accordance to buyer demand, generally with the usage of distributing government bonds to banks(something only a federal institution can possibly do). Because they do this ALL over the united states, such as with Citibank or Wells Fargo, it's a lot more efficient to have that run by private investors, than to essentially have the government controlling absolutely everything about our money.

Now, I am openly admitting there are many private and independent parts to the Fed. How does this support my point?

Because evidently people are not understanding my point that, as I've stated since my first post, the Fed is a MIX of private, and federal, but overall is a federal institution, with federal oversight into its activities and federal regulation, such as by statutes of limitations.

Inversing Waar's quote here, "So to call it completely private is wrong, and any argument to support it is therefore stupid."

BigFaggot, shut the fuck up...

This isn't faggy SD...

It's the even worse IB.

IT's even more worse than some sub sections of IB.