The dumbest video I've ever seen on economics.
0
Waar
FAKKU Moderator
BigLundi wrote...
Ill give you one more quote just to put my point over the top:
I actually think it puts my point over better than yours, I'll highlight why.
In Lewis v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." The opinion went on to say, however, that: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." Another relevant decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally created instrumentalities, and the Board of Governors, which is a federal agency
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.
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."
I think it's cute how you admit to being wrong while trying to make it seem like you were right. If your argument never tried to counter that that federal reserve banks were privately owned and operated then you and I were never in disagreement in the first place. Every one of my posts only supported what the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed; that the federal reserve banks are private institutes. Is this how you roll in IB? Argue points to death when they're not even the main topic of discussion? Perhaps next time you want to start a topic you can post an opinion so others can try to argue against it rather than a vague idea where you stand. No wonder they treat you like an idiot in SD.
0
Waar wrote...
I think it's cute how you admit to being wrong while trying to make it seem like you were right. If your argument never tried to counter that that federal reserve banks were privately owned and operated then you and I were never in disagreement in the first place. Every one of my posts only supported what the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed; that the federal reserve banks are private institutes. Is this how you roll in IB? Argue points to death when they're not even the main topic of discussion? Perhaps next time you want to start a topic you can post an opinion so others can try to argue against it rather than a vague idea where you stand. No wonder they treat you like an idiot in SD.
Well aren't you being a bit disingenuous?
Let's take a look at what you said in your original post. 6 regional banks, privately owned, therefore, "any argument to state that the federal reserve bank is not a private institution is wrong and somewhat stupid."
I have disputed that the FED itself is a private institution and I believe have demonstrated why it's erroneous to conclude that this is the case.
Another thing you've said to support your claim is "There is no government oversight, it's never been audited."
I have provided evidence that this is as a matter of fact not the case.
After doing so, you responded by saying "The "audits" which you speak of are joke audits that are entirely internal"
Also something I've demonstrated to be untrue.
So yeah...where do we agree again?
Oh right, the regional banks are private.
Do you not understand how you can be right about that...yet wrong about your conclusion?
The difference between you and me Waar, is I can at least admit when I'm wrong about something. You...seem to just change the subject whenever you're proven wrong. "There's no government oversight!" Yes there is, "It's never been audited!" yes it has, "The audits are internal(admitting the audits happen, funnily enough, without conceding the point)" Only some of them, not all of them are.
All things I've proven you wrong about...and you simply feel you have no need to respond to. Which is fine. IF you wish to abandon your point entirely and fuck off elsewhere, 'tis your right, but don't expect me, or anyone else really for that matter to take you seriously as if you actually know what you're talking about...or are in any way honest. :)
By the way, since you like using wiki, I'll use it too.
"Regarding the structural relationship between the twelve Federal Reserve banks and the various commercial (member) banks, political science professor Michael D. Reagan has written that:[6]
... the "ownership" of the Reserve Banks by the commercial banks is symbolic; they do not exercise the proprietary control associated with the concept of ownership nor share, beyond the statutory dividend, in Reserve Bank "profits." ... Bank ownership and election at the base are therefore devoid of substantive significance, despite the superficial appearance of private bank control that the formal arrangement creates."
^ the above explains how the first part of the ruling in Lewis v. United States simply explains that there are SOME purposes that the Federal Reserve banks(the 12, not the FED itself) that are performed in a private transactional way, and for THAT purpose are private. But, for other purposes, they are not private.
We live in a bit of a grey area where they're both private...and not. IT depends on what the banks are being used for. But I guess the nuance of what I'm trying to say is lost on you.
0
Waar
FAKKU Moderator
BigLundi wrote...
I have disputed that the FED itself is a private institution and I believe have demonstrated why it's erroneous to conclude that this is the case.It's not, the federal government said you're wrong.
BigLundi wrote...
Another thing you've said to support your claim is "There is no government oversight, it's never been audited."I have provided evidence that this is as a matter of fact not the case.
My evidence pointed to those only being partial audits, that don't include a large percentage of money they store every year.
BigLundi wrote...
After doing so, you responded by saying "The "audits" which you speak of are joke audits that are entirely internal"Also something I've demonstrated to be untrue.
touche.
BigLundi wrote...
The difference between you and me Waar, is I can at least admit when I'm wrong about something. You...seem to just change the subject whenever you're proven wrong. "There's no government oversight!" Yes there is, "It's never been audited!" yes it has, "The audits are internal(admitting the audits happen, funnily enough, without conceding the point)" Only some of them, not all of them are.Pray tell, where did you admit to being wrong?
BigLundi wrote...
All things I've proven you wrong about...and you simply feel you have no need to respond to. Which is fine. IF you wish to abandon your point entirely and fuck off elsewhere, 'tis your right, but don't expect me, or anyone else really for that matter to take you seriously as if you actually know what you're talking about...or are in any way honest. :)By the way, since you like using wiki, I'll use it too.
"Regarding the structural relationship between the twelve Federal Reserve banks and the various commercial (member) banks, political science professor Michael D. Reagan has written that:[6]
... the "ownership" of the Reserve Banks by the commercial banks is symbolic; they do not exercise the proprietary control associated with the concept of ownership nor share, beyond the statutory dividend, in Reserve Bank "profits." ... Bank ownership and election at the base are therefore devoid of substantive significance, despite the superficial appearance of private bank control that the formal arrangement creates."
^ the above explains how the first part of the ruling in Lewis v. United States simply explains that there are SOME purposes that the Federal Reserve banks(the 12, not the FED itself) that are performed in a private transactional way, and for THAT purpose are private. But, for other purposes, they are not private.
We live in a bit of a grey area where they're both private...and not. IT depends on what the banks are being used for. But I guess the nuance of what I'm trying to say is lost on you.
You're confusing the stock in the Federal Reserve (which is owned by member banks but not actual stock) and the regional banks which are private entities(which is what Lewis v, United States was about). The quote you took was a clarification of who the "stock owners" were but had no bearing on the Lewis v. US case.
I don't get you, the way you talk is as if all the criticism has no place here, as if it's all manufactured and that they don't have any real point. Smart people who know much more about the system than you or I have valid complaints about the lack of oversight and ownership of the 12 banks and federal reserve, do you honestly think you know more than financialist? Please tell me you're not that naive.
0
Waar wrote...
It's not, the federal government said you're wrong.
No, they didn't. Again, you're just reading the first part of the ruling and ignoring the second part as if nuance and context and grey areas don't matter.
My evidence pointed to those only being partial audits, that don't include a large percentage of money they store every year.
Well you gave me a spoiler and then just claimed it applied to all audits. I don't know why it would be that way, if it applies to all audits of the fed, whether those limits are even true, there really wasn't anything to work with for either of us concerning that.
BigLundi wrote...
After doing so, you responded by saying "The "audits" which you speak of are joke audits that are entirely internal"Also something I've demonstrated to be untrue.
touche.
En garde.
Pray tell, where did you admit to being wrong?
I gotta tell you, this was totally confusing to me.
Your last post BEGAN by saying, " I think it's cute how you admit to being wrong" And then...you ask me where I admitted to being wrong?
I am very confuzzled.
You're confusing the stock in the Federal Reserve (which is owned by member banks but not actual stock) and the regional banks which are private entities(which is what Lewis v, United States was about). The quote you took was a clarification of who the "stock owners" were but had no bearing on the Lewis v. US case.
Oh? So the "stock owners" have nothing to do with the private parts of the FED? Because that was my point. And that was the point of Lewis V US.
I don't get you, the way you talk is as if all the criticism has no place here, as if it's all manufactured and that they don't have any real point. Smart people who know much more about the system than you or I have valid complaints about the lack of oversight and ownership of the 12 banks and federal reserve, do you honestly think you know more than financialist? Please tell me you're not that naive.
I'm unsure what you mean here. IF you're trying to say, "People who are educated about this agree with me, so don't act as if this is a settled issue"
I could go ahead and say the same to you. Do you think everyone who's a n economist, political theorist, or whatever agrees with YOU? Yet you're the one who feels perfectly fine in saying, "The Fed's Private, that's the end of it. If you disagree you are wrong and stupid."
So what? Is it ok for YOU to act like you know more than your position's educated detractors and I cannot even come off as doing the same?
Btw, no, I'm not trying to say I know more than those who are educated in this process. I'm saying I'm currently gathering information, and everything I'm finding(Sans Paulbot sites and sites with obvious libertarian bias) contradicts what you claim, making your attempt as saying what is the fact of the matter come off rather ignorant.
0
Waar
FAKKU Moderator
BigLundi wrote...
Waar wrote...
It's not, the federal government said you're wrong.
No, they didn't. Again, you're just reading the first part of the ruling and ignoring the second part as if nuance and context and grey areas don't matter
I still maintain that the rest of that quote still doesn't indicate a public nature, and that "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes.". Take note of the some in that sentence. So once again, while they are instrumentalities some of the time/ in some ways, they remain in large part as privately operated.
BigLundi wrote...
[quote="BigLundi"]My evidence pointed to those only being partial audits, that don't include a large percentage of money they store every year.
Well you gave me a spoiler and then just claimed it applied to all audits. I don't know why it would be that way, if it applies to all audits of the fed, whether those limits are even true, there really wasn't anything to work with for either of us concerning that.
The GAO has authority to audit check-processing, currency storage and shipments, and some regulatory and bank examination functions, however there are restrictions to what the GAO may audit.
You saw the same wiki I did((Link) so if you choose not to believe it then it's your loss, I can't do anything but present the point.
BigLundi wrote...
Pray tell, where did you admit to being wrong?
I gotta tell you, this was totally confusing to me.
Your last post BEGAN by saying, " I think it's cute how you admit to being wrong" And then...you ask me where I admitted to being wrong?
I am very confuzzled.
Really? You can't have it both ways, you're either admitting you were wrong or you never admitted to being wrong(so that line about you being different than myself and above always believing you're right). I can see why you're confused, you have trouble following a simple conversation.
BigLundi wrote...
You're confusing the stock in the Federal Reserve (which is owned by member banks but not actual stock) and the regional banks which are private entities(which is what Lewis v, United States was about). The quote you took was a clarification of who the "stock owners" were but had no bearing on the Lewis v. US case.
Oh? So the "stock owners" have nothing to do with the private parts of the FED? Because that was my point. And that was the point of Lewis V US.
Right, I'm saying other banks dictate policy for the federal reserve, they self regulate through a board of directors, they decide which banks to give loans to, how much each loan is worth. The "stockholders" are just how they decide which banks make up the ruling body.
BigLundi wrote...
I don't get you, the way you talk is as if all the criticism has no place here, as if it's all manufactured and that they don't have any real point. Smart people who know much more about the system than you or I have valid complaints about the lack of oversight and ownership of the 12 banks and federal reserve, do you honestly think you know more than financialist? Please tell me you're not that naive.
I'm unsure what you mean here. IF you're trying to say, "People who are educated about this agree with me, so don't act as if this is a settled issue"
I could go ahead and say the same to you. Do you think everyone who's a n economist, political theorist, or whatever agrees with YOU? Yet you're the one who feels perfectly fine in saying, "The Fed's Private, that's the end of it. If you disagree you are wrong and stupid."
So what? Is it ok for YOU to act like you know more than your position's educated detractors and I cannot even come off as doing the same?
Btw, no, I'm not trying to say I know more than those who are educated in this process. I'm saying I'm currently gathering information, and everything I'm finding(Sans Paulbot sites and sites with obvious libertarian bias) contradicts what you claim, making your attempt as saying what is the fact of the matter come off rather ignorant.
So your sources say I'm wrong and mine say you're wrong. I guess it's come down to choice, I choose to believe the critics of our current system and you choose to believe those who back it. This has been a thorough waste of time and I don't see you relenting any time soon so I'm going to end this here. I wont read any reply you make from this point on in this topic because it wont serve a purpose.
0
You're just butthurt because america isn't perfect and that video hurt your feminine side.
Embrace it, along with truth! Forget your misguided sense of pride, and patriotism.
Patriotism is the last virtue of the wicked. How many virtues do you have?
Ndaf, The patriot act - I'm scared. America terrifies me. Its a rogue nation.
The federal reserve bank which I might add is privately owned, it is no more federal then the federal express.
It prints an infinite amount of money, backed by nothing - and sells it back to the us government at rates it can't possibly ever pay back.
Corporate america is literal. Economic collapse, a 401k collapse and house foreclosure is coming to a town near you!
Do you understand how serious this is? Or are your emotions too addled to see reason?
Did you know that jfk planned to have the government with the ability to print its own money and to fix the economy before it was too late? Guess what happened to him?
Now why is this in incoherent babbling? You made my 30 second fuck and chuck brain burn out but not sexually.
Fuck that shit man! Leave politics at the fucking door!
Embrace it, along with truth! Forget your misguided sense of pride, and patriotism.
Patriotism is the last virtue of the wicked. How many virtues do you have?
Ndaf, The patriot act - I'm scared. America terrifies me. Its a rogue nation.
The federal reserve bank which I might add is privately owned, it is no more federal then the federal express.
It prints an infinite amount of money, backed by nothing - and sells it back to the us government at rates it can't possibly ever pay back.
Corporate america is literal. Economic collapse, a 401k collapse and house foreclosure is coming to a town near you!
Do you understand how serious this is? Or are your emotions too addled to see reason?
Did you know that jfk planned to have the government with the ability to print its own money and to fix the economy before it was too late? Guess what happened to him?
Now why is this in incoherent babbling? You made my 30 second fuck and chuck brain burn out but not sexually.
Fuck that shit man! Leave politics at the fucking door!
