Any Conspiracy Theorists out there??

[kgoerz]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I think it is a waste of bandwidth, like most conspiracy theories.

The same people seem to come out from underneath the rocks every time each new conspiracy theory is proposed.

TR

IMO, its also insulting the First Responders who gave their lives that day. It was an attack by people who hate everything Freedom stands for.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Yes, but can't it be argued that the U.S. economy has been able to grow properly because of the basic purpose of the Federal Reserve (insuring the banks)?

It's an argument. Not a compelling one.

From my understanding, Andy Jackson shut down that bank due to corruption. The Federal Reserve is the 3rd attempt at getting it right and was 1910's (I think) answer to the problem of banks getting runs on them during stock market downs.

Andy Jackson shut down the BUS because he considered it to be unconstitutional and to be a seperate aristocratic power over the USA. Not corruption.

No, but we would have to have something to represent that gold if we weren't actually carrying it. And with representative forms of money, at least from my understanding, government oversight just becomes a necessary evil, because the country has to control its own monetary policy and people need to know that the paper money isn't going to be worthless for buying food and so forth.

If you are saying that a specie based currency is by definition more stable and doesn't become worthless when the gov't prints more (because in order to print more, they must have sufficient specie to back the money), you are correct.

Furthermore, if we were on a gold standard, wouldn't this result in constant deflation, bank runs, etc.

No. The US was on a gold standard for quite a while, and on a silver standard through the 50s, which are commonly considered one of the great economic growth periods in the US.

..and the U.S. being at the whim of countries like Africa that can mine gold?

That depends on how much money you want to have in circulation.

With the Federal Reserve, we can print dollars, we don't need to mine any gold.

Familiar with the history of the Weimar Republic? Might want to look into it and discover just what printing money can lead to.

If we went back to gold, we'd have to buy sufficient gold reserves from other countries, which would drive up the price of gold, and create a large wealth transfer from our country.

Again, depends on how much money is to be in circulation, and what the exchange rate (how many dollars to an ounce of gold or silver or platinum) is.

The Federal Reserve has problems, such as inflation from printing money and also it can be argued they helped cause the Great Depression, and others I'm not thinking about right now I'm sure, but isn't it better to have the government insure that banks remain solvent and inflation as just a pesky consequence, rather than have constant runs on banks?

You keep harping on constant runs on banks, but that isn't an issue. Do you see Swiss Banks having constant runs on them?

Or depressions even, if too many banks were to fail from a major stock market crash, and the money supply goes too far down, this could cause a depression I believe.

If you have a hard currency, the money supply remains constant, based on specie reserves, not on some idiots idea of how much money we should print this week. Bank failures are far more likely (historically) in a soft-currency environment than a hard-currency one. Paper economies are more likely to have easy credit (and the corresponding risk that is playing out in the US economy today) vs. hard-money economies.

[82ndtrooper]

One only has to do some reading regarding Government bailouts of such company's such as Penn Central, Chrysler, the creation of AMTRAK and CONRAIL.

AMTRAK took over the services of the Penn Central and CONRAIL assumed operation of freight services. CONRAIL is a private company. When it was created 85% of the stock was owned by the Governement the rest held by employees. Fortunatley the governments stock was sold in a public offering in 1987. AMTRAK continues under political control and operates at a loss. It is sustained by Government subsidies, which is to say by taxpayers. By 1998, Congress had dutifully given it $21 billion. In 2002, it was consuming more than $200 million of taxes per year. By 2005, it requested and increase in subsidy to $1.8 billion per year. CONRAIL, on the other hand, since it was returned to the private sector, has experienced and impressive turnaround and has been running at a profit and paying taxes instead of consuming them.

Another good historical example of this is Lockheed Corporation. Look at their survival by the tax payers and their influence, in the middle of their almost total failure, on the central banks and Federal Reserve. How many jobs would have been lost if the Government had not bailed them out in 1970 ?

Remember, the Government does not have money, the people have their money with the Government. But, we are never asked how to spend it and when we are, it's up to a vote and that vote can vetoed. Although it does sometimes work in our favor on a local basis.

How many of us wrote our districts congressman and encouraged them to vote for war spending bills over the last seven years ???

[dmgedgoods]

#

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

What about the Fed's role in managing inflation properly, allowing the economy to grow over so many years?

You only have to manage inflation if you rely on paper currency. You're using a circular argument.

Aren't those kind of the same thing though? Too much power in too few hands, results in corruption?

Not necessarilly. And certainly not the reason that Jackson made sure that the charter for the Bank of the United States wasn't renewed.

True, but the 1990s was considered the greatest economic growth period in U.S. history I believe, and that was without the gold standard.

By who? Certainly not economic historians.

I'm not too familiar with how the Swiss economy works, but from my understanding, before the Federal Reserve was created, American banks had a problem with runs on them during times when the Stock Market would go down. The Federal Reserve was created specifically to stop the banks from getting runs on them.

There was exactly one period, and one only, in which US banks suffered runs. The Federal Reserve system wasn't created to stop them, but for a variety of reasons.

I may have this wrong as I don't fully understand this issue (though I find it all very fascinating!), but if everyone is actually carrying around gold, the money supply remains constant, and increases or decreases based on the amount of money, but since people carry representative forms of money, which are backed by that gold, government oversight is still needed to manage this properly.

That's called a Treasury.

If the specie reserves increase or decrease, I believe the money supply has to be changed accordingly. The problems can come though when this is mis-managed, as I believe happened in 1929 with the Stock Market crash.

The Stock Market Crash of 1929 had to do with rampant speculation, not with specie management.

Thing is though, since the money supply still must be managed even with a gold standard, I don't see how we could do without the Federal Reserve.

Did it from 1848 - 1913 without the Federal Reserve.

I do not see how the Euro could ever replace the dollar.

Well, it's doing it. Might also consider that for a number of years, the Swiss Franc was the "international currency". Stability has value.

Also, from some things I've been reading, a weak dollar can be good for the U.S. economy because we are no longer the world's manufacturing king. As such, for our manufacturers to compete, a weak dollar helps them because it allows us to sell our exports where they are cheap to the rest of the world. It also stimulates U.S. tourism I believe, and it helps the economy because we can increase prices for products, which may seem bad for the consumer (increases cost of imports), but it helps the economy, and assuming most consumers are workers, this should help them.

Republican Administrations have consistently used this argument and supported a weak dollar. The dollar isn't weak now, it's looking close to freefall. In addition, the US doesn't manufacture the amount that it used to that competes internationally on the issue of price. More and more US exports are in areas where the customers pay the price regardless (such as technology) if they want the product. The USA gets far more internal tourism (US tourists) than external tourists (tourists from overseas).

You can have a weak dollar with specie based currency. Just set more dollars per ounce.

[82ndtrooper]

With all that said it's pretty easy to leverage yourself in the market by simply sticking to multinational holdings without having to divert moneys to foreign stock holdings. Look at Coca Cola's foreign revenues compared to american revenues. The Euro holds up pretty well for those investors.

I brought up the "bailout" scenario in my previous post. Consider for a moment that Chrysler had never been bailed out by the tax payers (noitce I did not say Government, for a reason) and how that may have shaped the auto industry longer term. It's my contention that even with large unemployment and local economic stife to Chrysler and it's thousands of workers that the American automobile industry would have had to actually compete a bit harder to capture the American consumer. In other words, Chrysler and Lee Iococa simply said "We dont make a decent car, we can't mangage our company, we have losses on the balance sheet, and our pension is underfunded, so lets force the American tax payer to bail us out, even if they dont want out products"

New York city has worked much the same way. They have consumed more tax payer dollars than any other city in the nation, yet they have never payed back anything but interest on loans that have been granted to the city. Remember, loans on a banks balance sheet are considered "assets" and if the interest is paid, then the "asset" remains on the books. Cheap money sloshing around.

[Detonics]

By "Conspiracy Theorist" are you talking about the organized redistribution of wealth in pursuit of a global government? That's public domain knowledge, all you have to do is pay attention:

"My vision of a new World Order foresees a UN with a revitalized peacekeeping function. It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which we henceforth pledge our allegiance." - President George Herbert Walker Bush, February 1, 1992

"A truly global economy will require ...compromises of national sovereignty...There is no escaping the system." Former Chairman of CitiCorp in his book "The Twilight of Sovereignty"

Rather than fill up page after page with dire quotes from economists, politicians and former U.S. Presidents and impose on the patience of our hosts regarding this topic, I'll share a link I find interesting, with some possibly major implications: Law Of the Sea Treaty

For those with more appetite for the subject, try this: Unvetted Quotations

One more thing. Broadsword, you may not realize this, but the Federal Reserve System is NOT part of the US Government, at least not in a constitutional sense.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is an independent federal government agency. The Board of Governors does not receive funding from Congress, and the terms of the seven members of the Board span multiple presidential and congressional terms. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed by the president, he or she functions mostly independently. The Board is required to make an annual report of operations to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. The law provides for the removal of a member of the Board by the President "for cause." The Board of Governors is responsible for the formulation of monetary policy. It also supervises and regulates the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks, and US banking system in general.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

One more thing. Broadsword, you may not realize this, but the Federal Reserve System is NOT part of the US Government, at least not in a constitutional sense.

Article I. Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States reads:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
(excerpted, emphasis mine)

The Fed exercises its power at the pleasure of the Congress.
The Congress may trump them at any time.

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Article I. Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States reads:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
(excerpted, emphasis mine)

The Fed exercises its power at the pleasure of the Congress.
The Congress may trump them at any time.

It's nice to say that. Doesn't make it factual. The same arguments were made about the Bank of the United States. Then came 1837.

The Constitution also says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Scimitar]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

The Fed exercises its power at the pleasure of the Congress.
The Congress may trump them at any time.

Not when the only way to run a succesful campaign is with money, and not while we still have campaign contributions.

[B219]

If one applies the legal requirements for criminal conspiracy to "conspiracy theories"...

That takes care of most of them right there.

Rows of books have been written regarding the psychology of conspiracy theories.

Broadsword,

I'd suggest you read the history of the Bank of the United States and also about Andy Jackson and the BUS.

One source (a good one) for this is:

The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln by Sean Wilentz.

Another is Jackson vs. Biddle; The Struggle over the Second Bank of the United States by George Rogers Taylor.

I suggest the first. In my opinion, it gives a better overview of how the BUS came into existence, the opposition by rather prominent members of the founding fathers (including Thomas Jefferson), why the BUS eventually lost its charter, and the setup of the sub-treasury system.

The reason I suggest this is because in many ways, the Federal Reserve is the BUS reborn.