In the early 1930s, the Federal Reserve defended the fixed price of dollars in respect to the gold standard by raising interest rates, trying to increase the demand for dollars. Its commitment and adherence to the gold standard explain why the U.S. did not engage in expansionary monetary policy. To compete in the international economy, the U.S. maintained high interest rates. This helped attract international investors who bought foreign assets with gold. Higher interest rates intensified the deflationary pressure on the dollar and reduced investment in U.S. banks. Commercial banks also converted Federal Reserve Notes to gold in 1931, reducing the Federal Reserve's gold reserves, and forcing a corresponding reduction in the amount of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. This speculative attack on the dollar created a panic in the U.S. banking system. Fearing imminent devaluation of the dollar, many foreign and domestic depositors withdrew funds from U.S. banks to convert them into gold or other assets.
Some economic historians, such as American professor Barry Eichengreen, blame the gold standard of the 1920s for prolonging the Great Depression. Others including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman place some blame at the feet of the Federal Reserve. The gold standard limited the flexibility of central banks' monetary policy by limiting their ability to expand the money supply, and thus their ability to lower interest rates. In the US, the Federal Reserve was required by law to have 40% gold backing of its Federal Reserve demand notes, and thus, could not expand the money supply beyond what was allowed by the gold reserves held in their vaults.
A return to the Gold Standard would increase government regulation of the economy. With no Fed, inexpert Congress will bear the onus of alleviating economic suffering. With deeper, longer recessions, Congressmen will inevitably succumb to pressure for more spending and regulation of the economy--as they did during the Great Depression.
Indeed, Fed management of the money supply was originally meant to stave off calls for socialism by rendering free-market capitalism more resilient, flexible, and humane. Switching back to gold would breathe new life into anti-capitalist politics.
It would increase our reliance on foreign credit and ship yet more jobs overseas. Adopting the gold standard would actually exacerbate the problem of reliance on foreign credit, not alleviate it.
Assuming we're not in a recession, economic growth would then continually cause deflation, making domestically-produced products more expensive and foreign imports cheaper--increasing consumption of imports. The trade deficit would continue to balloon at the expense of American jobs. In a recession, this would be catastrophic.
Insofar as it helps anybody, the gold standard would favour Wall Street bankers over entrepreneurs, businesses, and workers. The major economic gains would be made by such big gold producers as Russia and South Africa.
The inflexibility of the gold standard during the 1890s spawned the anti-Washington Populist movement, led by William Jennings Bryan (read his eloquent attack on the gold standard here).
Going back to the Gold Standard is downright idiotic.
I could have read Wiki myself. I could buy a gallon of gas at today's prices for the value of a 1964 or earlier quarter. That 1930 dollar bill would now be worth $1,600. instead, it has been devalued by about 96%. The fact is there was no Great Depression until the FED was created. But printing money out of thin air is a great way to finance wars. How many countries are we warring with now? I lost count. Prior to the FED, the value of the dollar increased in value because it was based on the value of gold.
So, you don't like the gold standard, how about the idea of an oil standard? Try studying something beside Keynesian nonsense. Why in the world do you think there is a global financial meltdown?
Here's what I got out of your responses and non-responses: You have no investments in gold or silver, you wouldn't want dollars that are worth $1,600 in purchasing power Oxford ain't worth a shit You have never read "A History of Money and Banking in the United States" The Colonial Era to World War II Government regulations are good Oil is antiquated That you like money that is created out of thin air so nations can go to war and kill innocent people. BTW, how is that British Empire doing?
You haven't said anything really intelligent and worth responding to, but...
In fact, you basically said a bunch of crap that proves you have no idea of what I mention.
It's nice that you can say titles of books, such as "A History of Money and Banking in the United States"
Did you read it? You didn't answer my question about 1837, so I doubt you did. If you did read it, you didn't understand it.
The Panic of 1837 was a rather important event in US economic history, but you didn't give a good response to that.
I've had a course in economic history, which was pretty good. Better than that book.
You are rather fixated upon the concept of dollars that are worth $1,600 in purchasing power, which you would probably not have any dollars. In fact, they would probably introduce fractional coinage such as the 1/10 cent if such dollars existed.
In fact you miss that the Gold Standard caused deflation, which is worse than inflation since people don't want to sell things if the value is going down.
Do you know what deflation is and how it effect an economy, or do you just like to mention books that you haven't read or understood?
I am not going to get into what a disaster reverting to any form of commodity related currency would cause since you thought that bit was from wiki.
And you are too much of a cretin to have understood it in the first place: so no need to rehash it.
While I may not be a total fan of fiat currency, there needs to be a drastic rework of the economic system.
Going back in time to when things really didn't work and using their old economic instruments isn't the answer.
But, you are too stupid to know what happened in 1837.
Even if "A History of Money and Banking in the United States" may have mentioned it.
Compare this with what you said you wrote. Hell, I can cut and paste Murray Rothbard all day long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
In the early 1930s, the Federal Reserve defended the fixed price of dollars in respect to the gold standard by raising interest rates, trying to increase the demand for dollars. Its commitment and adherence to the gold standard explain why the U.S. did not engage in expansionary monetary policy. To compete in the international economy, the U.S. maintained high interest rates. This helped attract international investors who bought foreign assets with gold. Higher interest rates intensified the deflationary pressure on the dollar and reduced investment in U.S. banks. Commercial banks also converted Federal Reserve Notes to gold in 1931, reducing the Federal Reserve's gold reserves, and forcing a corresponding reduction in the amount of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation.[10] This speculative attack on the dollar created a panic in the U.S. banking system. Fearing imminent devaluation of the dollar, many foreign and domestic depositors withdrew funds from U.S. banks to convert them into gold or other assets.[10]
Some economic historians, such as American professor Barry Eichengreen, blame the gold standard of the 1920s for prolonging the Great Depression.[6] Others including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman place some blame at the feet of the Federal Reserve.[7][8] The gold standard limited the flexibility of central banks' monetary policy by limiting their ability to expand the money supply, and thus their ability to lower interest rates. In the US, the Federal Reserve was required by law to have 40% gold backing of its Federal Reserve demand notes, and thus, could not expand the money supply beyond what was allowed by the gold reserves held in their vaults.[9]
A CDS is an option that pays the buyer the face value of a debt in the event of default.
1, 2, 3...yup 20 words. And I didn't even have to rip off wikipedia to do it. But a credit default swap is from the world of trading, not economics. Laci, you are so public.
I knew that Anonymous couldn't come up with an intelligent answer to my question.
The panic of 1837 was caused by Jackson's not renewing the charter for the Second Bank of the United States which produced a period of runaway inflation. We can also argue that use of a silver based economy contributed to the crash as well.
There are loads of problems with using a commodity based currency as well. The fact that new finds of the commodity can cause the currency to crash. Also, if the US uilaterally went back to the gold standard would be idiotic.
But, I knew anonymous has no idea of what he is talking about.
Scott: I was expecting something a bit more in depth in the form of a explanation. You just defined a swap.
Big difference between explaining a CDS and defining it. How does it differ from insurance? What is the level of risk? How is this all calculated?
BTW, a credit default swap is a legal and economic item since it is a contract between two parties that specifies conditions, in particular, dates and the resulting economic values of the underlying variables (also economic), under which payments, or payoffs, are to be made between the parties.
"credit default swap is a legal and economic item since it is a contract between two parties that specifies conditions, in particular, dates and the resulting economic values of the underlying variables (also economic), under which payments, or payoffs, are to be made between the parties."
Seems you couldn't explain it in 20 words or less either Laci...now who is the fuckwit?
The proper answer to explain a credit default swap in 20 words or less is that it can't be done.
They aren't called complex financial instruments for nothing. You can give a simple statement as Scott did, but that hardly explains what they are and how they work.
My reason for asking this question was to demonstrate that deregulation brought about complex financial instruments such as the CDS that require a 300 page explanation that is only comprehensible to securities lawyers, accountants, and economists.
Of course, you missed this because you don't understand the topic.
So, you are the fuckwit.
You are trying to discuss topics that you don't even have a basic knowledge.
You failed to address the question about the Panic of 1837 and its causes, which are what Ron Paul is suggesting as a Solution.
This is a complex and specialized subject, and it presents some special challenges to the 20111 and 2012 electorate because effectively, to vote intelligently, they need to have a good grounding in history - most don't,not ours, not world history; and they need to have a grasp of economics and economic history that most people lack.
So, Laci, mon frere cher, I think we should look at this discussion to educate and inform, rather than berate those who are less educated on this topic. Yes, it is a mistake for them to advocate strongly for a position from ignorance, and yes, it is very frustrating sometimes to have to go back to square one to advance a discussion. But it is what it is.
For those who are unfamiliar with the panic of 1837, this is a source to use as a beginning.
http://eh.net/node/2748
It is more complex source than say, Wikipedia, but it addresses the similarities and differences to our current problems, and in particular addresses the issues of using either gold or silver - aka 'specie' - versus fiat money. It is best understood with at least the minimal grounding one should have from a 101 macro-economics college course; if you haven't had one, or if you had it so long ago that you don't remember it, you made need to brush up.
I don't have the depth on the 1837 crisis that my colleague Laci has, but I have at least some familiarity with it, enough to follow his argument solidly. I think I'm picking up on most of the nuances.(So, I'm hoping my friend and colleague won't be irritated into calling me a fuckwit too, LOL.)
But to Anon, or anyone else who wishes to comment intelligently, this is NOT the kind of topic that lends itself to bumper sticker slogan reasoning.
So, gentle readers, to borrow a phrase I like from the inimitable Miss Manners columns, please comment- but do your necessary prep, homework, whatever it takes to get up to speed to join in. This is not simple or simplistic, nor should it have to be. Rather we should rise to the challenge of complexity and knowledge required for this topic.
My earliest exposure to the eventsof 1837 was in K-12 history classes, in the context of pressures and influences to both expanding U.S. trade and to internal expansion of our western borders as a nation.
At least being on the correct track of understanding takes you from being a fuckwit.
Failing to address the question and not being able to understand what I am tryiing to do is what makes him a fuckwit.
One of the major problems with specie currency is that it is hard to use. That is the origin of paper money.
People would deposit their precious metals, and then write IOUs, which is basically what paper money is.
It is a promise to pay a specific amount.
Money is an accounting tool whether one uses commidities, rocks, tally sticks, paper, or what have you, to represent a unit of trade since barter is inconvenient.
What happened in 1837? The same thing that happened in 1811, no more central bank. Yippee!!!!! It is complete and utter nonsense to think that regulations are gonna fix the financial mess the central banks have put us in. Simply put, the banks and corporations own the government. Who writes the regulations? The banks and corporations through their lobbyists who buy off the government and politicians. It is one big machination thinking that somehow the government is gonna 'do something' to fix the problem, they are only adding on to more problems down the road. Had the government and politicians cared about the people, they would have given that bailout money to the people - not the banks. Let's look at three recent news items: 1. President Barack Obama’s new senior campaign adviser is a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, and has the potential to damage the president’s aspirations to appeal to the protesters currently “occupying” New York City’s Zuccotti Park.
Obama’s new adviser, Broderick Johnson, has an extensive history of lobbying for big banks and corporations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2007, he lobbied for JP Morgan Chase and in 2008 Johnson lobbied for Bank of America and Fannie Mae. From 2008 through 2010, he lobbied for Comcast and in 2011 he lobbied for Microsoft.
Including open houses and social events, Johnson has visited the White House 17 times since 2009, according to White House visitor logs. One of those meetings was with Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.
In early 2009, Johnson was named partner at lobbying firm Bryan Cave LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.
That means that during those White House visits, Johnson was a registered lobbyist.
2. Obama Tops GOP Candidates in Wall Street Donations
New figures show President Obama continues to pull in huge donations from the financial sector, with more money from Wall Street this year than all other Republican presidential candidates combined. According to the Washington Post, Obama has raised a total of $15.6 million from banks and other financial firms, with nearly $12 million of that going to the Democratic National Committee. Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has raised less than half that much from Wall Street, around $7.5 million. A top banking executive and Obama fundraiser told the Washington Post that reports of Wall Street antagonism toward Obama "are exaggerated and overblown ... [but] it probably helps from a political perspective if he’s not seen as a Wall Street guy." http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/20/ ... _donations
3.This story from Bloomberg just hit the wires this morning. Bank of America is shifting derivatives in its Merrill investment banking unit to its depository arm, which has access to the Fed discount window and is protected by the FDIC.
This means that the investment bank's European derivatives exposure is now backstopped by U.S. taxpayers. Bank of America didn't get regulatory approval to do this, they just did it at the request of frightened counterparties. Now the Fed and the FDIC are fighting as to whether this was sound. The Fed wants to "give relief" to the bank holding company, which is under heavy pressure.
This is a direct transfer of risk to the taxpayer done by the bank without approval by regulators and without public input. You will also read below that JP Morgan is apparently doing the same thing with $79 trillion of notional derivatives guaranteed by the FDIC and Federal Reserve.
What this means for you is that when Europe finally implodes and banks fail, U.S. taxpayers will hold the bag for trillions in CDS insurance contracts sold by Bank of America and JP Morgan.
End the Fed isn't the solution, and you still demonstrate that you neither understand the history of central banks (if you do, please explain how the central bank of the era of the 1837 panic differed from the Fed) or the economics.
I agree with you that banks and banksters, through the money they hold, have a disproportionate influence on legislation, the executive branch, and even over the judges, including the more extreme right wingers on the SCOTUS.
This is not the first time however in our history that big money - personal or corporate - has had that kind of control. It CAN be ended, and mass movements like the OWS can help. Getting rid of the FED doesn't accomplish that; regulation does.
If you doubt the accuracy of these statements, take a look at the Pecora commission and the subsequent regulation that resulted. Keeping it simple, I will again resort to wikipedia, althouh if this does interest you as a topic, you'd gain far more accurate insight into the issues by reading any good book about this rather than anything by Ron Paul, especially that piece of crap, End the Fed, that Ron Paul tries to pass off as information. It should be retitled Spread the Ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecora_Commission
All of the regualtions passed as a result of the recommendations of the Pecora Commission, including Glass Steagal worked, they worked extremely well. Unfortunately they were dismantled over the subsequent years, bit by bit, so that the protection of those regulations was no longer in effect.
We need them BACK, along with some additional regulations over credit default swaps, dark markets, etc. NOT ending the Fed. Ron Paul wrongly defines the problem, and wrongly as a result proposes a solution, one that would solve no problems, but would create many many more.
So, banks and corporations have too much influence on congress, which is why we should end regulation of those industries?
You still haven't shown any understanding of fractional reserve banking.
Of course,you are too busy on the attack to offer any serious suggestions as to how you would solve this problem other than giving the people who caused this mess more power over running the whole shebang.
Of course,you mention that the First Bank of the US's charter ended, but you don't mention why the Second Bank was chartered.
Perhaps, it's because you just like to spout meaningless nonsense and hope that we will be dazzled by it.
So far,Anonymous, you have failed to say anything of substance and demonstrate that you have any idea of what you are talking about.
You haven't offered any solutions.
So,why are you bothered that "when Europe finally implodes and banks fail, U.S. taxpayers will hold the bag for trillions in CDS insurance contracts sold by Bank of America and JP Morgan"
It won't just be Europe that is going to implode, it will be pretty much the entire western economy. The PRC will probably still be standing since it is a command economy (and it is holding the bank in this game of Monopoly).
Whatcha gonna do?
Can you say something intelligent,or are you just going to spout more rubbish and post more irrelevant links ?
Dog Gone, I am not an economic historian so I'll defer to Robert Higgs who is.
You'll find all the answers you need right there. However, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made convincing arguments against a central bank that have proven to be correct even today. Then there is the story of how the FED came about if you care to read "Creature from Jekyll Island." But, one only need to look around himself to see what this central banking has reaped. Unless of course you think everything is right with the world's financial system and that more government interference is the answer.
You also know fuck all about economics: especially the extreme basics.
The predominant reason that the Second Bank of the United States was chartered was that in the War of 1812, the U.S. experienced severe inflation and had difficulty in financing military operations. Subsequently, the credit and borrowing status of the United States were at their lowest levels since its founding.
President Jackson had come to thoroughly dislike the Second Bank of the United States because of its fraud and corruption. The Bank's charter is not renewed and there is another economic crisis: the crisis of 1839, and the long depression that followed.
Before Jackson, Americans with their First and Second Banks of the United States had managed to create a superb financial system, one with few banking panics and financial crises between 1790 and 1837. Starting in 1837, panics and crises became more frequent, until at last the Federal Reserve System, which can be thought of as the Third Bank of the United States, appeared in 1914. After the advent of the Fed, US financial panics and crises again became less frequent.
I should also add that Congress nationalized money for the first time in 1873, imposing what was effectively a gold standard, in the place of the bimetallic standard set in place by the Founders. The Coinage Act of 1873 set off a cycle of growth and depression/panic that came to be known as the "business cycle". One such crisis, the Panic of 1907, was headed off by a private conglomerate, who set themselves up as "lenders of last resort" to banks in trouble. This effort succeeded in stopping the panic, and led to calls for a Federal agency to do the same thing: eventually leading to the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
The problem is that panics and crises did exist pre-Fed,and during the period between the Second Bank of the United States and the establishment of the Fed.
If there isn't some form of regulatory authority, what leads to stability in the economy?
We've seen that the deregulation of the past 30 years has led to worse fluctuations in the economy. Additionally, if you did look at economic data there has been a shift in wealth to the 1%, as well as a decline in the Standard of living for the rest of the people.
But, your answer is that we should deregulate the people who have run amok.
Do you really think that makes sense?
I've read the creature from Jekyll Island, It's basically a conspiracy theory novel with very little basis in fact, or economic reality.
You may want to take a basic course in economics before stepping into a voting booth.
Higgs is a libertarian, "and is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute", which pretty much makes him a hired mouth piece who says whatever the funders of the Cato Institute want.
He is substantively at odds with the majority view. Not a particularly good source to be quoting.
Try again. If this is such an accurate view point, you should have no trouble finding plenty of support for it (you won't find such support, but go look anyway). See if you can find anyone not directly or indirectly on the payroll of the Koch Brothers, or someone similar.
Since the U.S. has moved away from this Amish view of wealth over to the Federal Reserve System, we've gotten vastly wealthier in real terms because wealth derives from the knowledge we know how to apply to the world's resources, not from what we use to keep score.
It doesn't mean anything to say that the dollar has lost 95 percent of its "value" since the Federal Reserve System came into existence, because technological progress has transformed the basis of wealth since then. (What did an iPhone cost in "real money" a hundred years ago?)
People who complain about the Federal Reserve System need to base their complaints on defensible grievances, not on economic folk beliefs from the horse-and-buggy era.
Not to mention that playing games with fractional reserves has been a central component of capitalism from the earliest days.
So, if you have a gripe with all this, you may want to re-examine your views on the command economy systems--socialism and communism. They are the only ones in which there is no economic fluctuation.
You ain't gonna find that in pure capitalism, which is plagued by manias, panics, and crashes inherent in the system.
It is just amazing that you ignore the situation that is happening today. It's like you think it doesn't exist. Even the video you posted makes it clear who is the blame and yet you defend the FED.
A conspiracy theory? Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as a conspiracy? Are you suggesting that the events at Jekyll Island never happened? You probably believe that a 'magic bullet' killed JFK, too.
Vote? Why in the hell would I vote for more tyranny from these idiots? Sheesh!!!!
I imagine that our pro-Ron Paul anonymous (as distinct from the other versions of anonymous here) might be feeling a bit aggrieved at having his economist in support of his position rejected.
Allow me to elaborate.
First of all, it is important to have more knowledge and understanding than anonymous has demonstrated so far to distinguish a good source from a bad source; this is more like cherry picking looking for anyone who will support a particular point of view.
Which is substantively different than having a good understanding of the subject, and a good knowledge of the majority and minority opinions, pro and con, of the topic.
Then there is the issue of straight up intellectual dishonesty, and the Koch brothers have done more than their share of funding that. Perhaps, since you appear to be enamored of the Austrian School variety of economics, you should read this:
The Video explains the current economic system: yes.
It mentions the fractional reserve system and the Federal Reserve Bank: yes.
The rest of the film goes on to propose a highly technological economic system.
But, there are quite a few more players and aspects than what that simplified version of how the system works.
It's kind of like explaining credit default swaps in 20 words or less.
Not to mention that is only a segment of the film where they go beyond just how fractional reserve banking works and the Fed's part in the system.
In fact, APU, you've only glommed onto a fraction of what I have mentioned here and are showing that you don't even understand that.
As I have said before, "playing games with fractional reserves has been a central component of capitalism from the earliest days."
You can't blame the Fed, the First Bank of the US, The Second Bank of the US, the Bank of England, The Bank For International Settlement (heard of them?), or any of the other regulators.
If anything, the regulators are trying for transparency in the system--whereas the players want it as opaque and confusing.
Likewise, there is only one type of economic system which does not fluctuate--and that's a command economy.
It's hard to lecture someone who knows more about the topic than you do (which you've admitted).
Jekyll Island is a piece of fiction, which anyone who knows economic history can spot.
As I said, you would be better off taking a course in basic economics.
But deregulation has been proven to be a failure.
But given your bias, lack of knowledge and information, and just plain off ignorance, you are prime for being propagandised.
Dog Gone, I wouldn't just use that this Anon's authors are Koch funded crazies, or even just crazies, to debunk them.
Their accounting and interpretation of economic history is inaccurate and the case of Jekyll Island part fiction.
They are anti-Fed without understanding why, or what exactly the fed does.
There is a place for Central Banks, whether public or private (the Bank of England was private until 1946) since they work for monetary and financial stability.
The problem is that the financial system is changing, which most of these critics of the Fed do not understand.
Additionally, they propose a laissez-faire policy, which is downright reckless in the modern economic system.
The proper stance is to make the financial system more understandable--rather than rig the system so that it makes as much sense to take your money to Vegas as to put it in a bank or invest it.
Our Anonymous commenter would choose the Vegas option, for whatever reason, rather than learn what is going on with his money.
He would denounce the 99%, not realising that he is very much one of them.
What the Occupy movement should have brought about was an interest in the economic system and an informed dialogue about it.
Obviously you are drunk on Keynesian Kool-Aid, so I'll wait till you sleep it off to continue. In the meantime, let me know which bookstore, brick and mortar, or online you find 'Creature' in the Fiction section.
I really don't see much credibility coming from someone who cuts and pastes Wiki and tries to pass it off as his own. Clearly, you couldn't come up with that first response (going by the time stamp, seven minutes after my post) without copying. And committing the buffoonery of calling a internationally credited non-fiction book a fairy tale is...well, ridiculous.
Obviously, Oxford is not a place that endorses or teaches intellectual honesty. Have a nice day.
You calling the Creature from Jekyll Island an "internationally credited non-fiction book a fairy tale"?
You betcha!
Let's see: Ron Paul reviewed it. He's on the Banking committee.
And Michelle Bachmann is on the intelligence committee as well!
Mark Thornton, Asst. Professor of Economics, Auburn Univ., Coordinator Academic Affairs, Ludwig von Mises Institute which is is a Right-libertarian academic organization engaged in research and scholarship in the fields of economics, philosophy and political economy. Its scholarship is inspired by the work of Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Other Austrian School academics such as Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek have also had a strong influence on the Institute's work.
And Dan Smoot, Publisher/Editor, Dan Smoot Report whatever that is?
I believe that Willie Nelson also liked the book.
Top flight scholars all!
You have yet to make a critique on the substance of what I have written.
In fact, you haven't come up with anything intelligent to say about all this.
If anything, you have demonstrated that you have no idea of what we are talking about.
coming from someone who cuts and pastes Wiki
You did that in a piss poor attempt to respond to me.
It's one thing to write something, it's another to demonstrate that you understand what you wrote.
In fact,regarding the Oxford Post,you failed to understand that it was a course of study called Philosophy, Politics and Economics and what that means.
So,Anonymous, you aren't doing too well on showing us that you are capable of understanding complicated topics.
G. Edward Griffin, of Jekyll Island (the pseudo documentary) fame,is a flake. He has supported all kinds of hoaxes, including - just for starters- laetrile for caner treatment, and some hokey hoaxes relating to Noah's ark. He's a crazy John Bircher - the lunatic fringe who oppose fluoride in our water supply, and who see communists hiding under our beds and in the white house. He has supported fascist racists like George Wallace for President.
His sole claim to any economic credentials is that he is a certified financial planner, which on the scale of credentials is crap. So far as I can tell, he has never taken so much as an undergrad intro to macro economics class, much less any other academic training that would make him an informed opinion worthy of attention.
The man is a crackpot. And this was whom Ron Paul relied on for his advice in formulating his ideas on economics.
The Creature from Jekyll Island is crap, it is fiction, it is total bullshit that is so poor in quality, it is not even suitable to line a bird cage or fertilize my rose bushes. It is NOT factual.
Jekyll Island was the location for some draft legislation being written, which later went through the same public process as any other legislation in Congress. There is and was no 'conspiracy'. If you'd care to examine a FACTUAL review of the events instead of fantasy, try this: http://www.frbatlanta.org/news/conferences/10jekyll_index.cfm
which is much more fairly critical of Fed performance, and far more fact based.
Are you one of those crazies who believe there is a conspiracy for a new world order? Do you belong to one of those lunatic fringe militias?
Thank you for a fact based analysis of the Creature from Jekyll Island. I haven't read it in a while, but I did remember I was rather disappointed with the build up I had been given by the friend who recommended it.
Yes, the person who wrote it is indeed a whack job.
This topic is far too complicated than a work of fiction that is not based in proper economic theory to address.
OOops, forgot to include this link with the claims relating to the sinking of the Titanic:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_titanic1.htm
If you read stuff like the Creature of Jekyll Island, it will rot your brain; your IQ will diminish in big leaps, with the turn of every page.
This IS NOT a reputable SOURCE for understanding the federal reserve.
Try some academic sources. I'm sure we can find you something simple that won't strain what remains of your brain. But if you keep believing this utterly bogus nonsense, your brain will leak out your ears and dribble down your shirt.
There was a comment which was recently deleted that claimed both Laci and a prominent Nobel prize winning economist didn't know what they were talking about.
This from someone who believes in a really nutso theory that has been used to justify new world order crackpots, the sinking of the Titanic, and who knows what other bogus bullshit.
Laci knows more than you do, sufficient to intelligently critique economic proposals and to differentiate the real from the silly.
The creature from jekyll island is just that - silly crap from a con artist who sells hokum.
Unfortunately, any attempt at substantive discussion is going over anonymous's head. Which in turn only appears to reinforce the anti-intellectual right wing prejudices arising out of being threatened by not understanding the complexities of the modern world. You crave simplicity, even when things are not simple.
I hope you didn't waste your hard earned money on this junk.
Because if you don't know enough to have a discussion, anonymous, you don't know enough to recognize who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't.
That isn't just ignorant, it is willfully bone ignorant.
And committing the buffoonery of calling a internationally credited non-fiction book a fairy tale is...well, ridiculous.
WHAT credible source 'credits' this stupid book? I looked, and I didn't find any. Are you reading some bogus hype off the cover? Do you know anything about any of the 'international' credits you are referencing?
Here IS one review though, that sums this up: http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/predicted-beck-goes-full-bore-birche
" Beck, as we all know, has previously demonstrated a fondness for the Birch Society, and this is consistent with that: Griffin, after all, was a close personal friend and longtime associate of Birch Society founder Robert Welch, and wrote a popular Birch book published in 1964, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations.
The Creature from Jekyll Island is in many ways a compendium of previous works claiming that the Federal Reserve is a fundamentally illegitimate -- and therefore deeply nefarious -- organization. Most of these theories were deeply anti-Semitic in nature, since they depicted the Fed's bankers as part of a Jewish cabal intent on destroying white American society. What sets Griffin's work apart is that -- like most Birch texts, which assiduously avoided anti-Semitism -- he manages to scrub out the anti-Semitic elements while keeping the paranoid conspiracist elements intact.
Since its publication in 1994, Griffin's book has become a popular text for a large number of right-wing extremists, particularly tax protesters and Patriot movement believers. Griffin himself was involved in organizing a gathering on Jekyll Island last year that the Southern Poverty Law Center credits with helping revive the militia movement.
It has been debunked thoroughly, of course -- probably most notably by historian Gerry Rough, whose three-part series on the origins of the Fed, "Another Twist on the Jacksonian Bank War," pretty thoroughly reveal just how fraudulent Griffin's text really is. You can read it here: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. "
[Rough has debunked Griffin further in other essays as well: here, here, and here.]
Meanwhile, Media Matters' research team has a complete rundown on Griffin. From an earlier piece:
Griffin, in addition to spinning conspiracy theories about the Fed, is also a 9-11 truther and has written extensively about the U.S. government's "facilitation" of the attacks. In April 2008, Griffin appeared on the radio program of conspiracist Alex Jones and claimed that he predicted just days after 9-11 that "the FBI and the intelligence agencies of the federal government had advance knowledge of this attack but did nothing to stop it," and that he was proven right. He also is -- or, at least, was -- a member of the ultra-right wing John Birch Society. He wrote a 1970 pamphlet entitled "This is the John Birch Society: An Invitation to Join," and a 1975 book entitled The Life and Words of Robert Welch: Founder of the John Birch Society.
Another terrific debunking of far-right Federal Reserve theories generally, including Griffin's texts, was provided by Edward Flaherty at Public Eye. From the first part:
Following the near catastrophic financial disaster of 1907, the movement for banking reform picked up steam among Wall Street bankers, Republicans, and eastern Democrats. However, much of the country was still distrustful of bankers and of banking in general, especially after 1907. After two decades of minority status, Democrats regained control of Congress in 1910 and were able to block several Republican attempts at reform, even though they recognized the need for some kind of currency and banking changes. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson won the Democratic party’s nomination for President, and in his populist-friendly acceptance speech he warned against the "money trusts," and advised that "a concentration of the control of credit ... may at any time become infinitely dangerous to free enterprise."3
Also in 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of National City (today know as Citibank), Henry Davison of Morgan Bank, and Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Investment House met secretly at Jeckyll Island, a resort island off the coast of Georgia, to discuss and formulate banking reform, including plans for a form of central banking. The meeting was held in secret because the participants knew that any plan they generated would be rejected automatically in the House of Representatives if it were associated with Wall Street. Because it was secret and because it involved Wall Street, the Jekyll Island affair has always been a favorite source of conspiracy theories. However, the movement toward significant banking and monetary reform was well-known.3 It is hardly surprising that given the real possibility of substantial reform, the banking industry would want some sort of input into the nature of the reforms. The Aldrich Plan which the secret meeting produced was even defeated in the House, so even if the Jekyll Island affair was a genuine conspiracy, it clearly failed.
The Aldrich Plan called for a system of fifteen regional central banks, called National Reserve Associations, whose actions would be coordinated by a national board of commercial bankers. The Reserve Association would make emergency loans to member banks, create money to provide an elastic currency that could be exchanged equally for demand deposits, and would act as a fiscal agent for the federal government. Although it was defeated, the Aldrich Plan served as an outline for the bill that eventually was adopted. 5
The problem with the Aldrich Plan was that the regional banks would be controlled individually and nationally by bankers, a prospect that did not sit well with the populist Democratic party or with Wilson. As the debate began to take shape in the spring of 1913, Congressman Arsene Pujo provided good evidence that the nation’s credit markets were under the tight control of a handful of banks – the "money trusts" against which Wilson warned.1 Wilson and the Democrats wanted a reform measure which would decentralize control away from the money trusts.
The legislation that eventually emerged was the Federal Reserve Act, also known at the time as the Currency Bill, or the Owen-Glass Act. The bill called for a system of eight to twelve mostly autonomous regional Reserve Banks that would be owned by the banks in their region and whose actions would be coordinated by a Federal Reserve Board appointed by the President. The Board’s members originally included the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other officials appointed by the President to represent public interests. The proposed Federal Reserve System would therefore be privately owned, but publicly controlled. Wilson signed the bill on December 23, 1913 and the Federal Reserve System was born.6
Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve. "
Yeah..... pretty much anyone with genuine credibility thinks this book is not worth the paper it is printed on, except a few weirdos on the most 'out there' extremes of the far right.
But then, you have to know the subject at least minimally to know if something is goodor bad.
"Griffin is a clever hoaxter, in large part because he's able to tap into the circular far-right informational bubble, wherein conspiracy theorists cite each other endlessly as "evidence" of their own outlandish ideas. Gerry Rough has an interesting essay explaining how this works:
What happens with conspiracy theories is that author "A" will write a passage in his text, place a footnote or endnote as a reference source for the passage, then move on with the conspiratorial narrative. This is no different than any other work of non-fiction: this is merely standard operating procedure. Author "B" on the other hand, will assume that the passage is correct, cite the same passage, and never bother to check to see if the passage had anything at all to do with a verifiable conspiracy. It is here where conspiracy theories are patently different than other works of non-fiction. *At no point ever* do conspiracy theorists verify the authenticity of the original passage, nor is there any attempt to verify context. So, if a passage turns out to be fabricated or grossly distorted, precisely as *all three examples* in part 3 of this debate, no conspiracy theorist will ever likely have knowledge of it.
In other words, they breathe their own exhaust and convince each other it's fresh air. And as Rough explains, Griffin is noted for playing a key role in this circle-jerk by giving other conspiracy theorists "authoritative" quotations that in fact are bogus in nature:
This is much more likely the scenario that happened with Flynn’s research. In point of fact, G. Edward Griffin, a well known author and editor of John Birch Society publications, deliberately lied about the passage in question, then Flynn simply passed on the lie all too willingly while citing Griffin as the original source. In the case of Griffin’s research, there are no other options: Griffin did not cite another author as the source for the passage that his text quoted. In failing to do so, the ultimate responsibility for lying stops at the desk of Griffin alone. But lets not let Flynn and other conspiracy theorists off the hook so easily either. All who write this conspiracy theory nonsense had at one point a responsibility to verify any given passage in question. They willingly shunned that public responsibility and aided a lie by way of omission. If this were an intellectual crime it would be likely classified as criminal negligence."
One problem our anonymous commenter made the comment that:
Even the video you posted makes it clear who is the blame and yet you defend the FED.
The problem is that the video posted on this post demands the restoration of the regulations that have been trashed over the past 30 years--that led to confustion over which video he mentioned.
If anything, the video posted here would want the Fed to have stronger regulatory power.
Following the near catastrophic financial disaster of 1907, the movement for banking reform picked up steam among Wall Street bankers, Republicans, and eastern Democrats. However, much of the country was still distrustful of bankers and of banking in general, especially after 1907.
Le plus ça change, le plus ça le meme chose.
There were crashes prior to the Fed. In fact the lack of the Second Bank of the US contributed to the worst financial disasters of the 19th Century. But, some people are historically ignorant.
Tsk tsk; Laci you know now that our Anonymous believer in the Creature from Jekyll Island appears to be one of those extreme right wingers who fears conspiracies without facts to support them.
Are you trying to scare him be writing something in French? Oh Noes!
Because the idea of those scary foreign things, like languages other than English, clearly frighten him.
Let me help. What Laci wrote translates into good old plain American (I won't say 'English', because of course the English are foreigners too) as the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Yes, sadly, Laci and I are among those intellectual elite who speak, read and write more than one language as well as study economics and history. Shame on us, LOL.(not)
Oh, wait - so did a number of our founding fathers, particularly French as an additional language. In the case of Lafayette, it was his first language. Maybe we are ok after all.
END THE FED! Vote for Ron Paul
ReplyDeleteRon Paul? You're joking!
ReplyDeleteRon Paul wants to reinstate the Gold Standard.
In the early 1930s, the Federal Reserve defended the fixed price of dollars in respect to the gold standard by raising interest rates, trying to increase the demand for dollars. Its commitment and adherence to the gold standard explain why the U.S. did not engage in expansionary monetary policy. To compete in the international economy, the U.S. maintained high interest rates. This helped attract international investors who bought foreign assets with gold. Higher interest rates intensified the deflationary pressure on the dollar and reduced investment in U.S. banks. Commercial banks also converted Federal Reserve Notes to gold in 1931, reducing the Federal Reserve's gold reserves, and forcing a corresponding reduction in the amount of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation. This speculative attack on the dollar created a panic in the U.S. banking system. Fearing imminent devaluation of the dollar, many foreign and domestic depositors withdrew funds from U.S. banks to convert them into gold or other assets.
Some economic historians, such as American professor Barry Eichengreen, blame the gold standard of the 1920s for prolonging the Great Depression. Others including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman place some blame at the feet of the Federal Reserve. The gold standard limited the flexibility of central banks' monetary policy by limiting their ability to expand the money supply, and thus their ability to lower interest rates. In the US, the Federal Reserve was required by law to have 40% gold backing of its Federal Reserve demand notes, and thus, could not expand the money supply beyond what was allowed by the gold reserves held in their vaults.
A return to the Gold Standard would increase government regulation of the economy. With no Fed, inexpert Congress will bear the onus of alleviating economic suffering. With deeper, longer recessions, Congressmen will inevitably succumb to pressure for more spending and regulation of the economy--as they did during the Great Depression.
Indeed, Fed management of the money supply was originally meant to stave off calls for socialism by rendering free-market capitalism more resilient, flexible, and humane. Switching back to gold would breathe new life into anti-capitalist politics.
It would increase our reliance on foreign credit and ship yet more jobs overseas. Adopting the gold standard would actually exacerbate the problem of reliance on foreign credit, not alleviate it.
Assuming we're not in a recession, economic growth would then continually cause deflation, making domestically-produced products more expensive and foreign imports cheaper--increasing consumption of imports. The trade deficit would continue to balloon at the expense of American jobs. In a recession, this would be catastrophic.
Insofar as it helps anybody, the gold standard would favour Wall Street bankers over entrepreneurs, businesses, and workers. The major economic gains would be made by such big gold producers as Russia and South Africa.
The inflexibility of the gold standard during the 1890s spawned the anti-Washington Populist movement, led by William Jennings Bryan (read his eloquent attack on the gold standard here).
Going back to the Gold Standard is downright idiotic.
I could have read Wiki myself.
ReplyDeleteI could buy a gallon of gas at today's prices for the value of a 1964 or earlier quarter.
That 1930 dollar bill would now be worth $1,600. instead, it has been devalued by about 96%.
The fact is there was no Great Depression until the FED was created.
But printing money out of thin air is a great way to finance wars. How many countries are we warring with now? I lost count.
Prior to the FED, the value of the dollar increased in value because it was based on the value of gold.
So, you don't like the gold standard, how about the idea of an oil standard?
Try studying something beside Keynesian nonsense. Why in the world do you think there is a global financial meltdown?
I have been told to be polite.
ReplyDeleteBut, I can tell from your comments that you know zip about economics and what I studied--it was a lot more than just Keynes.
And it's a bit more than a Wiki as well.
Deregulation is a big reason for the global meltdown.
Yes, we could use Rai Stones as well.
The problem is that commodity based currencies is that they are a bit antiquated.
But, if it came up to people like you: we would some form of totalitarian government.
Try to get a brain, anonymous, and bone up on your economics.
Fortunately, Ron Paul has as much possibility of being elected president as I do of winning a major lottery win.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is there was no Great Depression until the FED was created.
ReplyDeleteSo what happened in 1837?
That was well before the Fed was created.
God, you are a fuckwit.
Oh, Anonymous, since you know so much about economics--tell me what exactly is a credit default swap.
ReplyDeleteTry and do this in 20 words or less.
Here's what I got out of your responses and non-responses:
ReplyDeleteYou have no investments in gold or silver,
you wouldn't want dollars that are worth $1,600 in purchasing power
Oxford ain't worth a shit
You have never read "A History of Money and Banking in the United States" The Colonial Era to World War II
Government regulations are good
Oil is antiquated
That you like money that is created out of thin air so nations can go to war and kill innocent people.
BTW, how is that British Empire doing?
Wow, an idiotic response from an idiot.
ReplyDeleteYou haven't said anything really intelligent and worth responding to, but...
In fact, you basically said a bunch of crap that proves you have no idea of what I mention.
It's nice that you can say titles of books, such as "A History of Money and Banking in the United States"
Did you read it? You didn't answer my question about 1837, so I doubt you did. If you did read it, you didn't understand it.
The Panic of 1837 was a rather important event in US economic history, but you didn't give a good response to that.
I've had a course in economic history, which was pretty good. Better than that book.
You are rather fixated upon the concept of dollars that are worth $1,600 in purchasing power, which you would probably not have any dollars. In fact, they would probably introduce fractional coinage such as the 1/10 cent if such dollars existed.
In fact you miss that the Gold Standard caused deflation, which is worse than inflation since people don't want to sell things if the value is going down.
Do you know what deflation is and how it effect an economy, or do you just like to mention books that you haven't read or understood?
I am not going to get into what a disaster reverting to any form of commodity related currency would cause since you thought that bit was from wiki.
And you are too much of a cretin to have understood it in the first place: so no need to rehash it.
While I may not be a total fan of fiat currency, there needs to be a drastic rework of the economic system.
Going back in time to when things really didn't work and using their old economic instruments isn't the answer.
But, you are too stupid to know what happened in 1837.
Even if "A History of Money and Banking in the United States" may have mentioned it.
How could you have missed it?
Compare this with what you said you wrote.
ReplyDeleteHell, I can cut and paste Murray Rothbard all day long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard
In the early 1930s, the Federal Reserve defended the fixed price of dollars in respect to the gold standard by raising interest rates, trying to increase the demand for dollars. Its commitment and adherence to the gold standard explain why the U.S. did not engage in expansionary monetary policy. To compete in the international economy, the U.S. maintained high interest rates. This helped attract international investors who bought foreign assets with gold. Higher interest rates intensified the deflationary pressure on the dollar and reduced investment in U.S. banks. Commercial banks also converted Federal Reserve Notes to gold in 1931, reducing the Federal Reserve's gold reserves, and forcing a corresponding reduction in the amount of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation.[10] This speculative attack on the dollar created a panic in the U.S. banking system. Fearing imminent devaluation of the dollar, many foreign and domestic depositors withdrew funds from U.S. banks to convert them into gold or other assets.[10]
Some economic historians, such as American professor Barry Eichengreen, blame the gold standard of the 1920s for prolonging the Great Depression.[6] Others including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman place some blame at the feet of the Federal Reserve.[7][8] The gold standard limited the flexibility of central banks' monetary policy by limiting their ability to expand the money supply, and thus their ability to lower interest rates. In the US, the Federal Reserve was required by law to have 40% gold backing of its Federal Reserve demand notes, and thus, could not expand the money supply beyond what was allowed by the gold reserves held in their vaults.[9]
"So what happened in 1837?"
ReplyDeleteMy great-great-grandmother was born.
A credit default swap in 20 words?
ReplyDeleteA CDS is an option that pays the buyer the face value of a debt in the event of default.
1, 2, 3...yup 20 words. And I didn't even have to rip off wikipedia to do it. But a credit default swap is from the world of trading, not economics. Laci, you are so public.
I loved that video, but I wondered if all those demonstrations will be enough to effect change.
ReplyDeleteI knew that Anonymous couldn't come up with an intelligent answer to my question.
ReplyDeleteThe panic of 1837 was caused by Jackson's not renewing the charter for the Second Bank of the United States which produced a period of runaway inflation. We can also argue that use of a silver based economy contributed to the crash as well.
There are loads of problems with using a commodity based currency as well. The fact that new finds of the commodity can cause the currency to crash. Also, if the US uilaterally went back to the gold standard would be idiotic.
But, I knew anonymous has no idea of what he is talking about.
Scott: I was expecting something a bit more in depth in the form of a explanation. You just defined a swap.
Big difference between explaining a CDS and defining it. How does it differ from insurance? What is the level of risk? How is this all calculated?
Scott, you are too simple.
BTW, a credit default swap is a legal and economic item since it is a contract between two parties that specifies conditions, in particular, dates and the resulting economic values of the underlying variables (also economic), under which payments, or payoffs, are to be made between the parties.
ReplyDelete"credit default swap is a legal and economic item since it is a contract between two parties that specifies conditions, in particular, dates and the resulting economic values of the underlying variables (also economic), under which payments, or payoffs, are to be made between the parties."
ReplyDeleteSeems you couldn't explain it in 20 words or less either Laci...now who is the fuckwit?
I wasn't trying to answer that question--and you're too stupid to realise that fact.
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between knowing something is difficult and someone who tries the difficult not knowing what they are doing.
As I said, you can't do it.
And you couldn't do it.
And you didn't do it.
Sorry, Anonyous, but I know the limit of my knowledge. Unlike you, who thinks he knows what he is talking about yet withers under scrutiny.
So far, YOU have failed to provide answers to my questions.
So, you are the fuckwit who thinks he's a genius.
Stop trying to deflect that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
The proper answer to explain a credit default swap in 20 words or less is that it can't be done.
ReplyDeleteThey aren't called complex financial instruments for nothing. You can give a simple statement as Scott did, but that hardly explains what they are and how they work.
My reason for asking this question was to demonstrate that deregulation brought about complex financial instruments such as the CDS that require a 300 page explanation that is only comprehensible to securities lawyers, accountants, and economists.
Of course, you missed this because you don't understand the topic.
So, you are the fuckwit.
You are trying to discuss topics that you don't even have a basic knowledge.
You failed to address the question about the Panic of 1837 and its causes, which are what Ron Paul is suggesting as a Solution.
Whoops! My bad!
ReplyDeleteI put up a bad link, and now I am correcting it.
This is a complex and specialized subject, and it presents some special challenges to the 20111 and 2012 electorate because effectively, to vote intelligently, they need to have a good grounding in history - most don't,not ours, not world history; and they need to have a grasp of economics and economic history that most people lack.
So, Laci, mon frere cher, I think we should look at this discussion to educate and inform, rather than berate those who are less educated on this topic. Yes, it is a mistake for them to advocate strongly for a position from ignorance, and yes, it is very frustrating sometimes to have to go back to square one to advance a discussion. But it is what it is.
For those who are unfamiliar with the panic of 1837, this is a source to use as a beginning.
http://eh.net/node/2748
It is more complex source than say, Wikipedia, but it addresses the similarities and differences to our current problems, and in particular addresses the issues of using either gold or silver - aka 'specie' - versus fiat money. It is best understood with at least the minimal grounding one should have from a 101 macro-economics college course; if you haven't had one, or if you had it so long ago that you don't remember it, you made need to brush up.
I don't have the depth on the 1837 crisis that my colleague Laci has, but I have at least some familiarity with it, enough to follow his argument solidly. I think I'm picking up on most of the nuances.(So, I'm hoping my friend and colleague won't be irritated into calling me a fuckwit too, LOL.)
But to Anon, or anyone else who wishes to comment intelligently, this is NOT the kind of topic that lends itself to bumper sticker slogan reasoning.
So, gentle readers, to borrow a phrase I like from the inimitable Miss Manners columns, please comment- but do your necessary prep, homework, whatever it takes to get up to speed to join in. This is not simple or simplistic, nor should it have to be. Rather we should rise to the challenge of complexity and knowledge required for this topic.
My earliest exposure to the eventsof 1837 was in K-12 history classes, in the context of pressures and influences to both expanding U.S. trade and to internal expansion of our western borders as a nation.
At least being on the correct track of understanding takes you from being a fuckwit.
ReplyDeleteFailing to address the question and not being able to understand what I am tryiing to do is what makes him a fuckwit.
One of the major problems with specie currency is that it is hard to use. That is the origin of paper money.
People would deposit their precious metals, and then write IOUs, which is basically what paper money is.
It is a promise to pay a specific amount.
Money is an accounting tool whether one uses commidities, rocks, tally sticks, paper, or what have you, to represent a unit of trade since barter is inconvenient.
What happened in 1837? The same thing that happened in 1811, no more central bank. Yippee!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIt is complete and utter nonsense to think that regulations are gonna fix the financial mess the central banks have put us in.
Simply put, the banks and corporations own the government. Who writes the regulations? The banks and corporations through their lobbyists who buy off the government and politicians. It is one big machination thinking that somehow the government is gonna 'do something' to fix the problem, they are only adding on to more problems down the road. Had the government and politicians cared about the people, they would have given that bailout money to the people - not the banks.
Let's look at three recent news items:
1. President Barack Obama’s new senior campaign adviser is a longtime Wall Street lobbyist, and has the potential to damage the president’s aspirations to appeal to the protesters currently “occupying” New York City’s Zuccotti Park.
Obama’s new adviser, Broderick Johnson, has an extensive history of lobbying for big banks and corporations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2007, he lobbied for JP Morgan Chase and in 2008 Johnson lobbied for Bank of America and Fannie Mae. From 2008 through 2010, he lobbied for Comcast and in 2011 he lobbied for Microsoft.
Including open houses and social events, Johnson has visited the White House 17 times since 2009, according to White House visitor logs. One of those meetings was with Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.
In early 2009, Johnson was named partner at lobbying firm Bryan Cave LLP’s Washington, D.C. office.
That means that during those White House visits, Johnson was a registered lobbyist.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/obama ... z1bonUof3j
2. Obama Tops GOP Candidates in Wall Street Donations
New figures show President Obama continues to pull in huge donations from the financial sector, with more money from Wall Street this year than all other Republican presidential candidates combined. According to the Washington Post, Obama has raised a total of $15.6 million from banks and other financial firms, with nearly $12 million of that going to the Democratic National Committee. Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has raised less than half that much from Wall Street, around $7.5 million. A top banking executive and Obama fundraiser told the Washington Post that reports of Wall Street antagonism toward Obama "are exaggerated and overblown ... [but] it probably helps from a political perspective if he’s not seen as a Wall Street guy."
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/20/ ... _donations
3.This story from Bloomberg just hit the wires this morning. Bank of America is shifting derivatives in its Merrill investment banking unit to its depository arm, which has access to the Fed discount window and is protected by the FDIC.
This means that the investment bank's European derivatives exposure is now backstopped by U.S. taxpayers. Bank of America didn't get regulatory approval to do this, they just did it at the request of frightened counterparties. Now the Fed and the FDIC are fighting as to whether this was sound. The Fed wants to "give relief" to the bank holding company, which is under heavy pressure.
This is a direct transfer of risk to the taxpayer done by the bank without approval by regulators and without public input. You will also read below that JP Morgan is apparently doing the same thing with $79 trillion of notional derivatives guaranteed by the FDIC and Federal Reserve.
What this means for you is that when Europe finally implodes and banks fail, U.S. taxpayers will hold the bag for trillions in CDS insurance contracts sold by Bank of America and JP Morgan.
http://dailybail.com/home/holy-bailout- ... on-of.html
END THE FED!!!! Or yer a fuckwit.
End the Fed isn't the solution, and you still demonstrate that you neither understand the history of central banks (if you do, please explain how the central bank of the era of the 1837 panic differed from the Fed) or the economics.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that banks and banksters, through the money they hold, have a disproportionate influence on legislation, the executive branch, and even over the judges, including the more extreme right wingers on the SCOTUS.
This is not the first time however in our history that big money - personal or corporate - has had that kind of control. It CAN be ended, and mass movements like the OWS can help. Getting rid of the FED doesn't accomplish that; regulation does.
If you doubt the accuracy of these statements, take a look at the Pecora commission and the subsequent regulation that resulted. Keeping it simple, I will again resort to wikipedia, althouh if this does interest you as a topic, you'd gain far more accurate insight into the issues by reading any good book about this rather than anything by Ron Paul, especially that piece of crap, End the Fed, that Ron Paul tries to pass off as information. It should be retitled Spread the Ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecora_Commission
All of the regualtions passed as a result of the recommendations of the Pecora Commission, including Glass Steagal worked, they worked extremely well. Unfortunately they were dismantled over the subsequent years, bit by bit, so that the protection of those regulations was no longer in effect.
We need them BACK, along with some additional regulations over credit default swaps, dark markets, etc. NOT ending the Fed. Ron Paul wrongly defines the problem, and wrongly as a result proposes a solution, one that would solve no problems, but would create many many more.
You're calling me a fuckwit?
ReplyDeleteSo, banks and corporations have too much influence on congress, which is why we should end regulation of those industries?
You still haven't shown any understanding of fractional reserve banking.
Of course,you are too busy on the attack to offer any serious suggestions as to how you would solve this problem other than giving the people who caused this mess more power over running the whole shebang.
Of course,you mention that the First Bank of the US's charter ended, but you don't mention why the Second Bank was chartered.
Perhaps, it's because you just like to spout meaningless nonsense and hope that we will be dazzled by it.
So far,Anonymous, you have failed to say anything of substance and demonstrate that you have any idea of what you are talking about.
You haven't offered any solutions.
So,why are you bothered that "when Europe finally implodes and banks fail, U.S. taxpayers will hold the bag for trillions in CDS insurance contracts sold by Bank of America and JP Morgan"
It won't just be Europe that is going to implode, it will be pretty much the entire western economy. The PRC will probably still be standing since it is a command economy (and it is holding the bank in this game of Monopoly).
Whatcha gonna do?
Can you say something intelligent,or are you just going to spout more rubbish and post more irrelevant links ?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI am not an economic historian so I'll defer to Robert Higgs who is.
You'll find all the answers you need right there.
However, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made convincing arguments against a central bank that have proven to be correct even today.
Then there is the story of how the FED came about if you care to read "Creature from Jekyll Island."
But, one only need to look around himself to see what this central banking has reaped. Unless of course you think everything is right with the world's financial system and that more government interference is the answer.
Anonymous admits: I am not an economic historian
ReplyDeleteAnd it shows.
You also know fuck all about economics: especially the extreme basics.
The predominant reason that the Second Bank of the United States was chartered was that in the War of 1812, the U.S. experienced severe inflation and had difficulty in financing military operations. Subsequently, the credit and borrowing status of the United States were at their lowest levels since its founding.
President Jackson had come to thoroughly dislike the Second Bank of the United States because of its fraud and corruption. The Bank's charter is not renewed and there is another economic crisis: the crisis of 1839, and the long depression that followed.
Before Jackson, Americans with their First and Second Banks of the United States had managed to create a superb financial system, one with few banking panics and financial crises between 1790 and 1837. Starting in 1837, panics and crises became more frequent, until at last the Federal Reserve System, which can be thought of as the Third Bank of the United States, appeared in 1914. After the advent of the Fed, US financial panics and crises again became less frequent.
I should also add that Congress nationalized money for the first time in 1873, imposing what was effectively a gold standard, in the place of the bimetallic standard set in place by the Founders. The Coinage Act of 1873 set off a cycle of growth and depression/panic that came to be known as the "business cycle". One such crisis, the Panic of 1907, was headed off by a private conglomerate, who set themselves up as "lenders of last resort" to banks in trouble. This effort succeeded in stopping the panic, and led to calls for a Federal agency to do the same thing: eventually leading to the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
The problem is that panics and crises did exist pre-Fed,and during the period between the Second Bank of the United States and the establishment of the Fed.
If there isn't some form of regulatory authority, what leads to stability in the economy?
We've seen that the deregulation of the past 30 years has led to worse fluctuations in the economy. Additionally, if you did look at economic data there has been a shift in wealth to the 1%, as well as a decline in the Standard of living for the rest of the people.
But, your answer is that we should deregulate the people who have run amok.
Do you really think that makes sense?
I've read the creature from Jekyll Island, It's basically a conspiracy theory novel with very little basis in fact, or economic reality.
You may want to take a basic course in economics before stepping into a voting booth.
Higgs is a libertarian, "and is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute", which pretty much makes him a hired mouth piece who says whatever the funders of the Cato Institute want.
ReplyDeleteHe is substantively at odds with the majority view. Not a particularly good source to be quoting.
Try again. If this is such an accurate view point, you should have no trouble finding plenty of support for it (you won't find such support, but go look anyway). See if you can find anyone not directly or indirectly on the payroll of the Koch Brothers, or someone similar.
Since the U.S. has moved away from this Amish view of wealth over to the Federal Reserve System, we've gotten vastly wealthier in real terms because wealth derives from the knowledge we know how to apply to the world's resources, not from what we use to keep score.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't mean anything to say that the dollar has lost 95 percent of its "value" since the Federal Reserve System came into existence, because technological progress has transformed the basis of wealth since then. (What did an iPhone cost in "real money" a hundred years ago?)
People who complain about the Federal Reserve System need to base their complaints on defensible grievances, not on economic folk beliefs from the horse-and-buggy era.
Not to mention that playing games with fractional reserves has been a central component of capitalism from the earliest days.
So, if you have a gripe with all this, you may want to re-examine your views on the command economy systems--socialism and communism. They are the only ones in which there is no economic fluctuation.
You ain't gonna find that in pure capitalism, which is plagued by manias, panics, and crashes inherent in the system.
It is just amazing that you ignore the situation that is happening today. It's like you think it doesn't exist. Even the video you posted makes it clear who is the blame and yet you defend the FED.
ReplyDeleteA conspiracy theory? Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as a conspiracy? Are you suggesting that the events at Jekyll Island never happened? You probably believe that a 'magic bullet' killed JFK, too.
Vote? Why in the hell would I vote for more tyranny from these idiots? Sheesh!!!!
I imagine that our pro-Ron Paul anonymous (as distinct from the other versions of anonymous here) might be feeling a bit aggrieved at having his economist in support of his position rejected.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to elaborate.
First of all, it is important to have more knowledge and understanding than anonymous has demonstrated so far to distinguish a good source from a bad source; this is more like cherry picking looking for anyone who will support a particular point of view.
Which is substantively different than having a good understanding of the subject, and a good knowledge of the majority and minority opinions, pro and con, of the topic.
Then there is the issue of straight up intellectual dishonesty, and the Koch brothers have done more than their share of funding that. Perhaps, since you appear to be enamored of the Austrian School variety of economics, you should read this:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/09/koch-brothers-and-economics-history.html
So far as I'm concerned this is only one of the items which casts a very dark shadow on the integrity of what comes out of the Cato Institute.
A better question anonymous is why would you vote for the crooks on the right, who are, if anything more in the pocket of big money.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you vote for a generally not well respected policy without fully understanding it -- which you clearly don't.
The right wing is full of conspiracy theories about the center and the left; only rarely do they prove correct. VERY rarely, as in pretty much never.
I suggest you inform yourself about the regulations and their clear effectiveness resulting from the Pecora commission.
Then look at the causes of the latest crises; the problem is for the most part NOT the Fed, but rather corruption and fraud on Wall Street.
It's a bit more complicated than all that.
ReplyDeleteThe Video explains the current economic system: yes.
It mentions the fractional reserve system and the Federal Reserve Bank: yes.
The rest of the film goes on to propose a highly technological economic system.
But, there are quite a few more players and aspects than what that simplified version of how the system works.
It's kind of like explaining credit default swaps in 20 words or less.
Not to mention that is only a segment of the film where they go beyond just how fractional reserve banking works and the Fed's part in the system.
In fact, APU, you've only glommed onto a fraction of what I have mentioned here and are showing that you don't even understand that.
As I have said before, "playing games with fractional reserves has been a central component of capitalism from the earliest days."
You can't blame the Fed, the First Bank of the US, The Second Bank of the US, the Bank of England, The Bank For International Settlement (heard of them?), or any of the other regulators.
If anything, the regulators are trying for transparency in the system--whereas the players want it as opaque and confusing.
Likewise, there is only one type of economic system which does not fluctuate--and that's a command economy.
It's hard to lecture someone who knows more about the topic than you do (which you've admitted).
Jekyll Island is a piece of fiction, which anyone who knows economic history can spot.
As I said, you would be better off taking a course in basic economics.
But deregulation has been proven to be a failure.
But given your bias, lack of knowledge and information, and just plain off ignorance, you are prime for being propagandised.
Dog Gone, I wouldn't just use that this Anon's authors are Koch funded crazies, or even just crazies, to debunk them.
ReplyDeleteTheir accounting and interpretation of economic history is inaccurate and the case of Jekyll Island part fiction.
They are anti-Fed without understanding why, or what exactly the fed does.
There is a place for Central Banks, whether public or private (the Bank of England was private until 1946) since they work for monetary and financial stability.
The problem is that the financial system is changing, which most of these critics of the Fed do not understand.
Additionally, they propose a laissez-faire policy, which is downright reckless in the modern economic system.
The proper stance is to make the financial system more understandable--rather than rig the system so that it makes as much sense to take your money to Vegas as to put it in a bank or invest it.
Our Anonymous commenter would choose the Vegas option, for whatever reason, rather than learn what is going on with his money.
He would denounce the 99%, not realising that he is very much one of them.
What the Occupy movement should have brought about was an interest in the economic system and an informed dialogue about it.
Instead of unrealistic, bumper-sticker solutions.
I'm not sure if Anon is referring to the Zeitgeist Video I posted, or the one on this post.
ReplyDeleteIf he is referring to this post, his opinions are downright ignorant.
He obviously did not understand what this video was about.
He probably wouldn't understand the film Inside Job, but it would be well worth his watching.
It's much better than the fiction he's been reading.
Obviously you are drunk on Keynesian Kool-Aid, so I'll wait till you sleep it off to continue. In the meantime, let me know which bookstore, brick and mortar, or online you find 'Creature' in the Fiction section.
ReplyDeleteI really don't see much credibility coming from someone who cuts and pastes Wiki and tries to pass it off as his own. Clearly, you couldn't come up with that first response (going by the time stamp, seven minutes after my post) without copying.
And committing the buffoonery of calling a internationally credited non-fiction book a fairy tale is...well, ridiculous.
Obviously, Oxford is not a place that endorses or teaches intellectual honesty.
Have a nice day.
Can you say something substantive,or do you just spout shit?
ReplyDeleteSo far,you haven't refuted that the system was plagued by panics and crashes pre-Fed.
What have I said that was Keynesian?
Do you know what that means?
You really shouldn't talk about topics that you have no idea what you are discussing.
You calling the Creature from Jekyll Island an "internationally credited non-fiction book a fairy tale"?
ReplyDeleteYou betcha!
Let's see: Ron Paul reviewed it. He's on the Banking committee.
And Michelle Bachmann is on the intelligence committee as well!
Mark Thornton, Asst. Professor of Economics, Auburn Univ., Coordinator Academic Affairs, Ludwig von Mises Institute which is is a Right-libertarian academic organization engaged in research and scholarship in the fields of economics, philosophy and political economy. Its scholarship is inspired by the work of Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Other Austrian School academics such as Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek have also had a strong influence on the Institute's work.
And Dan Smoot, Publisher/Editor, Dan Smoot Report whatever that is?
I believe that Willie Nelson also liked the book.
Top flight scholars all!
You have yet to make a critique on the substance of what I have written.
In fact, you haven't come up with anything intelligent to say about all this.
If anything, you have demonstrated that you have no idea of what we are talking about.
coming from someone who cuts and pastes Wiki
You did that in a piss poor attempt to respond to me.
It's one thing to write something, it's another to demonstrate that you understand what you wrote.
You've failed to do the latter.
In fact,regarding the Oxford Post,you failed to understand that it was a course of study called Philosophy, Politics and Economics and what that means.
ReplyDeleteSo,Anonymous, you aren't doing too well on showing us that you are capable of understanding complicated topics.
You admit that "I am not an economic historian".
Well, I have a degree in economics.
And I know what I am talking about.
You don't, anonymous.
Bye.
If our anonymous idiot would have taken the time to read this post, he would have known where I copied my first response to him.
ReplyDeleteHe would find it located under:
15. What is a commodity based monetary system?
I'm not sure what institution our anonymous commenter attended, or attends, but they don't do much in the way of teaching how to read and write.
G. Edward Griffin, of Jekyll Island (the pseudo documentary) fame,is a flake. He has supported all kinds of hoaxes, including - just for starters- laetrile for caner treatment, and some hokey hoaxes relating to Noah's ark. He's a crazy John Bircher - the lunatic fringe who oppose fluoride in our water supply, and who see communists hiding under our beds and in the white house. He has supported fascist racists like George Wallace for President.
ReplyDeleteHis sole claim to any economic credentials is that he is a certified financial planner, which on the scale of credentials is crap. So far as I can tell, he has never taken so much as an undergrad intro to macro economics class, much less any other academic training that would make him an informed opinion worthy of attention.
The man is a crackpot. And this was whom Ron Paul relied on for his advice in formulating his ideas on economics.
The Creature from Jekyll Island is crap, it is fiction, it is total bullshit that is so poor in quality, it is not even suitable to line a bird cage or fertilize my rose bushes. It is NOT factual.
Jekyll Island was the location for some draft legislation being written, which later went through the same public process as any other legislation in Congress. There is and was no 'conspiracy'. If you'd care to examine a FACTUAL review of the events instead of fantasy, try this:
http://www.frbatlanta.org/news/conferences/10jekyll_index.cfm
which is much more fairly critical of Fed performance, and far more fact based.
Are you one of those crazies who believe there is a conspiracy for a new world order? Do you belong to one of those lunatic fringe militias?
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/midwifing-the-militias
Do you believe that the meeting on Jekyll's Island resulted in the sinking of the Titanic?
How DUMB are you?
.
Thank you for a fact based analysis of the Creature from Jekyll Island. I haven't read it in a while, but I did remember I was rather disappointed with the build up I had been given by the friend who recommended it.
ReplyDeleteYes, the person who wrote it is indeed a whack job.
This topic is far too complicated than a work of fiction that is not based in proper economic theory to address.
OOops, forgot to include this link with the claims relating to the sinking of the Titanic:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_titanic1.htm
If you read stuff like the Creature of Jekyll Island, it will rot your brain; your IQ will diminish in big leaps, with the turn of every page.
This IS NOT a reputable SOURCE for understanding the federal reserve.
Try some academic sources. I'm sure we can find you something simple that won't strain what remains of your brain. But if you keep believing this utterly bogus nonsense, your brain will leak out your ears and dribble down your shirt.
your brain will leak out your ears and dribble down your shirt.
ReplyDeleteToo late, I think it already has.
It happened a long time ago.
Someone get anonymous a towel.
ReplyDeleteThere was a comment which was recently deleted that claimed both Laci and a prominent Nobel prize winning economist didn't know what they were talking about.
This from someone who believes in a really nutso theory that has been used to justify new world order crackpots, the sinking of the Titanic, and who knows what other bogus bullshit.
Laci knows more than you do, sufficient to intelligently critique economic proposals and to differentiate the real from the silly.
The creature from jekyll island is just that - silly crap from a con artist who sells hokum.
Unfortunately, any attempt at substantive discussion is going over anonymous's head. Which in turn only appears to reinforce the anti-intellectual right wing prejudices arising out of being threatened by not understanding the complexities of the modern world. You crave simplicity, even when things are not simple.
I hope you didn't waste your hard earned money on this junk.
Because if you don't know enough to have a discussion, anonymous, you don't know enough to recognize who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't.
That isn't just ignorant, it is willfully bone ignorant.
Public or Private, there needs to be some form of central bank. Of course, that gets into a long drawn out discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe US has not had much luck with central banks, up until the Fed. Then, the currents of change have made it an ineffective organisation.
Teh problem is not that regulation needs to be ended. It needs to be properly adminstered and overseen.
Anonymous had written:
ReplyDeleteAnd committing the buffoonery of calling a internationally credited non-fiction book a fairy tale is...well, ridiculous.
WHAT credible source 'credits' this stupid book? I looked, and I didn't find any. Are you reading some bogus hype off the cover? Do you know anything about any of the 'international' credits you are referencing?
Here IS one review though, that sums this up:
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/predicted-beck-goes-full-bore-birche
" Beck, as we all know, has previously demonstrated a fondness for the Birch Society, and this is consistent with that: Griffin, after all, was a close personal friend and longtime associate of Birch Society founder Robert Welch, and wrote a popular Birch book published in 1964, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations.
The Creature from Jekyll Island is in many ways a compendium of previous works claiming that the Federal Reserve is a fundamentally illegitimate -- and therefore deeply nefarious -- organization. Most of these theories were deeply anti-Semitic in nature, since they depicted the Fed's bankers as part of a Jewish cabal intent on destroying white American society. What sets Griffin's work apart is that -- like most Birch texts, which assiduously avoided anti-Semitism -- he manages to scrub out the anti-Semitic elements while keeping the paranoid conspiracist elements intact.
Since its publication in 1994, Griffin's book has become a popular text for a large number of right-wing extremists, particularly tax protesters and Patriot movement believers. Griffin himself was involved in organizing a gathering on Jekyll Island last year that the Southern Poverty Law Center credits with helping revive the militia movement.
It has been debunked thoroughly, of course -- probably most notably by historian Gerry Rough, whose three-part series on the origins of the Fed, "Another Twist on the Jacksonian Bank War," pretty thoroughly reveal just how fraudulent Griffin's text really is. You can read it here: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. "
[Rough has debunked Griffin further in other essays as well: here, here, and here.]
Meanwhile, Media Matters' research team has a complete rundown on Griffin. From an earlier piece:
Griffin, in addition to spinning conspiracy theories about the Fed, is also a 9-11 truther and has written extensively about the U.S. government's "facilitation" of the attacks. In April 2008, Griffin appeared on the radio program of conspiracist Alex Jones and claimed that he predicted just days after 9-11 that "the FBI and the intelligence agencies of the federal government had advance knowledge of this attack but did nothing to stop it," and that he was proven right. He also is -- or, at least, was -- a member of the ultra-right wing John Birch Society. He wrote a 1970 pamphlet entitled "This is the John Birch Society: An Invitation to Join," and a 1975 book entitled The Life and Words of Robert Welch: Founder of the John Birch Society.
and from the same source:
ReplyDeleteAnother terrific debunking of far-right Federal Reserve theories generally, including Griffin's texts, was provided by Edward Flaherty at Public Eye. From the first part:
Following the near catastrophic financial disaster of 1907, the movement for banking reform picked up steam among Wall Street bankers, Republicans, and eastern Democrats. However, much of the country was still distrustful of bankers and of banking in general, especially after 1907. After two decades of minority status, Democrats regained control of Congress in 1910 and were able to block several Republican attempts at reform, even though they recognized the need for some kind of currency and banking changes. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson won the Democratic party’s nomination for President, and in his populist-friendly acceptance speech he warned against the "money trusts," and advised that "a concentration of the control of credit ... may at any time become infinitely dangerous to free enterprise."3
Also in 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of National City (today know as Citibank), Henry Davison of Morgan Bank, and Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Investment House met secretly at Jeckyll Island, a resort island off the coast of Georgia, to discuss and formulate banking reform, including plans for a form of central banking. The meeting was held in secret because the participants knew that any plan they generated would be rejected automatically in the House of Representatives if it were associated with Wall Street. Because it was secret and because it involved Wall Street, the Jekyll Island affair has always been a favorite source of conspiracy theories. However, the movement toward significant banking and monetary reform was well-known.3 It is hardly surprising that given the real possibility of substantial reform, the banking industry would want some sort of input into the nature of the reforms. The Aldrich Plan which the secret meeting produced was even defeated in the House, so even if the Jekyll Island affair was a genuine conspiracy, it clearly failed.
The Aldrich Plan called for a system of fifteen regional central banks, called National Reserve Associations, whose actions would be coordinated by a national board of commercial bankers. The Reserve Association would make emergency loans to member banks, create money to provide an elastic currency that could be exchanged equally for demand deposits, and would act as a fiscal agent for the federal government. Although it was defeated, the Aldrich Plan served as an outline for the bill that eventually was adopted. 5
The problem with the Aldrich Plan was that the regional banks would be controlled individually and nationally by bankers, a prospect that did not sit well with the populist Democratic party or with Wilson. As the debate began to take shape in the spring of 1913, Congressman Arsene Pujo provided good evidence that the nation’s credit markets were under the tight control of a handful of banks – the "money trusts" against which Wilson warned.1 Wilson and the Democrats wanted a reform measure which would decentralize control away from the money trusts.
cont'd:
ReplyDeleteThe legislation that eventually emerged was the Federal Reserve Act, also known at the time as the Currency Bill, or the Owen-Glass Act. The bill called for a system of eight to twelve mostly autonomous regional Reserve Banks that would be owned by the banks in their region and whose actions would be coordinated by a Federal Reserve Board appointed by the President. The Board’s members originally included the Secretary of the Treasury, the Comptroller of the Currency, and other officials appointed by the President to represent public interests. The proposed Federal Reserve System would therefore be privately owned, but publicly controlled. Wilson signed the bill on December 23, 1913 and the Federal Reserve System was born.6
Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve. "
Yeah..... pretty much anyone with genuine credibility thinks this book is not worth the paper it is printed on, except a few weirdos on the most 'out there' extremes of the far right.
ReplyDeleteBut then, you have to know the subject at least minimally to know if something is goodor bad.
and finally - same source
ReplyDelete"Griffin is a clever hoaxter, in large part because he's able to tap into the circular far-right informational bubble, wherein conspiracy theorists cite each other endlessly as "evidence" of their own outlandish ideas. Gerry Rough has an interesting essay explaining how this works:
What happens with conspiracy theories is that author "A" will write a passage in his text, place a footnote or endnote as a reference source for the passage, then move on with the conspiratorial narrative. This is no different than any other work of non-fiction: this is merely standard operating procedure. Author "B" on the other hand, will assume that the passage is correct, cite the same passage, and never bother to check to see if the passage had anything at all to do with a verifiable conspiracy. It is here where conspiracy theories are patently different than other works of non-fiction. *At no point ever* do conspiracy theorists verify the authenticity of the original passage, nor is there any attempt to verify context. So, if a passage turns out to be fabricated or grossly distorted, precisely as *all three examples* in part 3 of this debate, no conspiracy theorist will ever likely have knowledge of it.
In other words, they breathe their own exhaust and convince each other it's fresh air. And as Rough explains, Griffin is noted for playing a key role in this circle-jerk by giving other conspiracy theorists "authoritative" quotations that in fact are bogus in nature:
This is much more likely the scenario that happened with Flynn’s research. In point of fact, G. Edward Griffin, a well known author and editor of John Birch Society publications, deliberately lied about the passage in question, then Flynn simply passed on the lie all too willingly while citing Griffin as the original source. In the case of Griffin’s research, there are no other options: Griffin did not cite another author as the source for the passage that his text quoted. In failing to do so, the ultimate responsibility for lying stops at the desk of Griffin alone. But lets not let Flynn and other conspiracy theorists off the hook so easily either. All who write this conspiracy theory nonsense had at one point a responsibility to verify any given passage in question. They willingly shunned that public responsibility and aided a lie by way of omission. If this were an intellectual crime it would be likely classified as criminal negligence."
Internationally credible?That's hilarious.
One problem our anonymous commenter made the comment that:
ReplyDeleteEven the video you posted makes it clear who is the blame and yet you defend the FED.
The problem is that the video posted on this post demands the restoration of the regulations that have been trashed over the past 30 years--that led to confustion over which video he mentioned.
If anything, the video posted here would want the Fed to have stronger regulatory power.
Following the near catastrophic financial disaster of 1907, the movement for banking reform picked up steam among Wall Street bankers, Republicans, and eastern Democrats. However, much of the country was still distrustful of bankers and of banking in general, especially after 1907.
Le plus ça change, le plus ça le meme chose.
There were crashes prior to the Fed. In fact the lack of the Second Bank of the US contributed to the worst financial disasters of the 19th Century. But, some people are historically ignorant.
Shame.
Tsk tsk; Laci you know now that our Anonymous believer in the Creature from Jekyll Island appears to be one of those extreme right wingers who fears conspiracies without facts to support them.
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to scare him be writing something in French? Oh Noes!
Because the idea of those scary foreign things, like languages other than English, clearly frighten him.
Let me help. What Laci wrote translates into good old plain American (I won't say 'English', because of course the English are foreigners too) as the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Yes, sadly, Laci and I are among those intellectual elite who speak, read and write more than one language as well as study economics and history.
Shame on us, LOL.(not)
Oh, wait - so did a number of our founding fathers, particularly French as an additional language. In the case of Lafayette, it was his first language. Maybe we are ok after all.
Sans l'aide de la France, les Etats-Unis n'existeraient pas: donc “Nous voila, Lafayette."
ReplyDelete