Federal Reserve Bank, mother monopoly/conspiracy fact

[steve74baywin]

The biggest tax that we feel, and that hurts us, is the inflation tax,

Not yet. Inflation has not been an issue for a long time now.
Tax cuts for the rich under Bush and extended under Obama hurt us.
Colin

This has to be due to a difference in the understanding of words between you and I.
Forget the government inflation numbers, that I think I can show to be bogus.
Inflation has been a major problem in the last 3 years and 10 years, and a continuing problem since 1913.
Approx--In 2000 the price of gold was $300, gas at the pump $1.50, cheap box of pasta 45 cents.
Today, Gold $1670, gas $3.50, pasta $1.00
This is inflation, and inflation is due to the devaluing of the dollar.
In a money system where money is a token for ease of purchasing and it is backed by something, inflation doesn't really exist, individual items can go up if their production is down, like bad weather causing a lack of oranges can cause the price of oranges to go up.
Inflation only exist when money is floating, or not backed or tied to something of value, when using a FIAT currency, then the value of the dollar can go up or down, this causes inflation.

Edited to address the later statement you made.

Tax cuts for the rich under Bush and extended under Obama hurt us

That perhaps could have an affect, but I can not see how getting a lesser amount of money from a number of wealthy people could cause what we have today, it could hurt it, which is what you said, that is hurt us, but it by far and large IMHO is only a small aspect.
The money on the war is a big part, which on the greater level caused more money to be printed and borrowed, which in turn adds more dollars into the economy, and IS inflation.

I'm gonna get some info to put in another reply.

[steve74baywin]

I missed this reply by you a few moments ago, I only saw your second one.

He is not so damn special that he should jerk the reins of government for special favors and breaks.

Actually, you know my (overall) stance, he shouldn't be allowed to and neither should we.

When you look at the increasing inequity, Steve, and see that the rich have gotten richer when their productivity gains have been no more than the productivity gains of workers whose incomes have stagnated, then you might wonder why their tax burden has gone down to while our tax burden has gone up. There are regressive taxes, Steve. We who pay sales and fuel taxes and utilities and rent are blowing half of our income right there, just for a job that keeps a roof over our heads.

Yeah, that sucks. But the real cause is the Federal Reserve Bank. And, Are we to vote in someone yet again promising us this stuff? Colin, you are older than me, you know this wouldn't be the first time someone tells us that and it don't happen, or only for a short spell. How many times are we going to get fooled again. (I think I said that before Obama was elected)
The problem and solution is not how much they are taxed, no matter how mad you can get people over how much money they have, it is not the problem, and it is not the solution.
Jerking money from one file in this system to another does almost nothing in the long term.
Getting rid of the money lender, the Federal Reserve, will.

Now honestly, Steve, why should their riches grow! while we who actually produce the wealth are teetering?

I guess it all depends on how you look at things. A question like that is for another arena.
Their riches should and do grow for various reason. The real question is what right do you have to intervene in that? Since when is that a moral justification to use the coercive powers of the government to penalize and take from them? If your business does a little better let's ask, Why should your riches grow?
If a person thinks he is producing wealth yet isn't benefiting, then why does he stay working for said man who is getting wealthy? I hate to say this again, but are we talking about Free people in a free society or slaves? If these people (us) you speak of are creating this wealth but some other guy's riches are growing, and we don't like it, then stop doing it. Free or slave?

Why should their tax burden be going down? Why can't we raise their taxes if only to the rate under Bill Clinton? Why do they fight it so hard? Greedy self-centeredness? Because they do not care about the strangling middle class and increasingly impoverished? When mention is made of increasing taxes on the rich, can we have a fair honest discussion about the effects they will feel? (answer > none at all).

Because it is not what created the problem.
It is not the solution.
It is smoke and mirrors, we have been here before, it is called letting the rulers change a few aspects of the rigged economic game they created.
So this time we increase the taxes on the rich, later we can decrease, and then later increase.
It is like the puppet masters having the little humans jumping up and down constantly chasing some dangling carrot, as long as these humans never see the man behind the curtain, the wizard of oz, the federal reserve bank, all is well.

Did you know that the Koch Brothers watched their incomes go up 40% in the last two years to 50 billion dollars, and yet they laid off workers? Do you buy into that crap about taxing the rich loses jobs? Can we all be so gullible STILL?????

I think in this case gullible would be voting in a wealthy politician promising the some old stuff we have heard a dozen times in the past. Gullible would letting them have you comprise your morals by asking them to use force and violence via the gov tax system to get them to tax the places you work at more so that the gov can get more money to then spend on things we supposedly want, like bombs in Iraq maybe.

[steve74baywin]

The following taken from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

In economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.[1] When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services. Consequently, inflation also reflects an erosion in the purchasing power of money – a loss of real value in the internal medium of exchange and unit of account in the economy

Economists generally agree that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply.
However, the consensus view is that a long sustained period of inflation is caused by money supply growing faster than the rate of economic growth

The term "inflation" originally referred to increases in the amount of money in circulation, and some economists still use the word in this way. However, most economists today use the term "inflation" to refer to a rise in the price level. An increase in the money supply may be called monetary inflation, to distinguish it from rising prices, which may also for clarity be called 'price inflation'.[23] Economists generally agree that in the long run, inflation is caused by increases in the money supply. However, in the short and medium term, inflation is largely dependent on supply and demand pressures in the economy

Currently, the quantity theory of money is widely accepted as an accurate model of inflation in the long run. Consequently, there is now broad agreement among economists that in the long run, the inflation rate is essentially dependent on the growth rate of money supply.

Not a bad peice, funny how it used oranges in it's example like I did.
http://economics.about.com/od/helpforec ... lation.htm

Question: What Is Inflation?
Answer: To understand inflation, we first must understand what the word means. The Economics Glossary defines Inflation as:

Inflation is an increase in the price of a basket of goods and services that is representative of the economy as a whole.

A similar definition of inflation can be found in Economics by Parkin and Bade:

Inflation is an upward movement in the average level of prices. Its opposite is deflation, a downward movement in the average level of prices. The boundary between inflation and deflation is price stability.

The Link Between Inflation and Money
Because inflation is a rise in the general level of prices, it is intrinsically linked to money, as captured by the often heard refrain "Inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods". To understand how this works, imagine a world that only has two commodities: Oranges picked from orange trees, and paper money printed by the government. In a year where there is a drought and oranges are scarce, we'd expect to see the price of oranges rise, as there will be quite a few dollars chasing very few oranges. Conversely, if there's a record crop or oranges, we'd expect to see the price of oranges fall, as orange sellers will need to reduce their prices in order to clear their inventory. These scenarios are inflation and deflation, respectively, though in the real world inflation and deflation are changes in the average price of all goods and services, not just one.

Inflation and the Money Supply
We can also have inflation and deflation by changing the amount of money in the system. If the government decides to print a lot of money, then dollars will become plentiful relative to oranges, just as in our drought situation. Thus inflation is caused by the amount of dollars rising relative to the amount of oranges (goods and services), and deflation is caused by the amount of dollars falling relative to the amount of oranges. Thus, as shown by the article "Why Does Money Have Value?", inflation is caused by a combination of four factors:

The supply of money goes up.
The supply of other goods goes down.
Demand for money goes down.
Demand for other goods goes up.

[ruckman101]

Don't hold back Steve.


neal

[ruckman101]

Now this roads thing has me perplexed, trying to wrap the Libertarian model around. Yes, those companies need the public infrastructure to flourish. If those companies don't flourish, the jobs they would offer would be fewer. Workers also need the infrastructure, like to commute to work, be it by walking, bicycling, public transportation, etc.

But what about proportion? Keeping that infrastructure viable involves maintenance. There's an added value to infrastructure if as a business you pay no more to support it than the bicycling worker. That would be taxpayer underwriting. A cement truck operation needs a much higher investment in roads than the bicycling worker.

I resent underwriting a consumer based market based on growth. That leads to imperialism and is self defeating. We live on a finite planet. To bank on growth and increasing profits is the real ponzi scheme.

Utopias are all around us, but idealism is quickly shattered by reality. It is all so much muddier and messier.


neal

[steve74baywin]

Now this roads thing has me perplexed, trying to wrap the Libertarian model around. Yes, those companies need the public infrastructure to flourish. If those companies don't flourish, the jobs they would offer would be fewer. Workers also need the infrastructure, like to commute to work, be it by walking, bicycling, public transportation, etc.

But what about proportion? Keeping that infrastructure viable involves maintenance. There's an added value to infrastructure if as a business you pay no more to support it than the bicycling worker. That would be taxpayer underwriting. A cement truck operation needs a much higher investment in roads than the bicycling worker.

First I need to mention that I have not mentioned a Libertarian Model yet in this thread. When the Eliz Warren comments were posted I've been comparing them to what we now have in this country. I think you know this, but I wanted to make sure.
There would not be a tax on income, so roads wouldn't come from an income tax on individuals.
There would be different ways roads were built in the first place, so there could be several answers depending on who wanted and who funded the roads.(who and how they were built and who paid)
In most if not all the examples I can think of your problem would be solved. Too many different options for the installing of roads to cover them, but consider the following.
No one is forced to pay for something they don't use.
Some roads would be toll roads like today. Those who put them in or owns the road charges accordingly.
It would seem likely that in most cases you would want and get more money for a cement truck using a road than a bike.
There may be more toll roads in a Libertarian system. Speak about a fair way to pay.
You never leave your house, you never pay for the road. Most toll roads charge more for big trucks than little cars.
In many cases for local town roads they tax vehicles for the roads, and many charge more for heavier vehicles.
Sorta interesting to me, the problem you presented, a problem that exist in some areas in this country, is due to the system we currently have. In todays system a portion of some roads is paid by a gas tax, some by property, and some from the big ole general slush funds taken from income or sales tax. It becomes real hard in a messed up system like we have today to make it fair, or to even figure out how close to fair it is.
In Libertarian system it would be much simpler to make sure the correct portion was paid by the correct party. It wouldn't be a giant gov slush fund, it would be a fee closely related to usage, usage that can be figured out based on things like weight. And the group determining this would be the local closer to home group that wanted and installed such a road.
In another thread you mentioned the guy that never left his land may need lube that used roads to get the lube to him, and that would mean he didn't pay for something he used. I pointed out that who ever used the road to get the lube to him would have paid the fee for the road. If a truck is delivering parts to the local store, that truck paid the fees for the roads he used to get to the store.

I resent underwriting a consumer based market based on growth. That leads to imperialism and is self defeating. We live on a finite planet. To bank on growth and increasing profits is the real ponzi scheme.
Utopias are all around us, but idealism is quickly shattered by reality. It is all so much muddier and messier.
neal

This resentment you have, and the problem you point out is due to this current non-Libertarian tax system. The richer person who used the roads more when he built a factory and shipped goods all over the country would most certainly be paying more for using the roads in a Libertarian system than in the one today. It would be more a fee and usage based system. The problem you mention is in this Left Right Collectivist system. You point out a flaw in Right Wing thinking, contrary to your belief Right Wing and Libertarianism are not the same in all matters even though you see some similarities. Many Right Wingers think at times I'm a lefty.
Both Left and Right use force to get stuff from people, even if they don't want it, the opposite of Libertarian. Left and Right like to make people think they get something for free, when in reality you don't get it for free. Libertarians don't do that.
This problem you speak of is from the Left/Right use force system. Hence how come you can think, and rightly so, that you are paying more for roads than the factory.
In short, someone who did not use a road or used it the least most certainly would pay nothing or the least. The heavier user would pay more.
So are you a Libertarian yet?

Edited add
This road thing is a good one for this thread, because a good portion of the money for roads in this country isn't in a gov bank account when the project starts. They start spending, and when they need money congress goes to the Feds and Treasury and money is printed by the treasury and we borrow it from the Privately owned Federal Reserve Bank, which devalues our dollar, which is a hidden tax on us, it is a tax that hurts us more the big corporations. Talk about muddied up.

[Lanval]

and we borrow it from the Privately owned Federal Reserve Bank

An oversimplification here; both of the way in which roads are funded, and more importantly, how the reserve functions. It's not privately owned in the same way Microsoft is, for example.

Here's a relevant explanation from the generally trustworthy Wiki:

"The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks were established as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system. They are organized much like private corporations—possibly leading to some confusion about ownership.

The Federal Reserve Banks have an intermediate legal status, with some features of private corporations and some features of public federal agencies. The United States has an interest in the Federal Reserve Banks as tax-exempt federally-created instrumentalities whose profits belong to the federal government, but this interest is not proprietary.[2] In Lewis v. United States,[3] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."

The opinion went on to say, however, that: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." Another relevant decision is Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,[2] in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally-created instrumentalities, and the Board of Governors, which is a federal agency."

Note that both the governing agency (i.e. decision makers) are gov't, thus the actions of the federal reserve are made in concert with government policy, rather than a private board who act only according to their own needs/desires (as would be the case in a true private corporation). That says nothing about Steve's financial claims, though, other than that we can't ascribe the actions of the Federal Reserve system to a secret cabal.

Steve, you're not alone in hating the federal reserve (Jackson beat you to it by 190 years) but I'd remind you of what happened to the economy when Jackson got rid of the federal reserve:

1. The money held by the Fed was distributed according to the whims of the wealthy, creating tremendous imbalance in the broader economy, leading to:
2. Economic implosion as the economy ground to a halt
3. A massive financial panic that knee-capped Jackson's former VP, who became the next president.

In other words, Jackson got rid of the Federal Reserve system, destroyed the economy and when things got tough, retired to his large, wealthy estate to laugh at the little people.

Nice set of ethics there...

Mike

[steve74baywin]

"The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks were established as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system. They are organized much like private corporations—possibly leading to some confusion about ownership.

The Federal Reserve Banks have an intermediate legal status, with some features of private corporations and some features of public federal agencies. The United States has an interest in the Federal Reserve Banks as tax-exempt federally-created instrumentalities whose profits belong to the federal government, but this interest is not proprietary.[2] In Lewis v. United States,[3] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."

The simplest way to respond to that is this.
Yes, it is intentionally confusing.
The Twelve Central Banks, that they like to say are part private and part gov, have privately held stocks, with some supposed government oversight.
However, the benifit to creating "notes" and having a country use them with interest is a wonderful thing to it's owners. This can't be denied.
It's stocks are privately held. Limited shares were sold. Profits go to those share holders. It is secretive. We are not allowed to audit it.
The head Federal Reserve Bank is the New York one.
According to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Re ... f_New_York

"Among the other regional banks, New York Fed and its president are considered first among equals.[3][4] It is by far the largest (by assets), most active (by volume) and most influential of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Bank"
"The New York Federal reserve is a private bank and the largest in terms of assets of the twelve regional banks."

The actual 12 banks the make up the Federal Reserve Bank are privately owned with some gov regulations.
Continue researching, you may pull some hair out of your head. It won't be easy, like I said earlier on, you will see it is intentionally difficult to find information. No doubt you will find some "official" information that will make you think you found something to disapprove what I said. But I say if you sincerely look into the this system, you probably will understand where I am coming from. It will change your mind on things forever.

Note that both the governing agency (i.e. decision makers) are gov't, thus the actions of the federal reserve are made in concert with government policy, rather than a private board who act only according to their own needs/desires (as would be the case in a true private corporation).

The effects of money backed by nothing loaned to a country still is what it is, and they have privately held stocks owned by international bankers.

Steve, you're not alone in hating the federal reserve (Jackson beat you to it by 190 years) but I'd remind you of what happened to the economy when Jackson got rid of the federal reserve:

1. The money held by the Fed was distributed according to the whims of the wealthy, creating tremendous imbalance in the broader economy, leading to:
2. Economic implosion as the economy ground to a halt
3. A massive financial panic that knee-capped Jackson's former VP, who became the next president.

I think I can find more people that say we had our best years after Jackson killed that bank.
Why do you fail to mention the wealthy that held the money before it ended and was distributed?

In other words, Jackson got rid of the Federal Reserve system, destroyed the economy and when things got tough, retired to his large, wealthy estate to laugh at the little people.

Nice set of ethics there...

Mike

"Destroyed the economy" is pure opinion, there will be a bump after ending a system such as that. We had some of our best years after that.
May I ask you where you wanted Jackson to go and what did you want him to do? Good grief, he left office at the age of 70 and died 8 years later at the age of 78.
If you got that out of a history book, consider it biased and throw it away.
And actually, he got rid of a Central Bank, it was not called Federal Reserve System ATT.
Federal Reserve system was a clever name they came up with in 1913 to deceive the people.

You are correct, I am not alone.

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States."
-Sen. Barry Goldwater

It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
-Henry Ford

"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations."
-Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982

The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers."
-Congressman Louis T. McFadden

I think he was food poisoned. He was against it in 1913.

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"As soon as Mr. Roosevelt took office, the Federal Reserve began to buy government securities at the rate of ten million dollars a week for 10 weeks, and created one hundred million dollars in new [checkbook] currency, which alleviated the critical famine of money and credit, and the factories started hiring people again."
-Eustace Mullins

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
-Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

"When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money."
-Putting it simply, Boston Federal Reserve Bank

That is enough quotes for now, I think that is about half of them.

[ruckman101]

My road taxes help support corporate industries distribute their product, be it strawberries from Chile or chicken from Arkansas. Both products I have no interest in. The more I buy local, the greater the percentage of my road taxes paid underwrite corporations.

It would seem to be a nightmare of administrative oversight to ensure my road taxes are only contributing to my needs of that infrastructure and not what I don't use. Twinkies are right out. But cottage cheese rife with live culture from Nancy's down in Eugene is in, but say I don't like Nancy's sour cream. What a mess.


neal

[steve74baywin]

A few more people who share my concerns, whether for it or against it.

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it."
-Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932

“The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it’s profits or so dependent on it’s favors, that there will be no opposition from that class.”
-Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"While boasting of our noble deeds were careful to conceal the ugly fact that by an iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery."
-Horace Greeley

"The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..."
-Congressman Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941

"...the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve banks from 143 million dollars in 1913 to 45 billion dollars in 1949 went directly to the private stockholders of the [federal reserve] banks."
-Eustace Mullins

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money"
-Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

"Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back."
-Sir Josiah Stamp, former President, Bank of England

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."
-John Adams

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
-James A. Garfield, President of the United States

[Spezialist]

To me the biggest problem, the worst

How do you suggest that we pry the spoils from the clutching fists of the status-quo?
Colin

I heard recently of a peoples strike against the power class.
The people of a country in Europe "Spain?" slowed down all labor to a ridiculous pace, dust gathering on a broom while you swept kinda thing.
Sounds delicious.

[Amskeptic]

To me the biggest problem, the worst

How do you suggest that we pry the spoils from the clutching fists of the status-quo?
Colin

I heard recently of a peoples strike against the power class.
The people of a country in Europe "Spain?" slowed down all labor to a ridiculous pace, dust gathering on a broom while you swept kinda thing.
Sounds delicious.

I was gratified to learn just ten minutes ago of that Occupy Wall Street protest, going on for three weeks now? Excellent. 700 protesters arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge, it's like the good ol' days. Cops got rough on what was said to be a 13 year-old girl, and the crowd was chanting "Shame!" with all their phone cameras keeping an eye on things.

I think we still have it in us ... as we rouse from the torpor of our materialism overdose.
Colin

[steve74baywin]

I was gratified to learn just ten minutes ago of that Occupy Wall Street protest, going on for three weeks now? Excellent. 700 protesters arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge, it's like the good ol' days. Cops got rough on what was said to be a 13 year-old girl, and the crowd was chanting "Shame!" with all their phone cameras keeping an eye on things.

I think we still have it in us ... as we rouse from the torpor of our materialism overdose.
Colin

Chee Colin, I posted something on it on this site, your site, on Wednesday.

I think that is when you were starting on your travels NW.

I am pleased to see the protest.
As to be expected they agree on a few things, but many things they don't agree on. But it is all good for the greater message is that people are fed up with the system and the way things are.

[Velokid1]

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-ce ... liberalism

[steve74baywin]

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-ce ... liberalism

I read it two times.
I think it is very well written.
What I'd say in regards to that is this.
It does seem we do as a species have some "underlying contracts". Even my libertarian views assume some, like it is wrong for human to kill human, it is wrong to hurt or steal. What I'd say is it is easier to see how you can get people to agree on some of the basics, but I think it is unrealistic to have an underlying social contract that is going to include a set amount of roads, the amount or level of health care (work done by some on others), which nations we invade, and the amount such and such a group should pay towards these things, what group pays more, what percentage, how do you divide up the groups that are paying for the set level of things, etc, etc. That there seems unrealistic to me, to imply there is and should be some kind of underlying contract for something that few people can agree upon.
One should start with the things we can easily get the most people to agree upon.
Those basic, natural rights to life and liberty, that one human shouldn't kill another if not in self defense, a human shouldn't steal from another human. Things like this you get a much higher percentage of the population (past, present, and future) to agree upon. All that others stuff is exactly why we can spend so much time on here talking political stuff. That might be the only thing it is good for, politics.
Without the private stock holder owned Federal Reserve Bank we the people would keep more of the benefits of our efforts, so we possible could have better things.