What Is The Federal Reserve Bank? / Educational Video. Public domain video. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Where the Bankers Bank. “We all know what this…
(Visited 15 times, 1 visits today)
What Is The Federal Reserve Bank? / Educational Video
This is dated as f*ck
Anti-Whites say there should be no White Countries✓
Anti-Whites say there should be no White Cities✓
Anti-Whites say there should be no White Neighborhoods✓
Anti-Whites say there should be no White Workplaces✓
Anti-Whites say there should be no White Schools✓
Anti-Whites say there should be no White Sports✓
Anti-Whites say there should be no White Anything✓
Anti-Whites say there should be no Whites✓
Anti-racist is a >codeword< for anti-White.
White geNOcide!
One could say Tibetan's genocide by the Chinese is a "Demographics Shift".
Anti-Whites will call it out for the genocide it is.
One could say White people's genocide by anti-Whites is a "Demographics Shift".
Anti-Whites will deny it is genocide and call anyone who opposes them names.
"Demographics shift" is code for purposely changing White countries into non-White countries, aka genocide.
Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.
"Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't, frankly, matter."
Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Fed Reserve
We have exterminated the property owners in Russia.We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America.
(The Jew, December 1925,Zinobit
The world revolution which we will experience will be exclusively our affair and will rest in our hands. This revolution will tighten the Jewish domination over all other people."
- Le Peuple Juif, February 8, 1919
Here is their plan for you.Read this SCRIBD book
WHO IS ESAU-EDOM
Bank of international settlements accounting rule 2 caused the housing crises… This is what they do, they crash the economy on a conservative white house to build government revenues, and then rebuild monopolistic programs by using a democratic white house a government solution. It is a double edge sword that prints wars and rackets where govt and big business are married at the top
Something i don't understand is why the Treasury initiated the TARP program to purchase troubled assets from banks, and absorb Freddie and Fannie. Why didn't the Fed do this; that is its primary job in a crisis?
No doubt that the Feds 14Trillion bailout dwarfed the 450B TARP program, but why have the TARP program at all?
Only answer that makes sense to me is, it was all a charade. Government wanted to look like it was in control, but the real monetary security was coming from the Fed. =/
Taxpayer's were left the the burden of a failed financial system because the Fed liquidated the bad assets from Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman. Taxpayers aren't directly responsible, but we will pay for it in long-term inflation.
After 2008, the Fed started accepting Mortgage Backed Securities along with Treasury Securities. This is how the Fed bails out a bank,it buys all the bad assets of the bank. The taxpayer bailout is located in three companies on the Fed balance sheet; Maiden Lane LLC 1-3 😉
[cont]
Banks rip people off because they are close enough to the market that they can determine where the bubbles are. Analyzing trends allows them to determine which sector is being artificially inflated with commercial bank money.They will always buy low,and always sell high to unsuspecting borrowers.
The risk doesn't always work out, ask Lehman & AIG. What sucks is individuals from failed banks made billions, while taxpayers are expected to shoulder the loss through long-term inflation. =/
"make a concise illustration of how bankers rip off America"
There are lots of ways that bankers rip off America,but the Fed system isn't the primary way. In a perfect free-market world, investment is based on savings. People put savings in a bank, and a bank lends it out. However, because banks are allowed to create deposits (commerical bank money), they are able to lend more than they have in their vault. The result is that our lending system is based on risk, instead of savings.
[cont]
"Every circulating FRN represents a one dollar debt to the Federal Reserve system…"
Yes! Simply put, Every FRN is backed by a treasury security (debt) on the balance sheet of the Fed. However, since the Fed returns 94% of the interest to the treasury, it is essentially debt-free money.
The Fed is only a response to the real problem, which is Fractional Reserve Lending. The Fed is a good thing in such an unstable system. Returning to the gold standard would still require a central bank =(
"the middlemen don't deserve to use it as profit motive"
The Fed is essentially a non-profit organization. All the profit it earns from open market operations is returned to the treasury, this is the slide-of-hand. The treasury pays interest to the Fed on the bond,then the Fed returns the interest to the treasury,effectively making the bond interest-free.(except for 6% set for reserves)
The only way that the Fed really robs people is through long-term inflation. It punishes passive savers. =/
"The Federal Reserve banks create money out of thin air to buy government bonds from the U.S. Treasury…and has created out of nothing a…debt which the American people are obliged to pay with interest."
Wright Patman, Congressman D-TX
how well did lincoln's greenback's do? My problem with it, is if people are going to be taxed to secure it's worth, the middlemen don't deserve to use it as profit motive. Are we a sovereign country or not?
I'm trying to learn as much about it, so I can make a concise illustration of how bankers rip off America with it's aid. Under 500 letters. I'd be grateful if you can divulge. But I may just use a quote:
"Every circulating FRN represents a one dollar debt to the Federal Reserve system…"
One interesting point that many overlook is that when The Fed removes a Treasury Security from the market, it is also removing the interest liability at the Treasury. It essentially makes the debt at the Treasury interest free. The separation of fiscal policy from monetary policy is a masterful slide-of-hand that quietly reduces our debt burden by inflating the currency. =P
"I just don't get how banks..demand interest payments on..money..[with] no risk.."
Currently,this is true because the system is flooded with reserves. Banks only have to charge 3% interest to earn a profit.
In a "normal" environment,when the Fed buys a treasury security from a bank,it's exchanging an interest-bearing asset,for a bunch of useless federal funds. The bank loses in the transaction,which encourages it to lend the dollars quickly to offset the opportunity cost of losing the bond. =)
You’re right. Our current monetary system is doomed for boom and bust, although it is probably less corrupt than you think. We must end fractional reserve lending, which would eliminate the need for the Fed to constantly interfere in the market. =(
In theory,allowing the treasury to “print” 10% of its budget as debt-free notes that they spend into circulation,wouldn’t seem to hurt the system. But the law would have to be rock-solid. And i’d like to see the funds earmarked for infrastructure.=)
not to mention the moral hazard that occurs within a self-regulating "industry" that is backed by the launderer of last resort. I just don't get how banks can get away with demanding interest payments on loaned money that they put no risk on. If republicans are so critical against socialism, they must address that hooey, first.
Thanks for living up to your name. I'm pretty sure I know how the system works (for a few), call me out if my crit is full of shit.
Ahh…very polite…thank you. =P
I doubt you even understand how the system works, so how can I take your criticism seriously? I'm willing to debate substance, insults are for children. =/
I support full-reserve banking,and agree that fractional reserve lending allows for credit to outpace savings, which is doomed to fail. Although banks are ultimately responsible for the deposits they create,there are alternatives that would form a much more stable banking system.
I think that we should retain the separation of the treasury and the federal reserve. Unless we're willing to return to a commodity backed system(bad idea), treasury securities should continue to carry interest,imo. =)
is it not feasible to issue debt-free currency directly from the treasury into entrepeneurs across the country who are actually making things people can use?
Why is free money going to bankers who speculate on the future and use bullshit lingo to hypothecate over their losses?
thebalancedamerican- You "federal" (as in federal express) reserve faggot. I hope when this magical fantasy money system collapses you keep talking like this…
tax
Every time the Fed generates more money, does Quantitative Sleasing, it is a vicious tax on all savings of everyone who has money saved. And the people did not vote for this tax. This is taxation without representation. We find ourselves ruled by an unelected oligarchy who directly tax wealth rather than income.
TAX CRIME
Here is a quote from Friedrich Hayek, the noted Austrian Economist and Nobel laureate, on the Great Depression:
“I agree with Milton Friedman that one the Crash had occurred, The Federal Reserve System pursued a silly deflationary policy. I am not only against inflation, but I AM ALSO AGAINST DEFLATION. So, once again, a badly programmed monetary policy prolonged the depression.” (Interview with Diego Pizano, 1979)
Told ya Austrians agreed about sustained deflation =P
“So if they had just kept printing away, it would all have been OK?”
The Fed seldom “prints” dollars to ease monetary policy. It usually lowers the discount rate, which makes all lending cheaper. Since the monetary base is mostly inflated through Reserve Lending (not printing) this would have been the appropriate response by the BoJ after the real estate crash. They could have also done an asset purchase program (quantitative easing) to stem deflation.
I have not been to Japan =)
List of recession since the Fed took over (excluding the GD, which was handled poorly by the Fed):
1945(-13%) – 1949(-2%) – 1953(-3%) – 1958(-4%) – 1960(-2%) – 1969(-1%) – 1973(-3%) – 1980(-2%) – 1982(-3%) – 1992(-1%) – 2003(-0.3%) – 2009(-5.1%)
When you compared the period before and after the Fed was created, it is extremely obvious that The Fed has been relatively successful in keeping recessions shallow and unemployment low.
Please, prove me wrong, these numbers are easily sourced. =)
Here is a list of recessions that occurred during the 19th century:
1836(-33%GDP) – 1839(-34%) – 1847(-20%) – 1853(-20%) – 1858(-23%) – 1860(-15%) – 1865(-24%) – 1869(-10%) – 1873(-34%) – 1882(-33%) – 1887(-8%) – 1890(-12%) – 1893(-37%) – 1896(-25%) – 1899(-16%) – 1902(-16%) – 1907(-29%) – 1910(-15%) – 1912(-26%)
Notice that many were nearly as bad as the GD. The Fed was formed because severe recessions were happening so often. In my next post I'll list the recessions since the GD.
cont>
cont>
Indeed, one of primary criticisms of Austrian economics is their LACK OF empirical evidence. Their is substantial evidence that monetary policy is a significant tool.
"So all I can say is I hope you Lefists lose"
Ha! I'm a libertarian thinker. I'm a staunch supporter of free-markets within the spirit of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Just because someone is a monetarist doesn't mean they are Leftist. We probably have more in common than different 😉
Anyway, i enjoyed the debate =)
"Sunburn causes sunlight"
I'm very aware of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, but Japan is not an example. The deflation problems that Japan suffers today are a result of bad demographics and bad monetary policy. The BoJ failed to respond to market pressures in a similar way The Fed failed to respond after the crash of 1929.
"Do you believe that planning fixes all?"
Planning can't fix everything, but bad planning can certainly cause the problem. The evidence supports my position, not yours =)
cont>
It does not prove deflation is bad. Deflation is a result of the persistent deleveraging of debt following the 1990 crash, not a cause. 'Sunburn causes sunlight', cos they happen at the same time right?. And the 'planners' caused the crash. Do you believe that planning fixes all, despite evidence?
Anyway, you are saying nothing I haven't heard before, and which isn't factually or logically wrong, so I am now gaining nothing from this. So all I can say is I hope you Lefists lose, and bye bye.
Completely wrong. America in 1800s has one of the highest growth rates in the history of mankind. It was also a century in which the price index consistently fell. So your wrong. And to blame the depression on deflation is to focus on one parameter out of many. It is to ignore FDR’s actions (especially effect his [realized] threat to go off the gold standard had on bank runs), the Smoot-Hawley tariff act, the new deal etc etc. Is is ‘conclusion first’ thinking.
So if they had just kept printing away, it would all have been OK? You have no consistency whatsoever. You say ‘should keep inflation low’, and yet in an environment where real estate was flying past $20,000 per square foot, they should have just kept easing? And then the deflation wasn’t a result of the following economic malias, but a -cause-! And this ‘deflation’ with 1990 price index 94.1, 2011 price index 99.7! And japan is in an economic disaster? Have you been there?
I misspoke on the Plaza accord:
The BoJ had easy currency policy following the Plaza accords, but reserved those policies just one year after the accords; tight money policies from 1986-1990 resulted in the deflationary trend that persisted through the 90s.
But the point is deflation in Japan has been a disaster. The NYtimes put it this way in 2010, “the nation has been trapped in..a corrosive downward spiral of prices..shriveling..to little more than an afterthought in the global economy” =/
cont>
"accept natural mild deflation"
Sustained deflation is horrible! Wages fall along side prices, so buying power only increases on the savings side, not the earnings side. If you buy a home in a deflationary economy, the mortgage becomes more expensive every year. Inflation favors risk, deflation favors savings. Even Austrians agree on this principle, but they believe that deflation is a temporary correction, while monetarists fear the "death spiral" as happened during the Depression =/
"Which point was that?"
The point that Japan's economy has been largely stagnate in its deflationary trend. Japan proves that deflation is bad, not good, and planners there have been trying to reverse it.
"the BOJ due to its loose monetary policy"
No! It was TIGHT monetary policy that led to deflation in the 1990's. Study it again. Following the Plaza accord, the Yen dropped far below the dollar. =/
"deflation causes unemployment"
This is macroeconomic 101 =/
cont>
Which point was that? I said it disproved your statement that deflation causes unemployment. And it did. Do you care to rebut that? Also, I fail to see how the asset bubble crash of 1990, created by the BOJ due to its loose monetary policy following the Plaza Accord, supports your pro central bank argument. I think perhaps you need to do some more research. The obvious solution for 'keep inflation low' is no central bank, and as a result you need to accept natural mild deflation.
"Japan (in deflation)"
The Japanese gov and central bank tried desperately to reserve the deflation of the 1990s because it had caused investment to grind to a halt! It is a perfect case study to prove my point. =P
"Also, it is precisely the 'risk cheapening' that causes the bubbles"
I partially agree. The key is to keep inflation low. The Feds target rate is 2%, but they are closer to 3.5% in the last 30 years. Leading up to the recent housing bubble,the M2 supply inflated much faster. =/
Aha! Consumer electronics is the classic counter to deflation, but it isn't relevant on a macroeconomic level. 1) 75% of the economy is service-based, which means it doesn't benefit from "economies of scale." 2) There is an maximum optimal output for all capital production, meaning new factories have to be built to support increasing output.
Austrians are right that people would continue to buy food, shelter, and energy. While monetarists are right on everything except those three 😉
You bought a computer, didn't you? It is a myth that people will not buy under deflation. Falling prices -encourage- sales. Few bought a cell phone when it cost $3000 for a suitcase sized phone, they buy them in the millions at current prices. It is also a myth that deflation causes unemployment, Japan (in deflation) 2000-2010 had better employment than Australia (in inflation) + look at America going into the 20th century. Also, it is precisely the 'risk cheapening' that causes the bubbles.
"jobs are created by enterprise, not command"
This is true. But investment & risk in new enterprise is greatly related to monetary policy. For ex, in a deflationary scenario, there is an incentive to passively save because your dollars are accruing value by doing nothing, and unemployment rises. In an inflationary scenario, there is an incentive to purchase and invest because your dollars are losing value, and unemployment falls. So, the Fed can encourage job creation by making risk cheaper =)
You're right, the best we can do is examine the booms and busts before the federal reserve, and examine the evolution of banking which led to a fiat currency, managed by a central bank in every developed nation. Imo, our current system has a better track record.=/
For unemployment, study the Phillips Curve and Friedman's long-run Phillips curve. While there is money neutrality in the long term, there is a relationship between inflation and unemployment in the short term. =)
cont >
There is no USA running in a separate universe in which one parameter is missing, the Fed, with which we can compare. So on the unemployment, there is no inductive proof. Indeed the inability of the Fed to bring down recent unemployment (despite extreme monetary measures) helps prove they are not the prime mover of the employment rate. There is also no deductive reason – jobs are created by enterprise, not command. Regarding stability – only if you define it as 'looses value predictably'.
"Ultimately, Austrians reject inflation due to who it feeds – the government"
Agreed! A balanced budget amendment, and a GDP cap, would go a long way to containing spending. I differ from Austrians in how they see money. Monetarists see money as the water that the fish swim in, Austrians see money as the fish. Essentially, I am a supporter of a fiat currency. =)
The Fed definitely engages in central planning. Setting the discount rate determines the rates of all lending. They can "pump prime" a bad economy, or contain a roaring economy. The question is,"have they done a good job?" =)
I too am from the monetarist school; We don't find many friends in the Fed section of YouTube =P
Imo, cutting taxes doesn't necessarily increase AD in the short term, but it hugely increases market efficiency, leading to growth, then leading to sustainable demand. =)
Ha! I just got done explaining to someone that the Fed kept interest rates too low for too long, and that contributed to the housing bubble. Of course, the warped risk models and subsidies from FHA were the root of the bad loans. =)
“the shallower the recession – the longer”
I partially agree. The “stimulus” prolonged the correction by 18months. But that doesn’t really counter the fact that the Fed has been relatively successful in managing a stable dollar and keeping unemployment low =/
It is all very well to pat a doctor on the back for easing a mans pain after an accident. It is another thing to do so knowing that the doctor caused the accident. To say the Greenspan put did not aid the NASDAQ bubble (crash 2000) or cause the housing bubble (crash 08), would be deliberate selectivity of information. And the shallower the recession – the longer; people should just get it over with.
Ultimately, Austrians reject inflation due to who it feeds – the government.
"There is no such thing as a government agency 'influencing price levels at a healthy level'
It's not quite as dichotomous as your suggest here. The Fed has been relatively successful in making recessions shallow and keeping unemployment low. The price we pay is the ability to passively save. You must convert your dollars into assets if you want them to retain their value over time.
Imo, Austrians exaggerate the consequences of sustained low inflation. =/
There is no such thing as a government agency ‘influencing price levels at a healthy level’. Either socialism (central planning) aiding an economy is false or it is true – for all cases. ‘All it does is shift the investment curve’ is a terrible trivialization. Not having a market interest rate causes terrible malinvestment. It causes bubbles and their subsequent busts (cases in point – 2008 US housing bubble burst, 1991 Japanese asset bubble burst).
There should be no central banks.
It certainly engages in central planning. The Fed, by various whims ('too much' inflation – raise rate, 'too little growth' – lower rate) attempts to 'improve' the economy by controlling the interest rate of money. It is unambiguously central planning, and the worst sort, since it affects the entire economy – not just isolated goods & services.
To say that lower taxes and smaller government is central planning is to claim black is white.
plus the market still sets prices not the fed. the fed tries to influence price levels at a healthy level. no matter wat the fed does the market will b at equalibrium and pareto effecient. all it does is shift the investment curve. now if prices were set like the miniumum wage is in the labor market then that would b ineffecient and not at equalibrium. if we only could go back to volcker, the fed can b useful if we had someone responsible running it…