Should the Fed be private or run by the people?
Please review the link below of the thread that brought this question about:
Should the Federal Reserve Bank continue to be privately owned
or should the people have the power to create money?
I understand that I have written this question with a slant against the privately owned Fed.
I am wondering if anyone can argue the case that the world money supply should be expanded and contracted according to privately held institutions like the World Bank, IMF, and the Federal Reserve Banks.
I can understand people being against the government in general, but do you think we are better off in the hands of privateer international bankers out to make a profit, or in the hands of a democratic government?
Bane,
First argument against the present system, the government would not have to borrow (interest bearing) money from the privately owned Fed. Can’t remember the figure, but that is a sizeable part of its budget.
Also, if you believe the golden rule (he who hath the gold makes the rules), there is no real choice in politics under the current system.
You might find this site of interest: http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/article-idx.html
I severely doubt we’ll find anyone here who can argue -for- privately owned Federal Reserve.
The US actually has the power to create it’s own money independant of the FR – JFK enacted that power to the US gov’t 2 days before he was shot for doing so.
But the law/presidential order/whatever was never reversed or voided – the power to do it is still there.
What do mean ‘create money’?
Do you mean to…
print bills?
establish a medium of exchange?
create wealth?
In nearly every instance, the private sector can be, could be, or should be responsible. The government is frequently simply a surety.
Printed currency is only valuable if it is backed by either a valuable commodity, such as gold, or a trusted government. So, it doesn’t matter who “creates” the money in this frame of reference, it is only valuable if it is backed by something that people trust.
I am curious, however, how you justify labelling institutions funded by governments, and ENTIRELY AND SOLELY at the disposal of those governments, such as the IMF and World Bank, as private???
Public funds are not private funds. Right???
Cause I’m talking about the Federal Reserve – which is in no way Federal or Public.
I was under the impression that the Federal Reserve was created privately to prevent hyperinflation…that Germany screwed itself by funding its debts, running up inflation, and depreciating the real value of money. Not to say that I condone a privately run Fed, but how do you mitigate this?
I would imagine it’s more complicated than I’m gonna simplify it down to; but I would think that creating a Reserve which isn’t owned by European interests would be a start.
Do you see why it would be counterproductive (as we’re seeing) to pay another country’s citizens interest on the sheets of paper we could easily print ourselves (yourselves 
).
It’s not that it’s private – that’s fine – it’s that it’s a colonialistic method of control. The states is nothing more than a giant muscular arm of a group of individuals we all need to be more aware about:
The Rothchilds, Rockfellars, Windsors, etc.
True value rests in people. Value is subjective. Money isn’t something, it only exists because we are trusting eachother and agreeing to use it. Fiat money is backed by nothing. Money is Debt. If we get rid of debt, get also get rid of money. And that wouldn’t be good. If money were backed by gold, then what is gold backed by? A gold standard failed and is not a viable solution.
Correct. And that is people and a government of the people. Why are we to trust the federal reserve that is privately owned? Why should we let these private interests determine the financial fate of the America behind closed doors?
How do governments fund things??? I’ll tell you, they borrow from central banks (the federal reserve) at interest! The IMF and World Bank are owned by institutions that are owned by institutions that are… ultimatley privately owned.
Some public funds come from taxation. But the majority of money created comes from the creation of debt through private institutions. When the government needs money, it borrows from the fed.
I was blown away at how ignorant I was of the federal reserve system. Please watch the following video that helped open my eyes and explained things to me.
Value is subjective, huh? No kidding? Got any more cliches?
But, No. You are wrong. Money is something; I can point it out to you if you like. However, any value of money qua money is basically illusory and the value attached to money is what is subjective. If you are to slice, dice & parse my sentences, please do so with more in your pocket than tired philosophical maxims and factual misstatements.
And the gold standard has failed like everything else. Democracy failed in Greece. Communism failed in Russia. Socialism fails continually. That something has failed in the past does not equate to it being a non-viable practical solution. In real life, circumstances change.
By this argument everything is privately owned. So you’ve already undercut your own thesis. The Fed must be privately owned, because…ultimately…everything is.
Yes, because gold can be hoarded.
Food for thought: http://www.geeman-headquarters.com/Bankers.html
Obviously, any new monetary system must take in account present day circumstances.
Just let me control all the money. I’ll take care of you guys. I promise.
Take it easy bud. 
You’re correct in that “the value of money†is what we are talking about. So why would the value of gold be any better? We are then limited to how much gold we can dig out of the ground, rather than being able to create or retract money from circulation in order to regulate the economy, preserve the value of money, and keep things much more stable.
Please explain how a gold standard is a viable practical solution.
No, I’m not. We are talking about private ownership vs. public or government ownership. There is a difference! The banks are privately owned, the government is run by the public. The government does not run the banks. The government has to pave the way for the public to TRUST the banks. If we didn’t trust the banks, they’d have nothing. But the government is a slave to the banks just as the people are.
I noticed the line:
“Even though the Federal Reserve has a .gov Internet URL, it is NOT part of our Federal Government.”
THIS MUST BE CHANGED!!! HOW DECEPTIVE IS THAT!?
I’ll bet we could get people together to inform the public about this and get it changed. Why should they be allowed to deceive the public in this way?
Why can’t I start my own private company calling it the “Federal XXXXXX” and throw a .gov website up!?
I agree. But I kind of hate the vibe of “conspiracy” surrounding this topic. I don’t like it when all of this begins to sound like a giant conspiracy. It is just the fact that things were set up in a deceiving manner by the banks. Most economists would say that it isn’t news to them that the FED is privately owned. But I tell you what… IT IS NEWS TO EVERYONE I HAVE MENTIONED THIS TO!!! And that is alarming to me. 
Inflation is equal to a flat tax on money
Whether the money goes down in value 20%
Or the government taxes 20% of our money away from us
The effect on our buying power is the same.
Inflation in place of taxation could be politically acceptable.
The government could tax money to take it out of existence (to counter inflation)
Or spend money into existence to help the economy (to counter deflation)
With no private banks creating money though the debt creation mechanism,
the government could better preserve the value of money.
As it said in “Money as Debt†at T-38min:
“Governments would rise and fall on their ability to preserve the value of money.â€
As of right now, governments rise and fall (economically) based on which countries the international bankers will profit most from.
Africa got fcked in the past and is still getting fcked today by the World bank and IMF.
I like the ideas presented in this documentary better than leaving the creation of money in the hands of international bankers, as it is today.
So, it’s alarming to you that everyone you know is ignorant of general knowledge? You need to hang around with smarter or more highly educated people. There is no deception going on. I don’t know a single one of my friends who thought Greenspan was on the government payroll. Just like none of them believe that our local Board of Trade is a municipally owned entity. One just has to pay attention to what is being said.
Perhaps you are young. That’s understandable. I didn’t pay much attention to this type of shit before I got into high school, either. But is it your entire community? That may be something to concern yourself with.
Edit: I watched the cartoon. Quite simple and uninformative. If that’s where you are getting your information, this conversation is over.
You must have not paid attention to the fact that the gold standard failed. To create money based on any commodity is pointless. The very fact that it is limited MAKES it not work! Please continue to explain how basing currency on any commodity, be it oil, silver, gold or whatever, is not a step backwards! Neither is basing currency on another currency (the dollar standard). Money is nothing without people trusting in it. People make it what it is. Commodities are nothing without people valuing them as well, but they are limited and can “be hoarded”.
I love the Palahniuk quote by the way.
Most don’t.
There is a chance that it may be though.
The question is: If it turned out the entire world we live in was a lie – could you deal?