Why Donald Trump must shut down The Federal Reserve

I went into a lengthy explanation of the opposition many of us have to a tyrannical, unconstitutional 'central bank', and asked you for a rejoinder. You replied with nothing. NOTHING. Go away....

 

I'm not going to argue your conspiracy theories. If you want to discuss how the actual economy works, I'm interested, otherwise, consider this me "going away".

 

I provided actual facts -- the creation of the Fed by liberal Democrats under Woody Wilson... the fact that a central bank neither prevented nor ameliorated a Great Depression in this country -- only FDR's unnecessary war did that, with titanic amounts of government spending. And, I pinpointed the actual month that the Fed finally took over total control of the economy of the United States while naming the Fed insiders in both Republican and Democrat administrations who 'greased' this economic coup during the "Great Recession". And, I've pointed out that the Fed used all those "QE's", Operation Twist, and other machinations to 'rescue' those that it decided, unilaterally, were "too big to fail". Thus, it was everything for stock market gamblers, but everybody else was considered sh*t under the Fed's boot heels. These are FACTS, Econ... but you have said nothing (NOTHING) to contradict what I've said. No, all you can do is dismiss these FACTS as being a "conspiracy theory". Have you never thought it strange that during the past ten years, when 'CASH is King' that interest rates would be crushed down into the dirt -- and KEPT there at a fraction of what they should be if we still had our "free-market economy"...? But it's your wonderous Federal Reserve alone which decides what interest rates will be....

I didn't get a degree in economics... I was too busy earning a degree related to hard science so that I could make a good living (which I did, no thanks to the Federal Reserve combine). Nevertheless, I understand enough about economics to see clearly when it is manipulated and totally controlled by a smothering hegemony of central banks, both here and around "the West". So, if you've simply got MORE of 'nothing' to say than "conspiracy theory", then... Adios!

. "Rejoice, Wall Street! Your Savior has come!" -- "...and the rest of you are stuck with it!"

 

I'm not here to defend the actions of the Fed. The fact is, many Fed policymakers, including the current one, don't understand how monetary sovereignty works.

Now you mention interest rates. In our current system, do you know that the "natural" rate of interest is actually zero? If you'd like to discuss I'll do my best to convince you.

 

You lay it on pretty thick but you do the best job of telling the truth about the Fed of anybody in this forum. The damn thing should never have been put into exitence in the first place and it should be gotten rid of now.

 

If Trump would move to abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS, I would support him fully even IF he DID conspire with Russian mobsters to fix the election. In my opinion, the Federal Reserve scam is the most destructive entity in this country and the IRS has done more to destroy the US Constitution than any other entity. Governments should figure out how to fund themselves without sticking their noses into the private financial dealings of those who give them consent to govern. The IRS has turned banks and financial institutions into an army of informants who sell out their customers daily.

 

Right on target! You are a pretty smart guy sometimes.

 

Even though you have always expressed admiration for the Federal Reserve System while I despise it, for the almost ten years I've been posting here, I'd say you are still the clearest, most logical, fact-based mind on the economy this Forum has seen overall. It will always puzzle me to imagine what you like about a tyrannical central bank that exerts unilateral control over everything of any significance in our economy, but it is interesting to see your point of view, nevertheless.

Afterthought: Isn't it a pity that Burr didn't shoot Hamilton about five years earlier than he did? We might have escaped this unconstitutional 'central bank' travesty altogether!

. "Now you can go set up a f*cking central bank in HELL, Alex...."

 

No, I'm not going to "carry coals to Newcastle" so that you can impart your 'wisdom' to me. I've laid out several key points that illustrate the behavior and faults of the Federal Reserve System and you haven't seen fit to respond to any of them. If you can't (or won't) defend the Fed, how can I put any credence in your advocacy of its actions...?

To you, and to @Iremon I would provide an answer to the question, "Who would manage governmental interactions with the economy if there were no central bank?" The answer is two-fold: the United States Department of the Treasury (as duly authorized in the Constitution of the United States), and, the free-market economic system based on capitalism.

 

Wait, the world was coming to an end in 2008 and we had to bail out the biggest financial institutions in the world and infuse them with trillions upon trillions of dollars over a decade just to keep them alive,....remember?
If this is "success", what is failure?

 

Cheers

 

I forgot to mention. There have been 7 depressions since 1789, 6 of them before 1913:

1804-1812
1817-1821
1823-1836
1852-1857
1867-1873
1880-1893
1920-1930

That's a depression every 20 years from 1789-1913. Since 1913 there's been 1. That's 105 years 1 depression. Even if you add the Great Recession, that's still ever 50 years between events.

Before 1913 wild swings in inflation and deflation. Since 1913 mostly mild and periods of moderate inflation.



Swings of up to 40% deflation to inflation or the opposite.

 

Your graph is a bit skewed, and shows only a few of the post-World War II recessions (for some reason). Here's an enumeration of the ones your graph shows, and the other more recent ones, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Like I said earlier, if the Federal Reserve System 'central bank' was supposed to put an end to boom-and-bust cycles, it failed miserably. It wasn't until twenty years after we the 'Fed' was created that we experienced The Great Depression. And nothing about the wonderous Fed prevented the much more recent Great Recession. If central banks have as their primary purpose stability and the prevention of huge swings in the economy, then why has the Fed (and other central banks around "the West") failed so often, and to such a catastrophic extent...? The answer probably has more to do with a bald, anti-constitutional power-grab than it does for anything so 'egalitarian' as the stability of the economy....

 

The graph just shows inflation, not recessions.

I listed the 7 depressions and if the past is any indication, the number of depressions has decreased.

Banking is hard because most people don't comprehend the reality of a sovereign nation creating its own money. People still beleive that the US government can run out of money or that it can go bankrupt. If you beleive that, I submit you don't understand modern money, but you don't seem to want to put your understanding of the economy to a discussion.

The great recession was caused by many factors, but the Fed was, at least in part, complicit. Greenspan has an affection for Rand and her nonsense. He beleive that the markets would regulate themselves and they did what markets do - and they failed.

The Feds response, QE, was based on failed neoclassical nonsense which has led inexorably to what we see today. More money in the hands of fewer people and a weaker nation overall. So no, I'm not defending the Fed, I just don't subscribe to the idea of a cabal of bankers hatching nefarious plans to rule the world. Rather just bankers (some greedy and self-interested) who have tried to implement policies based on thinking that hasn't changed since we went off the gold standard. Of course, it's driven by a largely ignorant public who votes people into office (people that could make changes to the Fed and its policies) that believe as they do. That the government is like a household and should be managed as such. Those same people, our representatives oversee the Fed and are unaware of its failings just as the constituents that put them in their places.

 

I do understand that it is necessary for the U. S. to have a 'central bank' in today's world, and I'm not one of these who pines away for a return to the Gold Standard. Nevertheless, the Fed should not (NOT) be invested with nearly so much unilateral power as it has today, with the ability to totally control money supply and interest rates. Indeed, the government is not a 'household' with one all-domineering 'Father-figure' calling all the shots in a dictatorial fashion. Is there any logical reason why the Fed should have sole control over interest rates? Do the laws of supply-and-demand not also apply to money itself?

We may agree that all this 'Fed adoration' really took flight with Alan Greenspan, who styled himself as some kind of economic demi-god who could lift one finger, make one comment, and the stock market would swoon or soar! We NEVER should have allowed anything like that kind of power to be invested in any Chairman of a semi-private 'central bank'!

 

It is because your understanding of the Fed is based on false information you've gotten from "Creature Feature" internet videos and the like, as is reflected in your posts, including this one, which contains multiple errors of fact.

1. The Fed is not "tyrannical" in any definition of the word. It is created by an act of Congress, its objectives and goals are set by Congress, which can (and does) alter its powers and objectives. The Fed's money policy setting leadership is comprised of people selected by the President and confirmed with a majority vote of Congress. It works with the White House, regularly reports to Congress, and is probably the most heavily audited entity in the world. I have no idea where you get the idea this is "tyrannical" except from the "Creature Feature" videos you've watched.

2. The Fed does not "exerts unilateral control over everything of any significance in our economy". First, it does not exert "unilateral control" over anything, as I demonstrated above. Second, the Fed scope of influence is limited to regulation of the money supply and some regulation of banks (share by executive branch agencies). The Fed has virtually zero control over fiscal policy, which is at least if not more important in the economy, or regulation of other businesses or industries.

I've shown you the links to these facts several times. You simply ignore them and cling to the false beliefs you've gotten from the Creature Features.

Then you wonder why I don't share you opinion.

 

Your making little sense here. You rant about the Fed and "unilateral power" and "one all-domineering 'Father-figure' calling all the shots in a dictatorial fashion," yet your solution is to give this power to the president? You make no sense at all. The president already has a great deal of influence in the economy, with his ability to influence and often control the fiscal policy agenda (which they f*** up regularly), plus, the Fed already works with the executive branch and the President picks the Fed Reserve Board members.

If you are concerned about to much concentration of economic power in one person, why on earth would you want to take that power from a semi-independent board, and give it to the president.

Plus, I've seen you rant in post after post about what idiots our last two presidents have been. Not to mention the idiot occupying the WH now. Yet these are the guys you want to give the power to control the money supply on top of everything else?

You're making no sense whatsoever.

 

Two more "Creature Feature" facts here:

1. The Fed does not have sole control over interest rates. The Fed has influence over interest rates very generally by controlling the money supply. It also can have some effect on short term interest rates by its discount window policies. But it does not make decisions on interest rate loan decisions. Banks do.

2. The Fed is not "semi-private". The Fed was set up to have influence over the banks and financial system by requiring banks to deposit into the Fed system a percentage of their capital. In exchange for this, the banks get "shares" that provide them a return set by law, but have no voting power on Fed policy decisions. They also don't get a share of the Fed's "profits". I know some sources loosely describe this as "semi-private" but you use the phrase as if private banks are controlling the Fed's policy decision makers. They don't.

 

Exactly what "free market economic system" do you contend should control our money supply?

In the past as I recall you've identified a "free banking" system where banks can issue money. Which makes no sense. You rant and complain about the bankers controlling the Fed and the economy, but your solution is a system which will give the very largest banks far more power and control?

 

How was 'money supply' regulated BEFORE the 'almighty-god' Federal Reserve System combine was put into existence by liberal Democrats in 1913? Could that possibly be a START...?! How did the Fed get the right to be the exclusive decision-maker regarding money supply for the United States?

Next, please explain in much greater detail how anybody BUT the Fed sets and changes interest rates. All my adult life it's been the Federal Reserve System who exclusively has the right to set and change interest rates -- nobody else does this.

I've called "W" Bush and Obama both to be IDIOTS, in large part because certainly where the economy was concerned, both were mere hand-puppets and stooges for the Federal Reserve. "W" took his orders from Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and former president of the New York Federal Reserve System. Obama was an obedient 'house pet' for Timothy Geithner, the infamous two-time convicted tax cheater and himself a former president of (you guessed it) the New York Federal Reserve System.

Neither Paulson, nor Geithner, nor Bernanke, nor any of the rest of these 'insiders' were elected to office. They rule within an economic vacuum, "appointed" by those who are nothing more than their own puppets!

 

There were several different systems we've tried before the Fed, all were found wanting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_monetary_policy_in_the_United_States

Every institution decides its own rate of interest to be charged for a particular customer. You go in, and fill out a form called a loan application. On the loan application you put your income, assets, purpose for the loan, and collateral. The bank underwrites the loan, meaning they evaluate your income, assets, collateral, credit history, and purpose for the loan, and decide whether to give you a loan, and what interest rate to charge you. Everyone gets a different rate of interest because they have a different risk profile. The Fed has little if anything to do with this process.

Restpectfully, you sound more and more disinformed and even bizarre the more you get into detail.

Please provide your proof and evidence that "Bush took his orders from Henry Paulson" and Obama the same for Geithner.

Paulson and Geithner at the time of Bush and Obama respectively were not officers of the Fed, but secretaries of the Treasury Department. That means that each was appointed by their respective presidents, and served their respective presidents at the presidents' leisure. Paulson served 3 years. Geithner served served 4 years.

You claim that the Treasury secretaries, appointed by the President to serve at the President's whim, really controlled or "ruled" the president they served is the stuff of nubag conspiracy theory that is just bizarre.

No, Paulson and Geithner were not elected. No Treasury secretary is. They were appointed by the president and served at his whim.

Creature Feature claim No. 5: Neither Paulson nor Geithner "ruled" anything, and neither did Bernanke for that matter. Bernanke was appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, first by Bush, and then by Obama. Your claim that Bernanke "ruled" the president is about at rational as the rest of the nonsense you are babbling about.

 

Well, if in spite of the FACT that the Federal Reserve combine is the only authority that is empowered to determine: 1. interest rates for the entire nation (not individuals) 2. the volume of money supply, you still think my criticisms of the Fed are "bizarre", etc;, then I'm certainly wasting my time trying to convince you of anything. Not for the first time. I still marvel that a person of your intelligence, which I have praised often, buys this bullshit "dog-and-pony-show" regarding the REAL power of the Fed over everything in the government, including the idiot presidents who appoint them.

Who approved Fed-insider, Henry Paulson to BE the Treasury Secretary in "W" Bush's regime? Who approved Fed-insider, Tim Geithner to BE the Treasury Secretary in Obama's regime? I've already pointed out that common to the shared background of both these operatives is the fact that EACH of them was a Governor of the New York Federal Reserve System! Does the whole damned forest have to burn down before you and the other Fed-admirers "GET" the fact that 'where there's smoke, there's fire"...?!

Go into a bank and ask for their rate on jumbo CD's sometime. Ask for, say, the 12-month, the 18-month, and the 24-month rates on deposits of, say, $100k+ CD's. What did they tell you? 2%, or maybe 2.25%...? In a country where everyone is starved for CASH, and while people are running up more personal debt than before the last recession, how can interest rates be so low as this? There's only one answer... Federal Reserve system manipulation!

 

I've asked you in the past and this thread to provide proof or evidence of your claims. You utterly failed to offer up one shred. Sorry, I'm just not persuaded by your unsupported, baseless, rants. No only do you lack evidence, but you make claims that are ridiculous on their face.

So yes. Your baseless, unsupported rants are a waste of time. I'm not interest in Creature Feature conspiracy delusions.

President Bush with consent of the Senate. What's your point?

President Obama with consent of the Senate. What's your point?

Gosh, they appointed people with backgrounds in banking and economics to banking and economics positions?

What more proof of the great decades long conspiracy do you need?

That's like the flat earth nut arguing that that space guys are appointed to head NASA as proof that the earth is flat and we never went to the moon.

Where do you get this bizarre notion that everyone is starved for CASH?

Banks and big corporations and the richest are sitting on mountains of CASH.

 

It appears that we've reached yet another impasse, Iriemon... really, given our fundamentally differing viewpoints it was almost inevitable. I know that Trump is not (NOT) going to "shut down the Federal Reserve". He wouldn't even if he could, and as I've said, as much as I detest the way the Fed has taken over total control of all important factors in the American economy, I do (DO) understand that in today's world, we must (MUST) have a damned central bank. There. Do I seem even a little less 'bizarre' to you?

But I will close here with a warning, and it's one that is very real... you can read about it today. And it involves the way that today's central banks have created the very recipe for financial disaster that they were supposedly put in place to avoid -- manipulation of, and smothering interference in the private enterprise, free-market capitalist system itself!

Now what am I 'ranting' about? Look at the European Central Bank (first-cousin to the Fed) and what it has done in the EU. Look at the euro, Iremon! Look at ITALY today. It's 'Greece' all over again, but on a much, much larger scale! This is what happens when central bankers manipulate currencies, national debts, and continue buying toxic, near-worthless paper LONG after any 'recession' is over! The ECB biggies in Frankfurt created a monster with their handling of Greece, and now they've got an even far larger problem in Italy. Germany is the only country left that likes the euro, and although Germany is an island of relative sanity on a continent full of irresponsible, corrupt, socialist morons, it cannot hold the EU together all by itself if Italy bolts.

What the point? The Fed and the ECB spread almost exactly the same variety of economic DISEASE. The only reason that we're not also in dire straits is because, after all, the U. S. Dollar is still (until Russia and China change things) the world's "reserve currency". You know this. We can "print" as much money as we like. We can jack up our national debt as much as we like. We can borrow money that doesn't exist to buy debt, and continue that process... but for how long...?

 

^This...