The United States of Communism.
- Thread starter LegalizeCannabisHemp
- Start date
KATdaddy
Member
i totally agree. the richest people in this country make up for 1% of the population. they have more money than the bottom 95% of the population. WOW. Capitalism at its best, if nothing changes then id say Karl marx knows exactly what he is talking about. but he is considered a Marxist. more socialist than a communist.
MuppetMan1989
Active Member
hmmmmmmmm.... so much to say. so little time. No Point in my eyes. This worlds b.s. as is. Grow weed and smoke it relax tell you die.
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
Karl Marx divorced from Marxism in the later years of his life. He envisioned the removal of classes, military would be dismantled, the world would be for the common wealth of the people. His main flaw is he didn't see that banking, profit and interest are what ruin society.
He wrote the communist manifesto.
Currently the Rothschild family own nearly 50% of the world, they well exceeded that in the latter part of the 1800's. More than 80% of the world lives on less that $10US/day.
Fucking power structure to say the least.
Peace
He wrote the communist manifesto.
Currently the Rothschild family own nearly 50% of the world, they well exceeded that in the latter part of the 1800's. More than 80% of the world lives on less that $10US/day.
Fucking power structure to say the least.
Peace
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
So a long long ways to you is like a couple of years right? Cuz the big bad depression and rebooting of the system is close at hand.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Yeah that is a great idea, look elections are coming up, and I want to be re-elected. Hmm let's dump a ton of money into the system so that we can get a boost from it and deal with the impacts of it later, except that later we will have to get re-elected again, so we will dump more into it.
There is a reason that countries with a Fed like system work the best. Having the government in total control of the monetary system doesn't work well at all. I thought that you were all for free market? I don't see why you would want that to go to the government totally.
riight. But I guess if you think it is better to give control of the money to a bunch of lawyers we have elected for office I could see you thinking that the world as we know it is going to end in the next couple years.
I think that people have been saying this for all time. I know my dad has been convinced that the world is going to end in the next couple years for at least the 30 years I have been alive.
Im all for the constitution, and in the constitution Congress has the power to COIN money, not create CURRENCY like the fed does. The Fed does everything in its own interest, it is after all a private FOR PROFIT corporation with a monopoly and "Special" Exemption from all Federal and State income taxes. The Fed has FAR FAR too much power and influence. One private corporation should not have the power to bring the entire western world to its knees whenever it wants.
FWIW your Idea that the politicians will just DUMP money around election time is NO DIFFERENT that what the fed does all year round.
Deficits DO COUNT, if they didn't then why would we even need to pay taxes, we could just run more of a deficit.
Im on the same page as you when it comes to trust issues about our elected representatives, believe me.
I don't think the world is going to end, armageddon, 2nd coming of christ, rapture, all that stuff I don't see ever happening, no asteroids or big volcanoes. I do see economic disaster in our future though, unrest in the streets, starvation and more WAR, a BIG WAR. Hope I'm wrong though.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I like your suggestion. I'd go even further, say give the power of money creation to competing forces. The consumer will always benefit when there is competition. I'm afraid if things are left to congress, over time the situation will morph back to chaos and coercion like we have now.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
And they turn all that profit over to the government every year. Because they are still a regulator, they are the deposit institution for the banks, and when they loan out money to the other banks they generally do so at a higher interest rate than the ones they would get from other banks.
And as for 'creating money'. They can only buy and sell EXSISTING treasuries that banks and corporations have already purchased from the treasury. They cannot issue new ones, so while they do have the power to purchase them from banks, they are ones that the banks have already paid for, so they are just getting their money back for that security, just like what would happen if it matured.
I really don't understand why people cannot understand this, it is not that difficult. The money they are 'creating' is just giving the bank back their money when they purchase. Which is just unused portion of deposits that they have. When they buy that Treasury note they are just giving the bank back its money, which is just the people who have deposits in the banks money that they are not using.
And if your using the word 'creation', I guess the flip side is when they "Destroy" money with selling the EXSISTING treasury securities they have previously purchased from banks (which pulls out money from the system to slow/stop inflation (which will happen when the economy is running smoother again). Which when peoples goldfish like minds takes them off of the oil spill, and greece, and hopefully North Korea simmers down the Fed will be able to do that.
The Feds a bank regulator in the United States, the reason why it is so powerful, is because we are so damn powerful. We have several thousand different banks vs the 10 or so in most other countries. So while our banks may be smaller than most national banks all together they don't even come close to us. So yeah, our banking regulator does have a incredible amount of power over the economy, and since the Great Depression woke them up, aside from a few political issues that wreaked havoc on the economy (like high employment experiment of the 70's) it has been pretty smooth sailing (No more depressions right?).
If you would do some actual research on how the Fed operates and not just leave it to your conspiracy blog postings, you would see that they also do several purchases throughout the year. The goal is to keep about a 2-4% inflation rate because without that you would start to get into a recession zone, there is a great study on a babysitting co-op in washington that explains this really well, not to mention several other papers. But essentially too many people fighting for too few dollars, and you end up with people wanting to save, but never really getting to the desired amount, and that drops spending and that drops the economy.
I hope so too man, I really do. North Korea is looking rough, and everything else you wrote is out there. So I know what your saying. I just know that those things are out of the US's control. I look at that like dying, if it happens I will not see it coming so may as well do the best I can until it happens and always plan for tomorrow to come. Because if it doesn't I wouldn't be able to do anything different, and if it does I am prepared for the best.
I would recommend a book that is used to actually show people how to examine the banking industry. Fredrick Mishkin's "Money banking and the Financial system." He wrote it the first time back in '86 and has updated it about 9 times through the years. This way you can actually see what it is that they are doing from people who study them. Then at least if you want to still dislike the Fed you can form your own well formed opinion about it and can trust what it is you are saying is correct.
What You don't quite understand that the fed IS the bank, they are buying the treasuries from themselves and using the creation of money process to purchase it, then they just get the interest from the bond as the profit. Central banks are not interested in the principle of the loans they make, they are only interested in the INTEREST.
The US treasury has these things called bond auctions, they try to sell bonds, if no one buys them, the fed comes to the rescue and DIRECTLY buys them. The FED also loans money to OTHER countries, which is ILLEGAL According to the FED'S Own rules. We did it to Mexico.
Every Friday a few banks get closed by the FDIC, EVERY FRIDAY WE SHUT BANKS IN THIS COUNTRY DOWN!!! maybe only 300 this year, maybe only 500 next, but at some point the US public has to pay for ALL of these banks to be made whole enough to pay out the $250,000 insurance on depositors accounts (Or the lesser of the actual deposit)
Yes each bank could issue its own Currency, its been done here before and might work again, but better because now we have instant communication and would know the fiscal status of any bank in real time to make sure they could back it all up.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Or, what actually happens far more often than not is that they sell off the bankrupted bank to a more stable bank and all those people who would have to rely on the insurance just have to walk into the same branch with a different name on it. We have what 8000 different banking companies in the United States, while most countries have 5 or 6. A lot of our banks are inefficient but so is our entire population being so spread out, and those inefficient banks come in handy. Until they don't and go out of business for not being able to keep 10% of their deposits for a two week average due to bad investing.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed41.html
No they sell them in New York at the Federal Reserve bank there (because it is the financial headquarters of the world), but the Fed cannot purchase them from the treasury. They are only legally allowed to purchase secondary securities (ones already purchased by the private sector).
Again the Fed doesn't buy securities from the treasury. If you can point to something that shows they are it would be a scoop and unless their ninjas got you, maybe a puletzer prize for exposing this.
I'm sorry but this is not the case. They have a huge stock of purchased treasury securities (purchased from banks in the past to pull money out of the system to help control inflation) in their vaults. They buy them from banks to put money into their vaults for them to lend out to stimulate growth (through the banks making loans to customers (who use them hopefully to expand businesses in one way or another)), or sell the ones the banks already have to pull money out of the system and slow inflation (because they have less money in their vaults to lend).
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/treasury-fed-reserve.asp
I doubt this is enough to convince you, but it is all there. The Fed helps out by facilitating the sale of treasuries, they do not actually buy them then turn and sell them to banks.
Looking for more information on this, but are you sure that the Fed did not facilitate a loan for someone else and did not lend it directly to them? There is a huge difference there. Because the Fed facilitates a lot of transactions for all of us all the time. And it is pretty damn efficient at it.
Mr.KushMan
Well-Known Member
Yes thats all good and well. But they have also been known, as most central banks do, is give interest-free money, or in Canada the actual printing plates, to banks in order to facilitate loans. In Canada it turns out we have produced a 500 billion dollar bailout for our five big banks, a bailout which was not made officially public but still rides our deficits.
Monetarism won't work in the long run because as more people realize that money is merely a power structure, less are willing to help greedy middle aged white fuckers who don't care about you.
Peace
Monetarism won't work in the long run because as more people realize that money is merely a power structure, less are willing to help greedy middle aged white fuckers who don't care about you.
Peace
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Prime rate/Discount Rate (what the Federal Reserve charges Banks for taking out a loan with them) is around 3% today. The FF Rate (the rate banks charge each other) is about .25%.
And historically is as almost as low as ever and still not at zero.
But generally they are not in the habit of giving out money for nothing in return. I would just say that the Fed has not ever loaned out at zero (besides maybe for a bank turnover, so that the new bank can deal with the bankrupt banks clients), but I am not 100% sure that is the case, but am about 90% sure it is.
And I am unsure about what happened in Canada, or really how your banking structure/regulation works since you guys don't have the 8000 or so different banks we have here in the states. But I would hazard a guess that if you look into it, most likely it was a pretty good idea. Especially since Canada hardly had a hiccup through this world economic mess and they may have just been trying to mitigate their exposure to American markets.
And historically is as almost as low as ever and still not at zero.
But generally they are not in the habit of giving out money for nothing in return. I would just say that the Fed has not ever loaned out at zero (besides maybe for a bank turnover, so that the new bank can deal with the bankrupt banks clients), but I am not 100% sure that is the case, but am about 90% sure it is.
And I am unsure about what happened in Canada, or really how your banking structure/regulation works since you guys don't have the 8000 or so different banks we have here in the states. But I would hazard a guess that if you look into it, most likely it was a pretty good idea. Especially since Canada hardly had a hiccup through this world economic mess and they may have just been trying to mitigate their exposure to American markets.
Attachments
thebuttonpusher
New Member
lookee here : http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html
A failed bank is one in which the FDIC has shut its doors and insured the depositors. A bank that has been taken over by another is not.
thebuttonpusher
New Member
Where did you learn about the Federal Reserve? Leprechauns?
here, they BUY US SECURITIES http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_frliabilities.htm
just so you do not have to read all that info i will quote a section
"With the dramatic expansion of the Federal Reserve's liquidity facilities, the Treasury agreed to establish the Supplementary Financing Program (SFP) in order to assist the Federal Reserve in its implementation of monetary policy. Under the SFP, the Treasury issues short-term debt and places the proceeds in the Supplementary Financing Account at the Federal Reserve. "
And to read all that might be hard for you to understand so the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis has made a nice simple easy to understand for the economically uneducated
http://www.stlouisfed.org/inplainenglish/monetary_policy.htm
again i will just paste the quote so you don't have to wade through all those paragraphs getting to the appropriate part.
"By far, the most frequently used tool is open market operations, which involve the buying and selling of U.S. government securities. As we learned earlier, this tool is directed by the FOMC and carried out by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. We’ll have to get technical to explain how this works. After each FOMC meeting, the Committee issues a directive to the domestic trading desk at the New York Fed. This directive reflects the Committee’s policy goals: easing, tightening or maintaining the growth of the nation’s money supply. Several times a week, the domestic trading desk buys or sells Treasury securities on the open market."
So there you go, got a Pulitzer for me? No?
And hey, the next time you think investopedia knows more about the Federal Reserve than the Federal Reserve knows about itself is a cold day in hell.
Economics is simply not a science in the same way that chemistry and physics are sciences. Economics is the study of human Psychology and action.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Right, but what I had said is that far more often than not is that they sell the failed bank to another bank. I mean haven't you actually noticed banks changing their name one week they are this, the next that? Happens all the time. Failed banks are far more costly than selling them to a stable bank.lookee here : http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/.../banklist.htmlOriginally Posted by hanimmal
Or, what actually happens far more often than not is that they sell off the bankrupted bank to a more stable bank and all those people who would have to rely on the insurance just have to walk into the same branch with a different name on it. We have what 8000 different banking companies in the United States, while most countries have 5 or 6. A lot of our banks are inefficient but so is our entire population being so spread out, and those inefficient banks come in handy. Until they don't and go out of business for not being able to keep 10% of their deposits for a two week average due to bad investing.
A failed bank is one in which the FDIC has shut its doors and insured the depositors. A bank that has been taken over by another is not.
Sigh. You just don't get it. The Fed cannot buy (or sell) NEW securities from the Treasury. They can hold money for other countries/government agencies/ect, because they are essentially acting as the government bank in the form of transactions, because of the banking network at their disposal. That does not mean that they can buy NEW treasuries like you seem to think that they can.
You should have hit the link of the SPF and read that too:
Maybe you shouldn't just jump around and try to pick out information that you don't fully understand.
An open market operation where they buy or sell treasuries, the Fed is only able to deal with Treasury securities THAT THE PRIVATE MARKET ALREADY OWNS.
Again the Private banking institution (very rarely individuals) had used their excess money to buy a security, then the Fed can come in when they want to increase the money supply and buy that security placing the money into the banks reserves at the Fed, which they can use to lend out.
This does not mean that they buy them from the Treasury department.
Nope, because you should re-read what I had written:
Originally Posted by hanimmal
No joke, I am on the Federal Reserves site a lot, there is a tremendous amount of information there, but since I cannot easily post a excel worksheet on this site, it is hard to show numbers, so I tend to use other sites that are close enough. Because I do actually understand this stuff.
But one thing to note, your wrong about Economics. There are a lot of branches out there that does deal with human decision making, but most of the actual economics is about efficiencies and market interactions and how a change in one area affects a different one. The problem is that there are people out there that try to pretend that it is more and turn it into a political idea, and then you see words like 'keynesian' get tossed around. But with so few people actually studying economics it is difficult for people to understand this.
And no I learned about the Fed through reading actual text books, looking at the conspiracies out there and studying them and figuring out where they are wrong (or right), and many classes in economics (banking and financial systems being among my favorite subjects). And also looking into studies of banking in the developing world and then just general history studying on our country and anytime soemthing happens trying to figure out why it was happening so that I could figure out the best way to proceed in my finances with the available (actual) information. But you should know this if you are who I think you are. It is nice to have you back if that is the case.