Occupy Wallstreet - The Federal Reserve is the problem, NOT capitalism!!

[superfoodist]

Don't mistake who the real enemy is, everyone.

Capitalism isn't the problem with our country, or our world... It's the federal reserve.

The Federal Reserve, despite its name, a PRIVATELY owned bank, not a "federal", nation owned bank as its title suggests.

The mainstream media wants everyone to believe capitalism is the problem, so that they can move in with socialism. If America becomes a socialist country, we will never, and I mean NEVER, have a chance at prosperity again..

If we abolish the Federal Reserve on the other hand, and begin printing our OWN money, we can once again, with work, become the #1 nation in the world..

Do some google searches on the Federal Reserve and find out what they're about.

Good luck

[garentee]

Greed is what causes this kind of Bullcra]

[superfoodist]

Absolutely, but the Federal Reserve is at the top of the chain when it comes to greed. Whether we use a capitalist or socialist system matters not. They're the ones orchestrating the mainstream media to tell people that "Capitalism" is the problem, so that we can switch to socialism and they can control that economic system as well.

The Federal Reserve is pretty much the BIGGEST problem in the world right now.. and no one realizes it.. They even have a building in downtown in every majority city!! It's right in front of our faces and no one sees it :/

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

The Federal Reserve, despite its name, a PRIVATELY owned bank, not a "federal", nation owned bank as its title suggests.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you--I want the Fed dissolved, also, but to be clear, the Federal Reserve System has both public and private components, as this from Wikipedia explains--

The Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers. The result is a structure that is considered unique among central banks. It is also unusual in that an entity outside of the central bank, namely the United States Department of the Treasury, creates the currency used.

I've been wanting to see the Fed dissolved, and a return to hard currency for some time, now, but I'll warn you--it's very, very difficult to explain that to people. It's even more complicated when you realize that dissolution of the Fed, while good in the long run, will make things really nasty in the short term.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

I've been wanting to see the Fed dissolved, and a return to hard currency for some time, now, but I'll warn you--it's very, very difficult to explain that to people. It's even more complicated when you realize that dissolution of the Fed, while good in the long run, will make things really nasty in the short term.

Would you speak more about why this will make things nasty in the short term, please.

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

Don't mistake who the real enemy is, everyone.

Capitalism isn't the problem with our country, or our world... It's the federal reserve.

The Federal Reserve, despite its name, a PRIVATELY owned bank, not a "federal", nation owned bank as its title suggests.

The mainstream media wants everyone to believe capitalism is the problem, so that they can move in with socialism. If America becomes a socialist country, we will never, and I mean NEVER, have a chance at prosperity again..

If we abolish the Federal Reserve on the other hand, and begin printing our OWN money, we can once again, with work, become the #1 nation in the world..

Do some google searches on the Federal Reserve and find out what they're about.

Good luck

I did : According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government." However, its authority is derived from the U.S. Congress and is subject to congressional oversight. Additionally, the members of the Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by Congress. The government also exercises some control over the Federal Reserve by appointing and setting the salaries of the system's highest-level employees.

Seems pretty govenrment controlled to me. How have they been screwing things up and more importantly how would you do things differently?

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Would you speak more about why this will make things nasty in the short term, please.

Well, because, Luce, the Fed's got all the beans, and all the power of the beans, and so, basically, they run the country. Take that away suddenly and arbitrarily, and there will be at least a modicum of chaos.

I'm really for dissolving the Fed in a series of steps, which would bring some order to things, but only if everyone understood what was happening and why.

There is also some historical background to my logic, in particular the Bank War back in the nineteenth century, when President Andrew Jackson let the charter for the Second Bank of the U.S. (a central, federal bank) expire. It was fairly chaotic before Jackson established his "pet banks", and even then, it took a while for things to settle down.

Moreover, the Fed was established, in part, in order to facilitate the stabilization of currency in the U.S. And, indeed, through their process of printing money, and Quantative Easing, etc., they do play a role in the stabilization of currency. We haven't had a run on banks in a long while. But, take that away, and there will be a price to be paid in the initial stability of currency.

[desertrat]

If we all learned i.m. , l.o.a. , creative visualization , ect. We might not nead money , or banks . We just visualize that big screan t.v. , 30 pac. of bud. baccon chese burger , or what ever . desert rat

[SnerpGoodWord]

Yay, more goldbug ranting against the fed. Get over it - the world will never go back to using shiny rocks for money. It's not feasible or desirable and that's why every single major economy in the world uses fiat currency and will continue to do so from this point forward.

As central banks go, the fed actually does a pretty good job. They're certainly better than the clowns at the ECB.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

Occupy Wallstreet - The Federal Reserve is the problem, NOT capitalism!!

Regardless of the policies of the Federal Reserve, the main cause of the 2008 economic disaster was that the "housing bubble" burst.

And the main cause of the housing bubble in the first place was the risky loans that banks gave out. But why did those banks give out those risky loans that they knew were too risky?

Because in 1977, a Democrat-controlled Congress passed The Community Reinvestment Act which greatly encourages banks to given out high-risk loans to low-income families.

Basically, this bill is one of the most typical ways of Democrats in the US to appeal to their voter base: Offer free money to poor people and minorities.

This bill basically said to the banks: "If you give out these risky loans, the government will back them up with taxpayer money, so even if the loans default, you won't lose money through them."

Due to the structure of public corporations in the USA, if the management of a company does not do its best job to increase the value of the company, the management can actually be fired by the shareholders and replaced.

Thus, every major bank's management had a big incentive to increase their corporation's profits by giving out these high-risk loans; because after all, if the loans are defaulted on, the government has agreed to cover the banks' losses anyways. Thus, risk for the banks is greatly reduced, and the risk level of the loans that they are willing to give out is greatly increased, even when in typical free market situations a bank should never be giving out those loans.

In short, 2008 was the inevitable collapse of the housing bubble that was started by Congress itself. And after the bubble collapsed, the President and Congress did exactly what the previous laws had said they would do: they bailed out the banks with taxpayer money.

And yet everyone is up in arms protesting at Wall Street because they think the banks themselves are the primary culprits (really it was Congress and more specifically, the Democrats who controlled Congress in 1977 when the first law regarding these high-risk loans was passed).

There are also many cases of fraud involving banks like Bank of America in regards to these loans, but those are really a separate issue. The fraud cases where banks tried to foreclose on houses that they didn't own was actually a separate occurrence than the housing bubble collapse. The fraud cases during foreclosures were merely prompted by the collapse, but didn't actually contribute to the collapse (they just contributed to the complications in cleaning up after the collapse already happened).

tl;dr: Congress passed laws encouraging banks to give out loans that were too risky, in order to "help" low-income people who otherwise would never receive a loan to buy a house. The banks gave out these loans with reassurance from Congress that they would be bailed out if the loans were defaulted upon. After about 3 decades of this occurring, the artificial loan bubble finally collapsed in 2008 and caused the current depression we are recovering from. As promised, Congress bailed out the banks who gave out the loans.

[Cochonette]

Depends on how you define "capitalism." The radical left actually defines it in such a way that it's inherently evil because it places capital as a god above human beings themselves. It's not just a neutral description of reality because it involves an "-ism" - a sense of its own all-importance. However, if it really were defined neutrally, it is not totally bad. I don't really like the radical left definition anymore... I think that definition is useful for critical discourse, but it also makes discourse with the general populace rather confusing and difficult because people aren't all using the same definition.... but no one realizes that they're using different definitions! In neutral terms, I'd say that a balance between "socialism" and "capitalism" is necessary.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Regardless of the policies of the Federal Reserve, the main cause of the 2008 economic disaster was that the "housing bubble" burst.

While I agree that the Community Reinvestment Act likely contributed to the housing bubble, other legislation, such as the Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which "repeal[ed] provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by effectively remov[ing] the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks."

If the Community Reinvestment Act may have boosted home sales, but when the commercial banks got into investing, particularly in credit default swaps after 1999, home mortgages were effectively put on steroids.

But, here's the thing--know what the bubble is now? Debt itself. To the tune of $15,000,000,000,000+ (does anyone really think the debt crisis was averted? tsk, tsk) At last, much of the debt of all those mortgages (failed, or otherwise) has now been passed on to the taxpayer. And guess what? It collects interest. And guess what? More money has to be borrowed, just to pay that interest. And guess where we get this money? That's right, the Fed (among other places, to be sure, but since they print the money in the first place .... ).

Now, consider something ... all this debt is basically just the money that's been printed and distributed. But no money has been printed for the interest. Interest is just a numer that increases the debt. Hence, even if the government paid back all the currency that the Fed has printed, it would still owe the interest.

In other words, there are no assets covering what we owe. It's rather like, taking a loan out for a house, but then getting no house.

And we all have the Fed to thank for this.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Regardless of the policies of the Federal Reserve, the main cause of the 2008 economic disaster was that the "housing bubble" burst.

And the main cause of the housing bubble in the first place was the risky loans that banks gave out.

Really? Let me give you a few other ideas of how potential housing bubbles in other countries are dealt with.

Firstly, the government can slow down its sale of land, to property developers, and raise the price of the land it sells to property developers. This prevents property developers from building so many houses so quickly.

Secondly, the government can impose higher stamp duties on sellers, making it less profitable for them to sell their houses. This dampens the secondary market.

Thirdly, the government can release and publicise data about property prices, land prices and their trajectory, so that people can better assess for themselves whether they should or should not be buying.

Fourthly, the government can simply set more stringent lending standards for the banks (for example, the minimum downpayment should be higher; and the minimum downpayment for a 2nd property should be even higher; and banks should not lend to a person who wants to buy a 3rd home).

Governments everywhere else in the world do this, if the U.S government didn't do this - shouldn't it take the blame?

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by desertrat

If we all learned i.m. , l.o.a. , creative visualization , ect. We might not nead money , or banks . We just visualize that big screan t.v. , 30 pac. of bud. baccon chese burger , or what ever . desert rat

Haha, you mean instant manifestations? Could get boring after a while. It's more fun when you don't know how the things you visualized are finding your way to you. LOA is all about the fun along the way, the journey. And what a journey money can create!

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

While I agree that the Community Reinvestment Act likely contributed to the housing bubble, other legislation, such as the Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which "repeal[ed] provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by effectively remov[ing] the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks."

Aye. That probably opened the space for the growth of the bubble to accelerate exponentially.

[Spinoza]

I wanted to add two more facts and some conjecture that contributed to the collapse. We definitely did go through a tech bubble. There was a slow down coming, as then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan famously stated about 'irrational exuberance' in the market. I believe that Greenspan planned to create a small housing bubble to lessen the effect of the collapsing tech bubble. This plan was very much backed by the Bush administration and the ‘ownership society’ platform. Through Greenspan’s encouragement the interest rates were dropped to encourage more home ownership. After 9/11 happened I believe it was thought that this policy was even more crucial for America not to spin into a 1930’s style depression. Interest rates were cut so much that it created the environment that allowed a housing bubble that was much bigger than Greenspan ever envisioned.

So let’s see what we have
The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act
Collapsing tech bubble in late 1999
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999
9/11 in 2001
Historically unnaturally low interest rates following 9/11 from 11/2011 – 11/2004

What did we get for all that?
69% homeownership in 2004..highest ever for the US.
Predatory bank lending
Questionable ratings by the rating agencies
Financial products that distributed and concealed the risk of mortgage default

This eventually created the subprime mortgage crisis

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Well, because, Luce, the Fed's got all the beans, and all the power of the beans, and so, basically, they run the country. Take that away suddenly and arbitrarily, and there will be at least a modicum of chaos.

I'm really for dissolving the Fed in a series of steps, which would bring some order to things, but only if everyone understood what was happening and why.

There is also some historical background to my logic, in particular the Bank War back in the nineteenth century, when President Andrew Jackson let the charter for the Second Bank of the U.S. (a central, federal bank) expire. It was fairly chaotic before Jackson established his "pet banks", and even then, it took a while for things to settle down.

Moreover, the Fed was established, in part, in order to facilitate the stabilization of currency in the U.S. And, indeed, through their process of printing money, and Quantative Easing, etc., they do play a role in the stabilization of currency. We haven't had a run on banks in a long while. But, take that away, and there will be a price to be paid in the initial stability of currency.

I may need to read over this, and the Bank Wars link a few times to really absorb it, but thanks for explaining that for me Solipsist.

[desertrat]

Originally Posted by Reefs

Haha, you mean instant manifestations? Could get boring after a while. It's more fun when you don't know how the things you visualized are finding your way to you. LOA is all about the fun along the way, the journey. And what a journey money can create!

Before any one can create on that level one needs to get rid of a bunch of repressed crap. In one of Robert Monroe's books he goes foward in time to a human settlement on earth where the people have cleared out all the crap of past lives. They can create what ever they want. Robert Monroe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia desert rat

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

I wanted to add two more facts and some conjecture that contributed to the collapse. We definitely did go through a tech bubble. There was a slow down coming, as then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan famously stated about 'irrational exuberance' in the market. I believe that Greenspan planned to create a small housing bubble to lessen the effect of the collapsing tech bubble. This plan was very much backed by the Bush administration and the ‘ownership society’ platform. Through Greenspan’s encouragement the interest rates were dropped to encourage more home ownership. After 9/11 happened I believe it was thought that this policy was even more crucial for America not to spin into a 1930’s style depression. Interest rates were cut so much that it created the environment that allowed a housing bubble that was much bigger than Greenspan ever envisioned.

So let’s see what we have
The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act
Collapsing tech bubble in late 199
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999
9/11 in 2001
Historically unnaturally low interest rates following 9/11 from 11/2011 – 11/2004

What did we get for all that?
69% homeownership in 2004..highest ever for the US.
Predatory bank lending
Questionable ratings by the rating agencies
Financial products that distributed and concealed the risk of mortgage default

This eventually created the subprime mortgage crisis

Nice summary.

But, now that the housing bubble has collapsed, are there any more bubbles to be concerned with, so something like that doesn't happen again?

You bet. It's called the National Debt of the United States. And while we blame the federal government for amassing, and failing to adequately address that debt, the good ol' boys down at the Central Banks, the ones who created this debt to begin with, in the form of Federal Reserve Notes (read: U.S. Dollars) are having the times of their lives.

[superfoodist]

It seems there's quite a lot of different views on this topic. Please read the thread I just posted at : How The Evil Federal Reserve REALLY Works

It describes EXACTLY how the federal reserve operates with facts. This way, we can stop arguing about opinions, and see it for what it really is.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

It seems there's quite a lot of different views on this topic. Please read the thread I just posted at : How The Evil Federal Reserve REALLY Works

It describes EXACTLY how the federal reserve operates with facts. This way, we can stop arguing about opinions, and see it for what it really is.

Not that I'm all the for the Fed, mind you, but the article you quoted above is rather biased, and doesn't really quite spell everything out. For example, there are private and public components to the Federal Reserve System, by design. (An example is the Board of Governors, the members of which are appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate to serve 14-year terms). To say that it's simply a "private company," therefore, is rather misleading.

[superfoodist]

At its highest levels, it is privately owned. Any public components are there simply because those public components are needed for absolute power by the financial elite that own the Federal Reserve. The public components aren't there for the public by any means, they are there simply as a tool to aid the people who own the primary private part of the bank.

Hope that helps.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

At its highest levels, it is privately owned. Any public components are there simply because those public components are needed for absolute power by the financial elite that own the Federal Reserve. The public components aren't there for the public by any means, they are there simply as a tool to aid the people who own the primary private part of the bank.

Hope that helps.

Look, that's all good and well, but not the point I was making, which is that the information you suggest we look at and base conclustions on as "fact", as you called it, is biased. Hence, you still had had to explain the above in order to clarify.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

At its highest levels, it is privately owned.

The "highest level" of the federal reserve system is the board of governors, which are appointed by the pesident and confirmed by congress. The relevant law is section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act (as ammended):

1. Appointment and Qualification of Members
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") shall be composed of seven members, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, after the date of enactment of the Banking Act of 1935, for terms of fourteen years except as hereinafter provided, but each appointive member of the Federal Reserve Board in office on such date shall continue to serve as a member of the Board until February 1, 1936, and the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency shall continue to serve as members of the Board until February 1, 1936. In selecting the members of the Board, not more than one of whom shall be selected from any one Federal Reserve district, the President shall have due regard to a fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests, and geographical divisions of the country. The members of the Board shall devote their entire time to the business of the Board and shall each receive an annual salary of $15,000, payable monthly, together with actual necessary traveling expenses.

[12 USC 241. As amended by acts of June 3, 1922 (42 Stat. 620); Aug. 23, 1935 (49 Stat. 704). Prior to the enactment of the Banking Act of 1935, approved Aug. 23, 1935, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was known as the Federal Reserve Board. See note to the third paragraph of section 1. The portion of this paragraph dealing with salaries of Board members has in effect been amended numerous times, most recently by Executive Order. Prior to the act of December 27, 2000, section 1002 of which revised the executive schedule, the salary of the chairman of the Board was set at executive schedule level 2 and the salary of other members at level 3. The salary of the chairman of the Board is now set at executive schedule level I, and the salary of other members at level II (see 2 USC 358 and 5 USC 5313 and 5314).]

[superfoodist]

Snerp, it doesn't matter if they're appointed by president when the Federal Reserve are the ones that APPOINT the president!!

These bankers run the entire world, including kings, queens, presidents, and any other form of "rulers". The kings (federal reserve) are just letting their bishops (president) appoint their pawns to present to the public (federal reserve board of governors).

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

Snerp, it doesn't matter if they're appointed by president when the Federal Reserve are the ones that APPOINT the president!!

This is simply nonsensical - the means by which US presidents are elected (not appointed) are very well documented, and I'm sure you're aware of them.

[superfoodist]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

This is simply nonsensical - the means by which US presidents are elected (not appointed) are very well documented, and I'm sure you're aware of them.

Indeed, I am. The mainstream media, indirectly owned by the globalist bankers, promotes the presidents that will be their puppets. Since the mainstream media is a monopoly, they may usually try and "pin" two candidates against each other, but the reality is that those 2 candidates aren't really enemies. Those 2 candidates will both as easily be puppets to the powers that be, and so they're the ones that get the air time and that every American hears about.

[Brutha]

Indeed, I am. The mainstream media, indirectly owned by the globalist bankers, promotes the presidents that will be their puppets. Since the mainstream media is a monopoly, they may usually try and "pin" two candidates against each other, but the reality is that those 2 candidates aren't really enemies. Those 2 candidates will both as easily be puppets to the powers that be, and so they're the ones that get the air time and that every American hears about.

If that's the argument you are making why do you care about whether the Fed is public or private?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

The mainstream media, indirectly owned by the globalist bankers

Ooooh .... more conspiracies.

And who owns the banks? The aliens, presumably. At least, that's what Chris Ginsburg said.

[newmark]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Ooooh .... more conspiracies.

And who owns the banks? The aliens, presumably. At least, that's what Chris Ginsburg said.

I've sometimes wondered whether bankers are aliens. Do you have any at your bank?