Forums:
hey all - I'm a big fan of the Occupy movement. I went down to City Hall during Ciclavia and saw first hand what you guys are doing and your work is essential!!
I have read some press accounts that include some of the End the Fed movement, which I believe is the influence of the Ron Paul followers. I can't follow this argument, and I wanted to see if anyone could help me out. My understanding of the Fed is that it is an innovation and is superior to the gold standard, that if used appropriately, can lift everyone's economic plight. A quick and easy primer is by Paul Krugman, about baby-sitting co-ops (it's an extended analogy, but very helpful!):
http://pkarchive.org/theory/baby.html
Solidarity,
Decoder303
God bless you, decoder303.
Submitted by OCdave on
God bless you, decoder303. God bless you.
Several days ago some "End
Submitted by cryptomnesiac on
Several days ago some "End the Fed" people showed up on the north steps of City Hall. They stood together, held up signs, and ranted. A silver-painted mime sort of performer stood nearby holding a silver "99%" sign. They tried to start a big, spontaneous anti-fed rally -- and failed.
I came up to see what was going on. A woman read my sign, and in reply to it said, "If you really want to 'get money out of politics,' end the fed."
I smiled condescendingly.
I'd never seen those people at CH before, and I haven't seen them since -- with the exception of the guy with the "End the war on drugs" sign. He was probably the only genuine libertarian there, and just wandered onto the steps thinking it was some kind of libertarian get together.
They seem intent on steering EVERY conversation back to "End the Fed" -- frankly, I don't hear an actual plan in there. They might as well be saying "I believe in unicorns." They are at best naïve, though I suspect worse. In either case, they are a counterproductive force and a liability to any serious efforts made toward any practical goals.
Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook
I've been sick for much of
Submitted by nobody on
I've been sick for much of the protesting days, so have spent a lot of time online, in the chats, and there are a lot of "end the fed" libertarians in there.
My question to them was, what do you do after you end the Fed? The three plans I've heard of are to return to the gold standard (the Ron Paul/Max Keiser solution), to form a credit/debt co-op (the Ellen Brown solution), and to move Fed functions back to the Treasury Dept.
The gold standard seems absurd to me, but it's so popular. The co-op solution, seems to me, not that different from the gold standard, except that it would be localized. Both solutions propose currencies either fixed to gold, or with a fixed money supply; these are the same thing essentially. They are deflationary, and in times of recession, can turn the economy toward depression.
The Treasury Dept. idea is the most sensible, but it re-politicizes the issuing of money even more than it has been under the Fed. If you look at the central banks of other countries, they are all similar to the Fed, or trying to be more like the Fed.
That said, there is something to their anger. After thinking about this a bit, it's pretty clear that monetarist policy by the Fed has failed us. We're poorer than we thought we'd be. The economy is stable and growing only if you're wealthy. Nearly everyone on the "wearethe99percent" tumblr seems to have debt, and no job.
So what's going on?
You want a little inflation to prevent a situation where there's deflation, when prices decline.
In the past, particularly the 1940s to the 1970s, this moderate level of inflation was fine, because wages were keeping up with inflation, more or less. We had strong unions, a pretty liberal government, and no competition from Japan and Germany (which had been blown away during WW2). At times, it was rising wages that were causing the inflation, according to what I've read.
Since the 1970s, wages have been flat, on average. Personal debt has increased.
Today, it seems like we can't lower the interest rates anymore. The economy refuses to get well quickly. Monetarist quantitative easing has prevented the collapse of the system, so it succeded there. But for working people, monetarism has failed, and it seems to have failed in the long-term, because wages haven't kept pace with the inflation.
What's the way out of this situation?
The Federal Reserve is a
Submitted by LastChance on
The Federal Reserve is a private bank that has been screwing this nation over since 1913 ... Do ur research ! BTW its not just ron paul supporters its anybody who actually knows what there talking about whenon it comes to the banking system
Its the root of the evil/bank greed in this nation
Since 1913 huh? Well, the
Submitted by ObamaFTW.com on
Since 1913 huh? Well, the middle class was created in the late 1930's and begun dismantling in the 80's. The economy has spent less time in recession as the Fed gas come of age. Reading Ron Paul propaganda is not research.
Occupy Wall Street
I have (at least) two
Submitted by cryptomnesiac on
I have (at least) two problems with the "End the Fed" meme:
1. As "nobody" asked: What's the plan? Outside of those three words, I haven't heard anything but cries of persecution that everyone isn't parroting them, too. Listen, maybe we're aware of your position; maybe we're just not interested, because you've offered nothing practical or immediate as a solution. I can easily imagine the results of reinstating Glass-Steagall, closing tax loopholes, better funding schools, etc. No one has illustrated how "End the Fed" leads to anything else. It's Underpants Gnome logic.
2. The tendency of the "End the Fed" argument is to try to hijack EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION away from ANY OTHER TOPIC, and steer it toward one which has thus far proven a dead end.
Either propose something practical, or chill out with that shit.
Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook
poster above finally presents some nuance
Submitted by estebanmgil on
Hi,
I completely agree with you on that. I think there needs to be some caution and understanding about the nature of deterministic logic with regards to this "end the fed" idea.
The implication therein is that the federal reserve is the end-all be-all of all of our woes related to economic and social injustice. This is akin to saying that Al Gore created the internet and that without him none of what is happening now would happen. A critical examination of history shows us that no one link in the chain of events causes a particular relationship. Our technology and its disclosure of our relationship with nature, the relationship it has with our modes of production, social relations, daily life, and mental concepts are all complex and inter-connected. Causal inference here is not easy to attain, and any such causality needs to be critically examined.
Is the Federal Reserve part of the problem? Sure, maybe, I'm not well versed on monetary policy. But so is factory farming, so is trust in traditional politics, so is gender relations, race-relations, mental concepts about sex and race, technological tools which destroy the planet, and many many other issues.
I hope those of you who are concerned with this issue take the time to sit down and talk about the federal reserve and what is wrong with our monetary policy. Come up with ways to address this VERY COMPLICATED issue in a way that makes sense to those of us committed to the unspecified transformation we are seeking to achieve.
We don't have to just change monetary policy in the USA to transform our current, objective, reality. We also need to change monetary policy world-wide. We need to address the way we eat, the way we get around, the way we speak and interact with one another, the way we produce, the way we relate to and value our labor.
Personally, I think the end-the-fed debate is a bit of a call for ego. What I'm beginning to see is "WHY AREN'T WE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE FEDERAL RESERVE all the time!!!" logic. And not, "Hey people, we'd like to talk about the federal reserve, perhaps we can form a study group to look at the issue, we'll meet at 3pm at the welcome tent to start thinking about ways to address the issue."
Hey Occupy people.
Submitted by Geffel on
Hey Occupy people.
More power to your elbow.
I was down at City Hall on Saturday with the very mixed bunch, young old, all hues, all kinds of accents, viewpoints and styles...
I'm a working stiff too, so have to be a weekend warrior as far as Occupy is concerned...
I shot a lot of video on Saturday in 1080p - my laptop is choking on it. I have it edited but I'll have to render it on a more powerful device, but ti should eb there be the end of the week on my youtube channel (geffel).
Pictures are here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/markscott/sets/72157627725770467/
Fantastic. Looking forward to it.
Submitted by Sue Basko on
Fantastic! Can't wait to see it. If you post it to youtube, and post on the site, we can all link it to our facebook pages and other places. Thank you.
Sue Basko, Lawyer
OCCUPY PEACE - Legal Info on How to Hold a Peaceful Protest or Occupation
Anti Intellectualism and Grasping Illusions
Submitted by nobody on
I used to spend time on anarchist and communist message boards, and you'd always have someone saying something like "get rid of capitalism" or "the problem is capitalism." And while I was sympathetic, it bothered me that few people were discussing what would replace capitalism (or even going deep into what system we really have, which is a mixed, social democratic state).
"End the Fed" sounds the same to me. What's beyond ending it? Why end it?
Also, in a personal discussion, a friend who is into ending the Fed told me that the stories of depressions when we were on the gold standard were "lies". I was like "what?" That kind of response really turned me off to the "end the fed" argument, because there were cyclical depressions before the GD. It's documented, and a lot of economists study those depressions.
Both demands for action, ending the Fed or ending capitalism, while appealing to my inner nihilist, are simplistic panaceas at best, and dangerous demands at worst, and they turn their backs onto the complexity and difficulty of reality.
End the Fed - A misplaced libertarian argument?
Submitted by Mahayana on
"To strike a balance between private interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of government"
- To supervise and regulate banking institutions
- To protect the credit rights of consumers
Instead of striking a balance, it almost seems as if they are catering to the private interests of the banks. It's kind of like going to a restaraunt and getting shitty service. You don't complain to the asshole waiter, you go to the manager. According to what information I've read, (and there is MUCH MUCH more I need to learn) the fed plays a huge role in the actions of the banks. The responsibilities are outlined here:http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm
MissionThe Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It was founded by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. Over the years, its role in banking and the economy has expanded.
Today, the Federal Reserve's duties fall into four general areas:
- conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates
- supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers
- maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets
- providing financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation's payments system
The existence of the Fed itself is controversial because some deem it as unconstitutional. Article I, Section 10 of the constitution states that "No state shall...coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts..." (I assume we can agree that nobody expects us to walk around with bars of gold and actual silver in our pockets, but I think it's saying our paper money is supposed to be backed by actual silver/gold) So how are Federal Reserve Notes backed by basically nothing legal? Really, I may be wrong and perhaps there is some ammendment to the constitution that made this legal, but from what I can find, it was done through the Federal Reserve Act that Woodrow Wilson signed in to law in 1913. Why would this supersede the actual constitution? So many people seem to be ready to shoot down the ideas of the "End the Fed" people. Not questioning the system is what got us into this mess in the first place. Please keep an open mind and listen to all sides. Do your research. Don't believe everything you hear in the media. Form your own opinion. Plus, just because one lady wasn't capable of explaining in an eloquent manner exactly why she was protesting on the steps of the Fed and potential solutions, does not make the argument itself invalid. (that was in reply to a post cryptomnesiac had written) I'm sure if you were to interview a hundred random people participating in Occupy LA, you would be sure to get a handful of people that would come across as rather unintelligent and ill-informed. (I'm not saying it's bad they're out there, it is our duty though at this point to be informed and know why the hell we're pissed off) My fear is that this wonderful grassroots movement will evolve into another Left vs Right battle. If that happens, this will all have been futile. This is not about Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians or whatever party you belong to. Ultimately, we all want the same things. We just have differing opinions on how to implement it. This isn't about left or right, this is about the 99% vs the greedy.The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe
End the Fed and do what exactly?
Submitted by daniil on
Everything you said is true, but the Gold Standard is even worse at this point, as the price of gold can be just as easily controlled by those who are hoarding it (especially the banking cartels and the Vatican). No matter what happens with our global competitive currency, we need to implement complementary currency that can be backed by real value. One valuable thing that we have is time; the Ithaca Hours system is an example of a successful modern time bank. One Ithaca Hour is worth one hour of labor.
Occupation Hours might make a good nation-wide complementary currency at this point; not a replacement for the national currency (as declaring it such would land us in jail), but simply a currency for turning our free time into wealth, organizing labor, and potentially acquiring goods and services needed by the occupation. Just a thought.
We can print whatever we need to...
Submitted by audiotruther on
the Problem with the FED is they print our money, and they're not a Federal Agency, they're for profit private Bank, okay- so they print our money and charge us interest, okay where does the interest come from ??? it doesn't , it's cycle to get us in debt further and further, the interest Never exists and can never be paid back because the paper doesn't exist... it's all a SCAM-
I think that the Fed was
Submitted by nobody on
I think that the Fed was basically following its mandate - to keep the banks afloat via monetary policy. Today, the banks are milking the situation, and the Fed should correct it, but they aren't.
The fact that we're all getting screwed by this is the problem. The banks were supposed to lend more money, but they haven't. The government should have sided with borrowers against the banks, but they didn't.
I hesitate to call this "greed" - greed is built-in to the system. The shareholders want to maximise profit. The executives want to maximize their own pay. The way to prevent that isn't to say "shame on you" to the bankers - it's to change the system so this doesn't happen again. We need some stronger anti-trust laws, speculation laws, etc. Dodd-Frank and all that. We should really go farther than that, too.
Instead of just "end the fed" what about "end the banks"?
North dakota did it !
Submitted by LastChance on
They have there own bank and dont rely on the FED and they are doing amazing finacially
and Utah passed laws to do the same not to long ago but idk how long till they enact them
So when i hear people say end the fed then what ? Theres ur answer im not for/against but im just letting u know the solutions are out there
A couple of decent arguments I have heard for replacing the Fed
Submitted by Fex on
Two versions I hear of what to do after ending the Fed that make a modicrum of sense to me:
1) Government takes control of the centralized banking system and the printing of currency as outlined in the Constitution, and how it was before the formation of the Fed in 1913 or a similar system. This view is supported and outlined fairly well by Dennis Kucinich in an address to the House of Representatives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjL108wA9QU
2) Disband centralized banking. Instead of the government running any banks, banks will be fully privatized. The Fed holds so much power and sway and abuses it for it's members, as it's a centralized banking system that is THEN privitized into it's shares. A fully privitized non-central system would allow banks to compete, and allow for consumers to pick which bank and banking system they wish, and indeed which currency they prefer if applicable. This model would basically be what Panama has: http://mises.org/daily/2533
Kucinich's argument in that link for ending the Fed makes sense to me, as do most Libertarian's arguments as for why (they're basically the same reasons, the Fed and it's members are unchecked and ruin taxpayers and the economy, that the system of the Government building debt with the Fed is misguided). He also gives a good argument for what happens after, and Panama has shown the reverse (a system of non-centralized banks) works too.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
I always had the impression
Submitted by nobody on
I always had the impression that Panama used the dollar, and their economy and politics were dominated by the US. Basically, a client state. So, they would not need a central bank.
Puerto Rico doesn't have a central bank, either.
I'm no macroeconomist, but I think that the value of money is regulated by the government that creates/uses it. Countries can share a single currency if their governments are integrated, or you have the Panama scenario, where all the value comes from the operations by another country.
Look at the mess in the Eurozone. The governments aren't integrated, but they use one currency. If Greece was still using a drachma, they could use some tricks to pull themselves out - they could inflate the currency and cut some salaries (without appearing to), and then devalue it to increase exports.
The man who owns the fed.
Submitted by MalibuRev on
http://truedemocracyparty.net/2011/09/rothschilds-exposed-500-tril/
Why do we allow a foreign plutocrat to own and control our money, our economy, and our government. The fed is anti American. Why can't America have it's own reserve and control it's own money and economy? Are we just too stupid? Is it too complicated for our tiny little brains? Is it really in our best intrest to a German Jewish banker to take care of us? He obviously knows what he's doing. After all he has leveraged his control of our country into an estimated 500 TRILLION dollar PERSONAL fortune. Ever wonder who's in charge? He owns the 1%.
Seek Truth
I'l'll leave the arguing to
Submitted by eric1 on
I'l'll leave the arguing to others, but will say this. In the least, the power of the Fed needs to be diffused. See link below for one way to accomplish that. Nationalization is another option because then those Fed officials can come under much greater scrutiny and could be subject to impeachment and/or criminal charges which is highly unlikely now.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NationalConstitutionalConvention06
Those with the best information are most likely to succeed.
Evil people rule when good people do nothing.
It is actually really really simple.
Submitted by david on
Forget all this jargon and complex-talk. You cannot keep issuing babysitting coupons just like you cannot keep printing money. It starts to lose value.
YOu have to get to the very very very foundation of economics - true value. How much babysitting is actually being provided and how much resources is ACTUALLY going around to share. The federal reserve and all this financial jargon does one thing and one thing only. It MANIPULATES the actual value of resources by using thousands of forms of debt. The elite who understand the manipulation can control it in their own favor.
And in all this confusion, you lose sight of what is really important. If oil is becoming less, if the rich are actually hoarding money, you wouldn't know it. Because there are mountains of stock tickers and economic books that give you superficial reasons why. Even as your minimum wage becomes less and the environment can't take anymore pollution, you think it is one huge complicated machine that is the reason.
WAKE UP! There is no machine. Look at the man behind the machine. He is richer than ever and all the laws and groups around him (Steagall Glass Act and AIPAC) have coincidently been in his favor?
Basic Economics is supply and demand NOT supply, borrow recklessly, and demand. You lose sight of this basic principle and it's relations to the provisions of mother earth, and you will suffer heavily. Yes, the Federal Reserve must end, and money must be backed by SOMETHING if not the gold standard.
Do you know how far we've gone from reality? EVERY person in the United States owes 200,000 USD on personal, state, and federal level due to debts and accrued interests! You think the average joe can pay that off? If the economy fails because we disallow anymore reckless printing, it is just because we are taking a horrific look at what our TRUE value ACTUALLY is. But when we start being real and taking responsibility, it is when we start to truly make progress as a nation and as human beings.
We are the Revolution!
Money backed by Production-Get's it's value from Production
Submitted by Seth Spinolla on
Money is not a commodity for 'supply and demand' as a consumer product. It is just numbers, an accountancy system (not the current criminal racket/counterfeiting Debt-money created system) meant to facilitate production and consumption and thus must be reflective of the reality of those two things--nothing else. Not gold, silver or any other bugaboo so-called 'monetary-backed instrument'. Indeed, this has always been just another tack of the criminal fraudsters..ie. the Bankster/Economists.
The idea that money is being printed in excess (which it is as DEBT by a private Racket) is misleading. The overwhelming majority of money is 'virtual-money' in the form of digital bank credit (Debit to you!)--digits on a computerised bank-accountancy system. Gov't is forced to borrow for it's needs above what it can collect in taxes under the current racket, but it is the private Bankster system set up this way that is in control since the fraud was set up. It is the responsibility of the people's gov't to undo this racketeering system with the correct solutions provided to bring not only the least harm to society, but in effect do the opposite by returning to the people the power of their own credit and doing what is necessary to bring prosperity for all back to the nation(s).
Dennis Kucinich has submitted a bill toward this end.
Without free speech no search for the truth is possible, no discovery of truth is useful. Better a thousandfold abuse of speech than denial. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.
Libertarians
Submitted by Wildthing on
Why do Libertarians always lurk around these kinds of protests? Do they also attend Teabagger events? I wish they were more honest about their political leanings. It's sad that their MO is picking off the weak-brained. Say what you believe but be clear about who you are.
Wildthing
Libertarians
Submitted by Sofie on
I was at City Hall last Saturday and noticed the End The Fed people scattered throughout the crowd.
Funny thing I noticed was that at around 5 oclock they all disappeared. An hour later they trickled back. At the time, I was making jokes about how they all went out to dinner or something.
Now that I see how fervently they are pressing their message, I wonder? Exactly how organized are they and what are they doing?
Or this? (from another post)
Submitted by Sofie on
An article about the End the Fed people:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/13/more-anti-semitism-at-occupy-los-angeles/
Who are the Fed?
Submitted by Mahayana on
William C. Dudley
President
Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Prior to joining the Bank in 2007, Mr. Dudley was a partner and managing director at Goldman, Sachs & Company and served as the firm's chief U.S. economist for a decade. Earlier in his career at Goldman Sachs, he had a variety of roles including a period when he was responsible for the firm's foreign exchange forecasts. Prior to joining Goldman Sachs in 1986, he was a vice president at the former Morgan Guaranty Trust Company.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/banks/pres02.htm
Charles I. PlosserPresident
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Dr. Plosser has served as a consultant to numerous companies, including Chase Manhattan Bank, the Eastman Kodak Company, and the Wyatt Company. He was a member of the New York State Board of Economic Advisors and has served on the board of directors of ViaHealth, Inc. and RGS Energy Group, Inc. He has served on advisory boards of the Rochester New Enterprise Forum, Chase Manhattan Bank, and the University Technology Seed Fund, LLC.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/banks/pres03.htm
Dennis P. LockhartPresident
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Mr. Lockhart held various positions, both domestic and international, with Citicorp/Citibank (now Citigroup) from 1971 to 1988. Early in his career with Citibank, he worked in the Middle East, first in Saudi Arabia as head of infrastructure project financing and then in Greece as training director for credit and managerial staff serving the region. Mr. Lockhart also served in Iran as chief operating officer of a commercial and consumer banking joint venture between Citibank and an Iranian affiliate. From 1978 to 1986, he was senior corporate officer of the Southeast office of Citibank in Atlanta. From 1987 to 1988, Mr. Lockhart was head of the firm's Latin American debt-to-equity swap investment program, designed to restructure sovereign debt.
From 1988 to 2001, he worked at Heller Financial, where he served as executive vice president and director of the parent company and as president of Heller International Group, which, through joint ventures or wholly owned operating companies, had activities in commercial banking, finance, and merchant banking in North and South America, Europe, and Asia.
From 2001 to 2003, Mr. Lockhart was managing partner at the private equity firm Zephyr Management L.P., based in New York with activity in Africa and Latin America.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/bios/banks/pres06.htm
Richard W. FisherPresident
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Mr. Fisher is former vice chairman of Kissinger McLarty Associates, a strategic advisory firm chaired by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
Mr. Fisher began his career in 1975 at the private bank of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., where he specialized in fixed income and foreign exchange markets.
In 1987, Mr. Fisher created Fisher Capital Management and a separate funds-management firm, Fisher Ewing Partners. He sold his controlling interests in both firms when he rejoined the government in 1997.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe
Ending the fed is not a
Submitted by OccupyLA on
Ending the fed is not a liberatarian issue. That's a closed minded view of the world, to view it as such.
If anyone actually bothered to read the history about the federal reserve, they'd see it isn't about a political party.
I also don't understand how people believe by ending the fed it'd be the end of the world.
You guys realize there had been TWO more centralized banks in American history, right? BOTH were dismantled in a matter of a few years.
A country should NOT owe ANYONE anything. A country should have a RIGHT to create its OWN money, without having to BORROW it from PRIVATE BANKERS.
Do any of you do not see the irony of printing money to borrow on it from private bankers, at interests, only to GIVE IT AWAY BACK TO THEM? How do people fail to see this irony in that? Because that's what we did when we bailed out the financial institutions.
Most people are COMPLETELY CLUELESS to how our financial system currently works. Every dollar the US prints, we have to borrow it WITH INTERESTS to a private entity. The Federal Reserve is run by people we do not even elect.
This is ANTI-DEMOCRACY.
Get it through your heads, people.
Our money is nearly worthless because the fed decides to do whatever they want, without answering to no one but the private stock holders. They just print print print print, while putting is in even more debt.
-mono
Ending the Fed
Submitted by Sofie on
Wow, could you be a bit more condescending? I think some of us clueless idiots need a bit more verbal bashing, don't you? Because we don't read or know history or anything, right? And of course, you know more than all of us put together, because you say so and type in ALL CAPS to prove it.
when people stop associating
Submitted by OccupyLA on
when people stop associating ideas/beliefs with political parties, then I'll stop. But by the looks of it, you completely ignore this thread (and they been doing it during open dialogue as a group at city hall too, they always try to assiciate it as a liberatarian and ron paul b.s.) and how condescending others are being so, but try to single me out. Nice try. I'm not a liberatarian and find it highly offensive that I would be dubbed one, simply because people want to assume something they seem to know very little of. I say this because their main point seems to be: "oh there go them liberatarians, trying to dismantle government. obviously. End the fed? Pfft, obviously liberatarian, dead give away". No thank you, far from the truth.
If I believe in "God", does that automatically make me a Christian? Of course not. Come on, lets be realistic.
I've never even voted for Ron Paul or for any Liberatarean candidate in my entire life. I find a lot of flaws with Ron, just as i do with various politicians.
It is rediculous that you find CAPS LOCK letters more offernsive, than people grouping and assuming and basically trying to descredit people by associating them with political parties, without any true substance to backup that claim.
Get real.
It is as bad as associating people with a certain race and assuming they will act a certain way, due to their skin color.
Sofie, I don't think she/he
Submitted by Mahayana on
Sofie, I don't think she/he meant it to sound condescending. I think she was possibly adressing the type of mentality found earlier on in this thread that claimed the End the Fed people were using "Underpants Gnome logic" and equated it to believing in unicorns. I think that a lot of people seem to have that mentality without really knowing the facts. We shouldn't waste time & energy fighting amongst ourselves.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe
Fed. Reserve is ANTI-DEMOCRACY--anti-Constitutional Republic
Submitted by Seth Spinolla on
-mono...you understand the vital crux of the problem (which is a global prolem too, ass the Banksters are globalists). It's way past time people got a grip on understanding the historical racket that succeeded in 1913 imposing a Central Bank (a plank of the Communist Manifesto btw, along with graduated income tax etc.) of privateer Bankster-pirates. It is such a simple racket, a 6 yr. old could understand the basics of the 'monetary sting' operation.
Without free speech no search for the truth is possible, no discovery of truth is useful. Better a thousandfold abuse of speech than denial. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.
"Most people are COMPLETELY
Submitted by ObamaFTW.com on
"Most people are COMPLETELY CLUELESS to how our financial system currently works. "
This is the case for many things. For example, most people are completely clueless on the process of fossilization. And yet, evolution is a fact--even though neither those who accept or disbelieve it have any real understanding of it. Creationists have a distorted straw man understanding of the process and believe they've "solved" the riddle to the grand evolutionary conspiracy. Well, the "End the Fed" followers are the creationists of this scenario.
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/the-federal-reserve/blame-game-end-the-fed-...
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/ron-paul/ron-paul-2012-ron-paul-economy
Occupy Wall Street
...
Submitted by Sofie on
The reason why people associate End the Fed with Libertarianism is simple. The genesis of the concept originated with proponents of the Austrian School of economic thought. In this thread, there are links and quotations from proponents of the Austrian School of economic thought. Libertarians and Ron Paul are of the Austrian School of economic thought.
Many of us have studied the Austrian school of economic thought and are not able to believe or accept their views, for various reasons. Some of us are quite repulsed, in fact, at how opposite it is to American liberalism and progressivism.
That said, my belief is that the Fed should be audited and have extensive oversight, but I do not think that ending the Fed is the way to go. The concept of the Fed serves a purpose in stabilizing our economic system and helping to rein in the banking industry. Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Keep the Fed, but fix any problems that have arisen.
And I encourage anyone who does not know the history of the Fed or the Austrian school of economic thought to seek out unbiased sources of information about both.
And there you go again
Submitted by OccupyLA on
And there you go again associating a completely logical idea with some movement or school or political party or politician.
A school or politician cannot take claim to an idea.
Let me guess, you're also gonna tell me the Austrian school of economic thought were also responsible for manipulating the minds to end the First Bank of The United States (the first central bank in US history)?
I take Thomas Jefferson was a straight A student at the Austrian school of economic thought, huh? :p http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States#Opposition
What, Hamilton was the only person able to think for themsleves?
Funny really, considering Thomas Jefferson was born in 1743.
And the Austrian Empire lasted from 1804–1867 (where the Austrian school w/e has roots/origins).
Strange :p
I guess next you're gonna tell me that President Andrew Jackson was too in cahoots with this Austrian school of teachings, right?
Considering he ended the Second Bank of the United States, yet another central bank that was dismantled.
What other conspiracy theories you got for me?
Conspiracies aside, what i would like to know is what can the Fed do that the Treasury deparmtment and whatnot wouldn't be able to do? At least the Treasury deparment is fully apart of the US gov, unlike the Fed.
Why should the power be granted to private bankers, unaccountable to the US voter? This is completely anti-deomocracy.
Thank you Sofie, for a well
Submitted by NeoGaia on
Thank you Sofie, for a well-written reasonable post!
I took FOUR Economics classes in college and I am an anti-capitalist but I frequently find when people want to "End the Fed", I usually find the non-racist arguments non-sensical. It's one of those "I don't think that means what you think it means" moments, or they're missing something very basic about how the economy works. On the internet when most people have encountered "End the Fed" arguments previous to the financial crisis they mostly linked back to some Zionist or Illuminati conspiracy theory.
Yes the Fed is un-democratic and I think that is a problem but reforming the Fed or making government banks might be a solution. The Fed is not by any means *the* problem.
If you end the Fed that does not prevent anyone from getting rich off of the labor of others without paying them decently. It does not prevent a small group of people from controlling most resources! [If they own the land, the natural resources, and the workplaces, ending the Fed won't make a huge difference in distributing the existing resources more equitably without other political reforms or radical political change.]
Rocio
www.twitter.com/neogaia
www.facebook.com/missrocio
Did you not read about her
Submitted by OccupyLA on
Did you not read about her conspiracy about Austrian school of economic thought? That too is a conspiracy at any rate.
Anyway, ending the Fed would liberate the country from borrowing money at interests from private entities. We should not be at debt to any bankers. We are our own country, we can produce our own money. As long as we control the quantity, as they currently do, things will be ok. It isn't the end of the world.
And ending the fed, doesn't necesarily imply completely destroying it. It just simply means ending it in its current form, which would be likely more realistic to do at this rate. especially with so many people freaking out that there wouldn't be a central bank (people can't grasp that idea apparently, even though the US has existed without one for years).
Ending the fed can contribute to various things economically. One solution will not end all the issues you raised, so why would you use Ending The Fed as an example that would not be able to end and solve all problems? Lets be a bit realistic, we need various solutions to various prolbems. not one solution will fix everyhting.
How about debate the actual proposal?
Submitted by Fex on
Instead of saying that the Austrian school of thought is wrong (by the way, I personally don't agree with it either) and identifying "end the fed" with Libertarians, why not debate the actual arguments being made for ending and/or the arguments for systems to replace it?
Posted this in this thread before, and since you insist on saying it's Austrian economic theory and therefor trash, here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjL108wA9QU
The video is Dennis Kucinich addressing the House of Representatives stating he believes the country should end the Federal Reserve (wait for it, he gives a few minutes talk of current economic problems first). Kucinich is anti-Austrian Economics and a Democrat.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Austrian School is a Pan-Europe Global Rothschild Outfit
Submitted by Seth Spinolla on
Study the history of the Austrian School, it's member economists and you are led back to the same global 'High Financiers' (theives), most often in the dynasty of the Rotchilds, their Warburg, Schiff, GOLDman/Sachs etc. confreres. The latter would concede the 'End of the Fed', as long as they could tie the monetary construct to their global 'gold' scam (they own/control most of the world's gold).
Ron Paul knows the Fed. is a private racket and that no gov't need be beholden for the creation and issuance of it's own money to private banksters. He knows gov't can create whatever monies it needs on behalf it's people--all the people--for the productive prosperous health of the nation. However, associating the necessity of tieing money to gold (silver or any precicious commodity) is pure bunk and plays into the hands of the banksters, who seem to be touting a move towards 'global banking' with a gold-calf tied to it.
There are plenty others who know the nature of the racket, it's history, who are not fooled by the gold or precious-commodity backed 'monies'. They do understand that money need only be based on the Production (and potential production)--The GDP/GNP. There is more to it, but that's a start that must be made or everything else that ails the world is for nought.
Without free speech no search for the truth is possible, no discovery of truth is useful. Better a thousandfold abuse of speech than denial. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.
Or also look at arguments from the source
Submitted by Fex on
Or also look at arguments from the source.
Congressional Record of the Senate session that passsed the Federal Reserve act on Dec 23rd, 1913: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17234309/Congressional-Record-Dec-23-1913
The Record was a more entertaining read than I thought, pretty dramatic. These guys weren't posing for TV or radio either (which didn't exist for news in 1913), but perhaps were for written journalism.
From the Congressional Record it is blatant that the entire Senate is not in session (it is just 2 days before Christmas after all and travel wasn't so easy in 1913, just over half the Senate at the time was present), that the bill was changed by a conference of Senators only a day prior of which not all Sentators were invited nor aware of the conference including R. Bristow of Kansas who was "a member of the committee of conference appointed by the President of the Senate," it was unclear that the updated changed version of the bill left on Senators' desks a day prior to passing the bill was actually the version of the bill to be passed or if further changes were made to it and no one had seen the actual bill being passed except those in the committee that altered it, and many questionable actions are brought up on the Senate floor pertaining to the bill itself and to the additional changes created.
Debate began almost immediately with representative Bristow stating "the conferees who participated in the conference on this bill have made certain changes in the bill, some of which I think are bad." Then Bristow proceeded to state how each change appears to defer more power to the banks, remove power from the populace and competitors, and he accuses some members of the Senate who support the bill that they benefit financially since they have shares in banks that stand to earn profit if the bill passes. Bristow's introduction ends some while later by stating "this bill contains a concentration of power that has never been lodged in any Federal officer since the Government was established. It puts in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury and his subordinate officer, the Comptroller of the Currency, a power over the banking and currency affairs of this Nation greater than has ever been held by any man in the history of any civilized nation over the banking and currency of that nation. . . . . Ah, you may pursue this course and deceive the American people for a time, but it will be for a limited time, and for a limited time only." And that's only the first part of the Congressional Record pertaining to the issue.
I wish I could make this up as a novel, however it's right there in the Congressional Record. Good drama, no? I was surprised myself upon first reading (and no radio or TV to pose for in 1913 for these guys, only the written press, and they still definitely try to bully each other with "patriotism"). It's even comic at times. A Senator defending why a questionable so-called "draft" of changes was printed and placed on Senators' desks:
" 'It was done for the convienience of the printers, so that when changes were made in conference they would not have to reset the whole matter, but could quickly make inserts in column 3.'
Sen. from Wyoming - 'It seems to me we are wasting a lot of time and a lot of money in printing."
Here's the 1913 act itself passed that day in pdf file format: FED RESERVE ACT - SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS. SEss. II. CHs. 4-6. 1913 . 251 Be it ...
Edit: All the political drama in the Congressional Record aside: one can read the actual Act, what it does, and read how Congress reacted at the time, plus near 100 years later see how it's all played out to this current day and how the system has worked, and hopefully have more information regarding whatever opinions one might have.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
from Sofie
Submitted by Sofie on
I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor is the Austrian School of economic thought a "conspiracy." I do not understand, nor appreciate, vague attacks on my character for expressing viewpoints that are not in line with yours. I am just bringing up some points that are being glossed over in this discussion.
I do advocate that anyone concerned with this matter read up, via unbiased sources, on the history of the Fed, the Austrian School, the genesis of the End the Fed movement, and who advocates the End the Fed movement. This is not conspiracy, this is simple research. Unbiased research.
The End the Fed voices are loud, fervent, and insistent, but I do not believe that they speak for the majority of people of OLA (if they did, the concept would have been embraced without any reservation.) I am merely presenting another counterpoint, and asking for unbiased research to shed some light on the matter.
Then you obviously must
Submitted by OccupyLA on
Then you obviously must understand how I don't appreciate having my views automatically dubbed and attached to a party or a "school of thought", and believeing it can only be associated with this or that, without taking into consideration that people can think for themselves by observing the straight out facts, that are actually directly related to this country.
I merely pointing out how the idea of going against a central bank has been around since the begining of this country, starting with the founding fathers, which predates this Austrian school theory claim.
Like I said: no one can own an idea.
@ Sofia
Submitted by Mahayana on
I do not understand, nor appreciate, vague attacks on my character for expressing viewpoints that are not in line with yours.
Oh, you mean like the vague attacks you made earlier by posting this link http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/13/more-anti-semitism-at-occupy-los-angeles/
implying that people who were talking about ending the fed were Anti-Semetic conspiracy theorists?
"The End the Fed voices are loud, fervent, and insistent, but I do not believe that they speak for the majority of people of OLA (if they did, the concept would have been embraced without any reservation.)
So because it has not been embraced without any reservation by the majority of the people, it cannot possibly be valid or something worth looking into? That is the exact kind of sheeple mentality that made this country so fucked up in the first place.
"Research who are the basic proponents of End the Fed. Research their economic views."
Yeah, and 10 years ago if you were on the streets holding up a sign protesting Wall Street, you would've been viewed as a total anti-American nutcase. I get my resources from valid verifiable resources. You really have to stop categorizing and stereotyping.
It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. – Henry Ford
"These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government."
-Teddy Roosevelt
"We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks. Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies; domestic swindlers, rich and predatory money lenders which prey upon the people of the united States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. The Federal Reserve Banks are the agents of the foreign central banks. The truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States by the arrogant credit monopoly which operates the Federal Reserve Board." -Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking & Currency Committee, speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, June 10, 1932
"Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately-owned and locally controlled corporations." -Lewis vs. U.S., 680 F. 2d 1239, 1241]
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe
Research
Submitted by Sofie on
Research who are the basic proponents of End the Fed. Research their economic views.
Hell, just do a quick google search. "Proponents of End the Fed." It isn't rocket science.
The "basic" proponents? Great
Submitted by OccupyLA on
The "basic" proponents? Great, there you go again. Claiming ownerniship of an idea to a certain group of people.
I don't understand your fixation with that to be honest.
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jacskon, among others were against central banks too, and they were born long before these suppose "basic" proponents of central banking.
But yet, you choose to ignore that?
This country was founded by people with different backgrounds, that shared similar ideas, even though at times they disagreed with one another.
People from different backgrounds can share an idea, because that idea belongs to no one.
And simply because a person agrees or identifies with an idea, does not automatically make them affiliated with whoever you wish to affiliate them with, be it a group or a certain person. They can be their own person and not be tied to some "group" you disagree with, due to different views on other issues.
This is not a black and white world.
It isn't either this or that. It can be a mixture of various things. That's the beauty of democracy. People with different background can come together and share an idea, they don't have to agree with everything they believe in, but they can share an idea.
And simply because you don't agree with other ideas that they propose, doesn't not negate productive idea that they may share with others. It difinately does not give them ownership to an idea to say the least. Nor does it descredit the idea.
Again: not a black and white world.
What does that matter?
Submitted by Fex on
Researching "Proponents of End the Fed" is fine and good. However, what does that actually bring to the discussions here, on these forums?
Should not the discussion be after someone brings up the topic of ending the Fed or not be something more as: "Should we end the Fed? What are the reason pro and against? What would replace the system? Is it something that needs to be done and does it actually have any bearing on Occupy's demand(s) regarding the 1% and getting money out of politics?" - Etc, something along these lines.
Pointing out that it's an Austrian economics idea or a Libertarian idea is not actually addressing, discussing, or debating any arguements that people have brought up, it's deflective and simply dismissing the issue. I fell into it anyway and provided an example of a Democratic Party non-Austrian-economist member of the House addressing the House about ending the Fed - which point is conveniently ignored, as is the content of the address.
"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal
Chill
Submitted by nobody on
OccupyLA - I think I get your position, but you have to be less insulting in your responses. It's difficult to take you seriously when you're shouting in text.
I associated "end the fed" with Libertarians, particularly conspiracy theory types, because the few people I ever knew who were into the topic were one or the other.
Then, I looked for the phrase, and a book titled "End the Fed" by Ron Paul came up.
I've also seen it in Zeitgeist, and in excerpts from The Creature from Jekyll Island, the book that inspired the anti money part of the film. I don't like either of these.
This isn't me trying to discredit "end the fed" - these are my experiences. They're the reason why
I hope you dont think I'm "stupid" for not studying the topic in depth. I know it's important to you. It's just not a top issue for me.
9 trillion goes missing from the Fed.
Submitted by Mahayana on
Abolish it or fix it - we just can't allow this shit to go on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYNVNhB-m0o&feature=player_embedded#!
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe
Bu its good to know the sources of political proposals isn't it?
Submitted by Lee on
If I were to have a slogan say, " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and someone says Hey, that's a proposal from Karl Marx, it could make sense for me to say well, but judge the idea on its merits, and don't start bringing in Josef Stalin and a lot of stuff that happened long after Marx was dead. But I don't think it would make sense for me to say," what are you a conspiracy theorist? I'm perfectly capable of thinking of this myself! " Maybe I wouldn't remember the source of my own inspiration, but these ideas do circulate through society and influence us; I don't think each of us just makes them up all by ourselves. And by putting the proposals in their theoretical framework and context, that can help us understand them better, right?
Leone
Proposal sources
Submitted by Mahayana on
I hate to admit this, but it wasn't until this very thread that I discovered people associate those who oppose the Fed with Libertarians and Ron Paul. Yeah, I have been very out of the loop with politics until a little over a year ago.
I first learned of the Federal Reserve, CFR, Bilderberg group, etc.. and of their power over our government waaaay back in 94. This was around the time I formed my opinion of the fed. I don't recall any politicians who shared that view at the time. I don't think Ron Paul was even in gov't then. The only places where I heard these views was in obscure books and my Jello Biafra spoken word LPs.
I oppose the Fed on a very basic level. I think the people that are in it are crooks and have been since its creation. There's overwhelming evidence that shows this. Maybe a Federal Reserve system/private central bank IS the best way to go. I don't know the first thing about economics, but you don't have to be an expert to know that the Fed we have now is criminal. Lets say there's a bank in a small town and the owner discovers that all of the employees have been stealing from customer bank accounts for years. You don't blame it on the concept of storing money in the bank and resort to stashing money under your mattress, you fire the employees. Firing everyone in the fed wouldn't solve anything. Our president would just appoint more JP Morgan, Citibank, Goldman Sachs affiliates. Independent investigations would be required to determine how deep the corruption runs.
People think they are arguing economic schools of thought, and maybe some are, but I think a lot of people (myself included) are more concerned with who is in the Fed, rather than the concept of it. Those currently in the Fed are manipulating the money and for whatever reason, intentionally causing an economic crisis. If the Fed people were ethical human beings and not crooks - we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe
To Nationalize the FED" - Dennis Kucinich - October 6, 2011
Submitted by Seth Spinolla on
"To Nationalize the FED" - Dennis Kucinich - October 6, 2011
Uploaded by DJKucinich on Oct 4, 2011
Washington D.C. (October 4, 2011) -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today released the following video and statement in support of the protestors on Wall Street and around the country who have identified themselves with the hashtag #OccupyWallStreet:
... "To the young men and women who are braving the overreaction of local authorities to raise their voices against the corruption and manipulation of our nation that emanates from Wall Street: I say to you that your presence is making a difference. You are exercising the right every American holds most dear, the right of freedom of expression, and with that expression you are finally getting the attention of the nation.
"Wall Street banks got billion dollar bailouts but the American people get austerity. Fourteen million Americans are out of work. 50 million people don't have health insurance and a million people a year lose their homes to foreclosure. Our policies take the wealth of the nation and accelerate it into the hands of the few.
"We need a government of the people and for the people. We need a financial system that is of the people and for the people. It is time we take our nation back and take our monetary system back from the big banks.
"I recently introduced H.R. 2990, the National Emergency Employment Defense Act, to put the Federal Reserve under the Treasury, to end the practice of fractional reserve banking and to take control of our monetary policy and make sure it works for the people.
"We can use our Constitutional authority to coin money and spend it into circulation to put millions of Americans back to work in a way that is noninflationary. The time for bold change is now.
"We are the American people. Our dream of freedom and prosperity is too big to fail."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IdPyYRnOY0&feature=player_embedded
Without free speech no search for the truth is possible, no discovery of truth is useful. Better a thousandfold abuse of speech than denial. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.
Whoever controls the money system, controls the Nation
Submitted by Seth Spinolla on
Above quote by Steven Zarlenga. Here is Kucinich's bill submitted Sept. 21,2011
http://www.monetary.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/HR-2990.pdf
Without free speech no search for the truth is possible, no discovery of truth is useful. Better a thousandfold abuse of speech than denial. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.
Pages