Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

• Robt August 4, 2008 11:47 pm

  

  Skip,

  Sure there was no ” Federal Reserve Bank ” by name.
  I view the Fed as a ecomonic banking system. The “Fed” (by name)like you say, came with the 1913 Act. With a few extras. All this did was basically privatize the banking system and rename it as the Fed. Yes, along with the banking system came the power to print money among other sensitive economic dubious monetary governing of the Fed.

  But as you point out, Before the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. President Lincoln printed his “Greenbacks” to fund our beloved civil war.
  He (Gov’t) had control. For better or for the worse. Arguments can be made.

  I’ll admit that the currency control wasn’t exactly the same as the Fed initiated in 1913. But it was an economic monetary (banking) system controlled by the Gov’t all the same (with its own set of problems). How else could President Lincoln have printed from the Treasury if he didn’t have control of it ?

  I am not closed minded to have the Fed control moved into the Gov’t control. I do believe it would present its own set of troubles. Whether its troubles would be greater or lesser than the Quasi Fed is difficult for me to grasp. It is tempting to give the Fed control over to Gov’t. Yet I look at a partisan party control owned by lobbyists. We would be giving the Fed over to Lobbyists at this point.

  Maybe we outsource the Fed control to India?

  There is no doubt that leaving the Gold standard is almost as concerning as quasi Gov’t Fed. I really see no signs of Gov’t having much control or say over the Fed. Do you?

  By the way, interesting quote by Sir Josiah Stamp.
  I have heard that sharia law in the middle east does not allow interests on loans. Not sure if that is true. Maybe not much money is given in the for of loans in the Mid East.

• Skip August 4, 2008 9:50 pm

  

  Robt,

  The FED was never under the control of the government. It was rushed in Patriot Act style during a Christmas recess after a manufactured economic panic in 1913. The income tax was created at the same time to pay for all the interest we must pay these bankers for creating money out of nothing. When did the government actually print its own money. They printed the interest-free colonial script in pre-revolutionary times and a war resulted. Andrew Jackson printed interest free money and was nearly assasinated. Lincoln printed his greenbacks to finance the civil war and was assasinated. There was another president in the late 1800s (forgot his name) that stood on a stong monetary reform platform and was killed within 6 months of the inaguration. Then there was a senator who was pushing for similar reforms in the 30s and was poisoned. Finally Kennedy started to print Lincoln’s greenbacks and was assasinated. Do you see a pattern here? There are some very powerfull forces out there that are determined to maintain the status quo.

  “Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.”

  Sir Josiah Stamp – Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928)
  Reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.

• To whom much is given--much is expected August 2, 2008 9:44 am

  

  After accumulating so much wealth–a point of diminishing returns ensues–when that energy must be circulated–or it becomes stagnant and morally infective

• Robt August 2, 2008 2:34 am

  

  By the way, Mark makes a most excellent point on the creativity drive and wealth. “once someone has made millions or billions what is their incentive?

  I must add, if money is the only driver then society becomes Bagdad (outside the green zone or gang controlled parts of the cities).

  We can see how Paris Hilton’s parent’s wealth has made Paris Hilton creative and industrious.

  Kenneth Lay of Enron was highly motivated. It got him, his employees, and society what?

  Health insurance Companies make their money denying coverage to those that pay them for coverage. That is a real creative money maker.

  Bear Sterns CEO walked away from a taxpayer bailed out fiasco. The bank was a private for profit and it externalized its costs and debts to the taxpayer.

  Not all but TOO many companies are using the Gov’t to subsidize the or bail them out when in trouble. But reap in profit for themselves giving nothing back to the taxpayer, Gov’t, society that they play pyramid games with to amass their wealth as the share holders and everyone else goes bankrupt, the executive walk with millions or in some cases billions.

  Anyways, Mark makes a very good point on wealth creativity and incentive.

  Working class trade their labor for pay to an employer that exhanges employees a pay for that labor to make a profit from said labor. Basically.

  Are companies really making that much in profit off the wages of their CEO’s?

  Then as Mark points out there is Japan and how they deal with this?

• Robt August 2, 2008 2:05 am

  

  Skip,
  Your right that the Fed is not controlled presently by the Gov’t.

  My Gaffe in how I said it.

  It should have read that the Fed has in the past been controlled by the Gov’t and it had its problems as well. That returning control to the Gov’t would represent themselves and possibly for the worse. Thanks for pointing that out. Didn’t mean to mislead………..