Fed Reserve Created With Good Intentions But Gone astray like Enron?
Posted March 16th, 2008 by SyntheticSolutions
output
Is it possible that the Fed Reserve has gone astray from mismanagement and greed from the individuals that comprise it? I have a feeling that most of you would suggest that it was conceived with ill intent and that the comparison below doesn't apply. Do you think that maybe it is more accurate to suggest that the central banking institutions prior to 1913 (starting with Hamilton) were initiated with good intentions as compared to the Federal Reserve.
"As always its so easy to wish for something different in view of flaws with what one has. But, in my experience, simplistic, theoretical solutions are seldom workable. It seems to me that, like our very flawed democracy, the current Federal banking system, with adjustments made over the years, works. But, institutions are people. My oft stated platitude is that good people can make bad institutions work well and bad people can make good institutions work badly. I've worked hard to build good institutions only to see them undermined by bad players such as Enron."
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Shame on you
Shame on you syntheticsolutions! ! ! . Can't you not get an honest job?? How much do you get paid to sell out america to the bankers?? shame, shame, shame, on you for doing their dirty work. You should support freedom and not work for organized crime (american banking) monopolist.
I hope your mom and dad never see how bad you turned out. Look at this video Sythetic and see the corrupt people you work for. http://www.youtube.com/wa...
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
No, no, no!!!
There were and are no "good intentions" from these money changers! They have been with us always--think Jesus in the temple turning over the tables of those he knew to be scum! We are dealing with the same scum here and now. No "good intentions" here whatsoever!
The Perfect Ultimate Slavery Program
1. Every person is owned at birth. No acquisition costs. No public auctions required.
2. They don't know it. (at least for the first 100 years)
3. No nasty shackles or chains required.
4. Rate of interest can be bumped up anytime.
5. No costly security details required. The slaves pay for that too (U.S. military - FBI - CIA - Homeland Security)
6. Slaves are free to move about, take initiatives to create ever more commerce which in turn generates an ever increasing stream of money, from which the slave masters continually take a larger percentage.
7. The salves like 'SyntheticSolutions' see the slave master as indespensible. Can't live or survive without the slave master.
"PunJab! Bring me my checkbook!"
"backed"
a lot of posts use the phrase "backed by gold" or a related phrase. My question is, What do you mean when you use the word "backed"? Is it an actual condition? A system?
Can you explain it? If not then you might need to reconsider what you "know".
Backed simply means that the
Backed simply means that the organization issuing the paper will give you gold (or whatever the backing is) if you turn the paper in.
ok
Fortune Favors the Bold
there was barter. barter was inefficient. They set uniform exchange values, ie. money. Precious metals were used. People realized you could store precious metals somewhere, then make lonas with them to others because not everyone would get their metal at the same time. Eventually, it was certificates of the paper that redemeed the metal. but hardly anybody ever got the metal. You could print more paper then actual metal you needed to back it, on the same above principle. With the end of the gold standard, you are printing paper, because everyone assumes the paper has value. The problem is, since there is no limit to how much paper you print, the exchange value is no longer set, hence, you're basically back to a barter system, since nobody knows what the paper is worth.
The mystery of money is the mystery of saving for retirement.
From your example, I get the impression that money represents the value of goods that used to be bartered. I think this is wrong because if money represented the value of goods, the value of money must decline as the value of goods decline and people should not be able to save to retire.
Instead, I now believe that money represents an economic system that is stable or that is growing. And when you sell your goods, you are exchanging your goods with a part of the stable or growing economic system and money is the stock certificate of the system. Only in this way, the saving function of money makes sense.
Just my thoughts.
I guess I am not satisfied
How does one earn "paper" if they don't work directly for the issuers?
"Uniform exchange values" last how long?
Does paper have value or not?
do some more research
there are some really good video suggestions on the the main page of daily paul to get you started.
I think I have a thorough understanding
of monetary systems but I am not convinced anyone else on this thread does. Any yet they give advice and make predictions as if they do.
the good intentions from a rather broad historical perspective
would have been derived from the overall patrician attitude of England seeding itself in America. A relatively few aristocrats running the way of life of the country was still a reality in 19th century England and well expressed in the Bank of England. Our titans were still in thrall to that model, with a good measure of American nouveau rich arrogance that they could do it even better. And if they had to amend the constitution to do it, they damn well could.
The problem is that the difference between the 19th and 20th centuries, or the 20th century and mankind's...um, humankind's...entire history, in so many ways, is so profound as to be almost apocalyptic. I'd say their intentions were good but maybe their assumptions were ephemeral.
Today...are there bad guys in charge? I really don't think so. The institution arrogates tremendous power to itself and these "great" market geniuses just use it, reflecting the current assumption that the ephemeral ends of maintaining the illusion of prosperity and the "city on the hill" justify the means. Problem is...history is looking to make another desperate lurch forward.
Oh, Enron going astray? Like an animal? If they are the stray sheep, why did we get shorn?
Read
Creature from Jekyll Island. Read about the Great Depression. Understand nothing this corporate government has ever done is to benefit their people, its just to shore up thier power base. If they control our money they control the world.
Stop letting them control our money support www.libertydollar.org.
As you guys design a new Money System, please consider these.
Here are some of my thoughts:
1. The idea of saving is fraud if money was to represent wealth in terms of goods and services. This is because the value of goods and services decline over time, some much quicker than others. So, if money was to represent wealth in terms of goods and services, the value of money should decline over time and money should have a very time limited ability to save one's wealth, and the idea of saving for one's retirement is a fraud.
2. If money should enable people to save for their retirement, money should be a representation of the productive population/the economy/an economic system because the value of the collective economy is much more stable than individual goods and services. In this concept, money is much like stock certificate. If this is the basic idea of money, then owning some money means that you have a claim for a certain portion of the productive population/the economy/an economic system.
So, I'm thinking that if you are going to design a Money System, you have to make up your mind to go with either 1 or 2.
Interestingly, gold, at first glance, seems to be a hybrid of 1 and 2, but I don't know if this is good or bad. The hybrid might just mean more confusion and larger errors from the point of view of 1 as well as from the point of view of 2. But, I don't know. I'm still thinking.
Maybe, we should have two money system: 1 to represent the value of goods and services and 2 to represent the ownership of the economic system.
Anyway, no conclusion. Just some thoughts for you to consider.
I've spent a few hours so
I've spent a few hours so far thinking up possible alternatives to our money system, but I'm stumped for something self-maintaining. Also, it seems you often have to give up something to get something else. The best I've come up with uses a mixture of things, but has a bottom line of needing maintenance. Our current inflationary system is basically on auto-pilot, with only recently having the addition of Fed adjusted rates to regulate inflation. What I'm saying is that we the people may ultimately need more of a hand in what happens with our currency as it is so important.
How about think Money like Stocks?
And, in this line of thinking it's better if each state issued its own money stock rather than the Federal Government issuing one type of money, so that people have more choices.
If one state starts to inflate or dilute its money stock, people can just start using another state's money.
Of course, if a state choses to issue money stock backed by gold or silver, go ahead, but I think it's a stupid idea. Think about it. Is there any corporation that guarantees its stock by gold and silver, so that if the business fails people can redeem their stock holding in gold or silver? Nonsense, right?
We don't try to stop corporations from diluting their stock by forcing them to guarantee their stock by gold or silver. It is shareholders knowledge and the market mechanizm that prevent dilution.
If we think of money as money stock that represents each state's economy, we should be able to use a similar type of mechanism.
Each state can increase its money stock if it wants to expand its economy like corporations issue new stocks, but if the state fails to expand its economy to justifiy the increase in the money stock, the state will be punished by people starting to use another state's money (or it shows up in the exchange rate). Knowing this, people will pay much closer attention to the state's money supply.
Anyway, these are just ideas and I'm still thinking.
Gold as Money doesn't make sense.
Now that I think about it. I think, in reality, money does not represent values of goods and services, rather it represents the value of the economic system of a nation like I described in 2 above. Then, in various markets, the value of goods and services are determined/measured against the value of the economic system of the nation. I think this makes much more sense.
If so, then, it doesn't seem to make any sense for any one commodity to be used as money because all commodities are parts of the entire economic system, therefore, it makes no sense for a part to repreasent the whole.
Just my thoughts.
Of course it does
Money BACKED by a commodity that retains value is the only type of monetary system that has ever worked, historically. Gold and silver is typically used because of thier stability. It doesn't have to be gold.. could be pallidium, platinum, etc....
As long as the money is actually BACKED by something, then it will work. A fiat system never has in recorded history.
GOLD STANDARD NEVER WORKED EITHER.
Those who say fiat money never worked are conveniently forgetting that Gold standard never worked, either. If it did, every country would be still using some kind of gold standard.
Fractional Banking
is the culprit. Gold works just fine as long as bankers don't try to "loan out" the same piece of gold a half dozen times...
International bankers will resist the gold (or any other commodity) standard because it makes fractional banking a much more difficult parlor illusion to maintain.
"Money Masters": google video.
How naive are you guys? Or are you that naive?
When you say thatthe fed works you are either lying or very very very misinformed. Do you not get any of what Ron Paul has been trying to tell you?
The federal reserve was created to take control of the money, the economy and the country. When they got control of the countries finances they controlled everything. They they got control of the press and we have been manipulated ever since thinking that the news media is on the publics side to expose government corruption. You better do some reading!
Ain't no "good intentions" here
Not a one.
"I HAVE BETRAYED MY
"I HAVE BETRAYED MY COUNTRY"
http://www.knology.net/~b...
While historians agree that it was the Panic of 1907 that demonstrated the "need" for a central bank, they overlook the fact that J.P. Morgan intentionally started it by spreading rumors that the Knickerbocker Bank and the Trust Company of America were insolvent. Believing the rumors, the public began a run on the banks - and the rumors came true.
In response to that Morgan-instituted panic, Congress set up a National Monetary Commission to study central banking. A group of 16 Congressmen, under the leadership of Senator Nelson Aldrich (David Rockefeller's maternal grandfather), spent two years royally dining their way across Europe discussing centralized banking.
They returned to the United States and in 1910 met secretly at Jekyll Island, Georgia, to brief representatives of the big banking interests.
Paul Warburg, a German financier and partner in the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, handled the planning for the banking insiders setting up the Federal Reserve System.
Although plans for the Federal Reserve were presented by Warburg and agreed upon at that secret Jekyll Island meeting, it was not until the elections of 1912 that the powerful bankers were in a position to foist centralized banking on the country. A previous attempt in 1909 by Senator Nelson Aldrich, known as "Morgan's floor broker in the Senate," had failed to pass a Democrat-controlled Congress and only served to call public attention to the machinations of the international bankers.
But by backing Teddy Roosevelt on the Bull Moose ticket the Rockefeller-Morgan interests were able to pull away enough votes from William Howard Taft, the Republican Presidential candidate, to elect their man Woodrow Wilson.
With Wilson in the Presidency, the Aldrich bill was resubmitted as the Glass bill. Wilson and his alter ego, the Morgan agent Edward Mandell House, pressured Democrats to pass the Glass bill, disguised as a measure to strip Wall Street of its power, in the name of party unity. Meanwhile, the banking insiders put up a smokescreen of opposition and were aided in their deception by proponents of the original Aldrich measure.
The scheme worked.
The Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 22, 1913, and the insiders of international banking were in control of our nation's economy. While these bankers created a perpetual Santa Claus for themselves, Christmas for most Americans has never been quite as merry as it once had been.
On Sunday, December 23, 1913, two days before Christmas, while most of Congress was on vacation, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law.
Wilson would later express profound regret over his tragic decision, stating:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world - no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
=========================
But in 1913 Congress passed the "Federal Reserve Act," relinquishing the power to create and control money to the Federal Reserve Corporation, a private company owned and controlled by bankers.
The word "Federal" was used only to deceive the people. The term "central bank" was carefully avoided.
The Federal Reserve Act created a Board of Directors, the Federal Reserve Board, to run the Federal Reserve Corporation with a monopoly to create and control the currency of the United States.
This infamous legislation was accompanied with appropriate fanfare and propaganda that it would "remove money from politics" and "prevent boom and bust from hurting our citizens."
The people were not told then, and still do not know today, that the Federal Reserve Corporation is a private monopoly controlled by bankers, operated for the financial gain of the bankers at the expense of the people.
Since that day of infamy a small group of privileged people who lend us "our money," have accrued to themselves all of the profits of printing paper currency – and so much more.
Since 1913 they have created trillions of dollars in currency and credit, which as their own personal property, they then lend to our government and our people, with interest.
The main architect of the Federal Reserve System was Paul Moritz Warburg, who came from a famous German banking family.
The kingpin who steered the Federal Reserve Act through Congress was Senator Nelson Aldrich, Chairman of the Finance Committee. He was the maternal grandfather of Nelson A. Rockefeller, of Standard Oil and Chase Manhattan Bank. Aldrich's daughter, Abby Greene Aldrich, married John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in 1901. At the time, many people regarded Senator Aldrich as the Rockefeller family's mouthpiece in the Senate.
The Federal Reserve Act was passed during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson.
Just before he died Wilson is reported to have said that he had been deceived and "I have betrayed my country." He also said:
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit has been concentrated. The growth of the nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world - no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, BUT A GOVERNMENT BY THE OPINION AND DURESS OF SMALL GROUPS OF DOMINANT MEN."
http://www.fdrs.org/banki...
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson
Federal Reserve Act and Fractional Reserve Banking
The way I see it, it doesn't really matter what the intentions were by the people behind the Federal Reserve act. I personally believe that their goals were nefarious and the whole system is designed to take money from the population without having to tax excessively.
What matters is not whether fractional reserve banking, central economic planning, or the Federal Reserve system was created with good intentions. To me, what matters is how they are performing for us now. Slowly people are losing confidence in these practices and institutions. Especially people that know history and monetary policy. The Fed pulls its levers and the markets rally for a time but then the sell off begins again. The more they intervene the worse it will get. I imagine we will have price controls and wage freezes in the future.
Read The Creature From
Read The Creature From Jykell Island by G. Edward Griffin. This was definitely conceived with ill intent and not just some well intentioned idea gone bad.
--------------------------------------------------------
If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin. Samuel Adams
I was just about the recommend the Creature myself!
No question about it, these sleazeballs had the intention of taking over the country and the world....which they are doing now....
While normal folks may make a "5-year plan," these guys make "100 year plans." They plan long range for their next generation to inherit the earth.
As a matter of fact, the Fed began in 1913. And by 2013, the economic meltdown will force everyone to surrender to the New World Order...So yeah, looks like they are on target.
But the one thing they didn't foresee was a mass awakening. So the game is not over yet.
I concur with your assessment
Once the banksters gained control of the money, they knew they could control everything else.
money is used
Money is used to control the people. G Edward Griffith reveals the truth about the Federal Reserve Bank.
Federal Reserve Bank Is not Federal or Reserve.
If you want to know the truth it is available. Look at the history of the creation of the Federal Reserve. ........... ***very informative very*** ..........
******* http://www.silverbearcafe... *******
The monopoly control of the american money supply allows the bankers to control you and our government.
"good people can make bad
"good people can make bad institutions work well'
Good people didn't create this BAD Institution. BAD people created a BAD institution.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson
The Central Bank...
"The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution...if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
---Thomas Jefferson
The Perfect Ultimate Slavery Program
1. Every person is owned at birth. No acquisition costs. No public auctions required.
2. They don't know it. (at least for the first 100 years)
3. No nasty shackles or chains required.
4. Rate of interest can be bumped up anytime.
5. No costly security details required. The slaves pay for that too (U.S. military - FBI - CIA - Homeland Security)
6. Slaves are free to move about, take initiatives to create ever more commerce which in turn generates an ever increasing stream of money, from which the slave masters continually take a larger percentage.
7. The salves like 'SyntheticSolutions' see the slave master as indespensible. Can't live or survive without the slave master.
"PunJab! Bring me my checkbook!"
Spot on!
Good answer. Those who founded the Fed had "good intentions" for themselves. Each of them was thinking, "Hey, I'm as much 'the public' as anybody else, why shouldn't I run the world? If somebody is going to print up all the money, why shouldn't it be me?"
But, this is becoming common knowledge, so
now what?
The Congress
must repeal the Federal Reserve Act!
The Federal Reserve near the end of its life ANYWAY.
That's my opinion. I'd think this is pretty obvious. See my comment below.
the key word: BECOMING
Everyone needs to know and understand what the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking are all about. 'Becoming' is not good enough. This education of the people must be comprehensive and pervasive to have the desired effect. So, we keep working.
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
You'd be surprised
Fortune Favors the Bold
the majority of Americans barely know what the FED is, let alone how it works
Don't worry about the majority
Focus on educated.
Pay no attention to them.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
This is a retarded comment
I am not educated (other than school of hard knocks) and I want this message out, and I needed to hear this message. Get this groupthink out of here.
'Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for,
Begging hands and bleeding hearts
Will only cry out for more...'
My bad.
eom.
The more I look at this, and
The more I look at this, and think, and think on it I come up with the opinion that the Fed is not really our primary problem. It allows for certain unwanted economic effects, but I believe the real reason the dollar is devalued and on the brink of collapse is unchecked governmental ability to use the Fed at its behest and explode the debt and money supply. Why should any person (i.e. the President) be able to simply say, "er... give me eight trillion please" and have that happen?
Central banking has the advantage to facilitate growth of a country, and I think the money as debt/inflation theory is viable as long as interest rates are checked to be kept low, and natural economic corrections are allowed to play out. What I'm getting at is that the actual devaluation of the currency is not directly the fault of the Fed.
Not sure if you understand.
The fact that you treat "the debt and money supply" separately makes me wonder if you understand this at all.
As I understand this, virtually all money supply is debt. Money supply is debt supply.
The problem is that when banks create money, they create only principals, but the borrowers have to pay both the principals and the interests. Therefore, in order for a borrower to pay off his debt, he must get other people's principal. In other words, everyone is after everyone else's principal. This not only creates extereme (and unnecessary) competitions among people, but the end result will be that the Fed will own everything.
This is a very bad system for everyone.
Good observation... I was
Good observation... I was not trying to separate the two - debt is the money supply. What I was trying to convey as being separate is the type of debt. Debt from a person can be considered as worth something, as that person will (usually) work to pay it back and collateral usually backs it up. However, government debt is more sticky because they essentially control the money, which as you point out IS debt, so in effect they can actually make the debt worth less by simpy creating more money - devaluing the currency. That was my point.
As far as the central bank eventually owning everything, I'm working on that... but you have to remember that what they would mathematically own is the currency not the things actually worth something, such as houses, land, and your labor - unless they took these in direct exchange for the paper as collateral...
So what would happen if
people couldn't pay off their debt. Who would own the houses and land then. The bank maybe? lol
As far as government debt
As far as government debt goes, defaulting does not give over land and houses. Our government debt is only backed by the "full faith and credit" of the country. As far as personal debt, not all of it is secured by collateral such as houses and land. However, in an unprecedented move some of the debt which WAS secured by collateral (those bad mortgages) IS, now being given over to the Fed as they execute bailouts, which I didn't know that was legally possible, but I guess we are allowing it...
Oh, I see, but from a system point of view,
this is a type of system that its effects grow exponentially. An exponential growth has a long slow grwoth period at the beginning and very rapid and explosive growth near the end.
So, it looks to me that, yes, the government is a big part of it, but it is rather a nature of the system that the debt is increasing at the explosive rate right now.
This also seems to suggest that the Federal Reserve System is near the end of its life.
So, there is nothing radical about Ron Paul and other people saying "Abolish the Fed." In my view, it's rather a moot point because the Federal Reserve System will self-distruct pretty soon anyway, as far as I can see. Just as more people begin to understand the system, the system is likely to be obsolete pretty, soon.
Then, what would replace this system? Amero? A new gold standard? Or greenback type solution? I don't know, but it seems to me that bankers would like either Amero or a new gold standard, but not a greenback type solution. I may be wrong, but at least, I think there are three groups: NAU-Amero, Gold Standard and Greenbackers.
Yes, I agree. I'm working on
Yes, I agree. I'm trying to think up a new system - one that takes the best of the existing camps, and leaves out as many of the negatives as possible. I was simply trying to extract the limited value that the Fed (central banking) actually does have in that it does allow for economic expansion better than a finite gold supply as SyntheticSolutions has pointed out. So far what I have come up with, though, is highly de-centralized all the way down to local levels. Identifying the problems is the first step to fixing them, and I was just trying to point out government's crucial role in the mess we are in.
a paper system
Fortune Favors the Bold
backed by gold still allows for expansion of money supply, but the inflation is proportional to gold. Ultimately, (just my personal opinion) I am more a fan of the community credit system. It actually selectively favors those who are honest.
Yes, I agree. I think gold
Yes, I agree. I think gold could be used effectively to get the best of both worlds if done correctly. I also agree with a more local credit / exchange system. It's an interesting problem, but we have left it outsourced to the Fed, unfortunately, and that is leading us where we don't want to go.
Everything is done with good intentions.
At least, I'd like to believe that everthing is done with good intentions, but the problem is that someone's good intentions can actually have very bad consequences to other people.
But, my guess is that those who are in power are much more knowledgeable, and therefore, they think they know what's good for everyone. It's sort of like how parents treat children. I think this is a common temptation that everyone has to some degree. However, this is an idea based on fear. Attitudes based on fear and distrust eventually turn into greed and distruction. On the other hand, courage and trust will lead to generousity and prosperity.
The Federal Reserve, even if it was created with good intentions, it is a central control and it is a creation based on fear if not greed, and it has become the major distructive force to all humans for quite sometime.
The problem is that fear feeds itself and those who are in power may be on the verge of destroying all human beings. I hope they will wake up. Only courage and trust will lead anyone to prosperity. I think I should start myself. I trust that, at least, some of them will realize and have the courage.
Good intentions -- good for whom?
Sure, everyone has "good" intentions. The real question is, "Good for whom?" Those in power may start out wanting to do what is best for "the country as a whole," or "the public" but once they are elected, they soon discover that that "the public" does not exist, and that there is NO "public interest." Only individual people exist, or have interests. So which of all those individuals and individual interests shall the politician serve?
Dr. Paul takes the position that government should not be in the business of doing positive services for ANYONE; government should only be around to protect us from those who initiate the use of force or fraud against us.
Most politicians, on the other hand, DO accept the premise that government should be doing whatever "the people" want, and then they have the problem of deciding which of all the people they hear from constitutes "the people." But if you look around, you never see a "people" or a "public" or a "nation." All you see are these confounded individuals, each one needing or wanting something different for himself or herself. With the best will in the world, what can a politician do? He finds no answer -- on those terms, there IS no answer. So he decides to serve the interests of the one member of "public" that he knows best -- himself. Why not? He's as much a member of the public as anyone, isn't he? So he sets out to serve himself first, and as an adjunct to that noble cause, he will also further the interests of those whose interests coincide or agree with his own agenda. After all, he does need SOMEBODY to vote him back into office for another ride on the gravy train.