Why do American call it "Federal" when it is a private bank?

[Freedom&Liberty]

Gee, that sounds quite bad "...Since de Fed was created, the dollar has depreciated by 95%. Our economy is built on sand."

How come the dollar has depreciated that much? Is that so bad?. I feel bad saying so simple things, just want to know.

The dollar has depreciated so badly because the Federal Reserve has created trillions of dollars out of thin air. This creates inflation. Inflation has made the dollar worth 95% less than it was 100 years ago.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Why is there that always spoil the threads, we were talking about something, and always, two guys begin to argue something out of the point, something personal, ...mature people!

Because Snouter is a troll who lives to derail discussions with attempts to subvert them by changing the focus to either me, or Israel/Zionists/Jews, etc.

[loureed4]

Can anyone create something "out of thin air" without negative consequences?

[Cyclone Ranger]

Again, that's less inflation than would be expected by the rule of 72.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Can anyone create something "out of thin air" without negative consequences?

It's impossible to run an economy without negative consequences of some kind, as economics is about trade-offs.

That inflation created the economic growth and technology sets that made America the world's powerful nation.

[loureed4]

is impossible to run an economy without negative cosequences?

Economy= try to spend less and get more. (from a dictionary)

[Cyclone Ranger]

Yes, economics is about trade-offs. You have to give up some of one thing to get another.

For example, in order to create the technologies that we enjoy today - microprocessors, the Internet, cellular networks, etc. - the money supply had to increase enough to allow new industries to finance the necessary capital investments.

That means the inflation we've experienced since the Seventies represents in large measure society's investment in technology.

[9ball8]

But we see very little inflation during the last few years. CR's observation (post #67) notes one particular sector of the economy -related to computers- that has seen "deflation" at the consumer level.

That is the "work in progress" which is the mixed capitalist economy. We claim that inflation is necessary, but see contradictions. We claimed (100 years ago) that going off the gold standard would result in massive inflation and market crashes, yet saw a period of growth and prosperity that beat all previous periods in history. We claim that socialism [B]or[B] capitalism is the best option, yet no one can demonstrate a state where pure capitalist or pure socialist systems were successful in the last 200 years. The best they can do is point to a brief period (Scotland's banking system, or Soviet Union's 5 year plan to gear up for World War II). In all cases, the "pure system" committed suicide within 3-4 generations (80 years or less).

It takes most people decades to learn essentials in economics. In addition to the above, here's a few other pointers for you, loureed: Purists (capitalist or socialist) are wrong, because they refuse to acknowledge that both tendencies exist in each individual.
Never trust a person who claims that "economists are all wrong". Economics is not a science like chemistry -yet. But there has been much progress in the last few decades, especially with the aid of high speed computers. Look for sources who treat economics with respect and subject it to the scientific method. Find economists and economic journalists who both agree and disagree with your view of what "ought" to be done with government and private sector resources. CR already pointed out one excellent source -university systems (at ".edu" extensions on the internet in the US). Spain, Mexico, Argentina should have good sources with forums and websites dedicated to economics and other socio-political issues. Their university systems might even have more vigorous debates, considering their range of economic experimentation (from fascist to socialist) in the last several decades. Contrary to what a few conservatives might claim, university sources include right and left-wing authorities in legitimate debates.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Can anyone create something "out of thin air" without negative consequences?

No. The consequence is massive debt.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Perhaps, but there is no alternative. Debt can be paid off at the crest of the business cycle.

[Šñøü†ê®]

Lou Reed, you might notice Cowpunk has a tendency to troll. That is essentially what Cowpunk always has been!

It takes most people decades to learn essentials in economics...

In my first semester in college I was an economics major. It took me a few weeks to realize the subject matter was utter bullshit. I did have to take Econ 101, 102 and numerous other finance related classes to fulfill the requirements for my BS in Accounting though.

Rodney Dangerfield summed it up famously in this famous movie! Of the many alternative, real life examples, the professor should have said there are 2 kinds of people in business today in terms of big money, those with inside info and those without inside info, or those with government connections and those without government connections.

[302Riz]

302Riz, thanks for your posts.
They are very interesting to me, for they reflect what I am watching in these documentaries and TV programms. Actually, "Money masters" talks about Andrew Jackson, that president that got rid of the 2nd Central Bank of America.

I took an interest in banking and the subsequent bailouts when the big banks and other big businesses were failing back in 2008. Why did the government bail out certain businesses over others? (Look up Goldman Sachs, AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros.) Anyways, Andrew Jackson spent his entire 8 years in office fighting the central bank and Biddle and when he eventually won that battle, he made sure that another central bank would never be chartered again. When the civil war started, the government and Abe Lincoln created greenbacks, another form of fiat money to finance the Civil War.

Do you think Central Banks are so evil, so incovenient?. We, in Spain, as in everywhere I think, have "El Banco de España" , I suppose it to be "The Central Spanish Bank". Do central banks transfer money from poor to rich?. But , is that convenient in the long run if there are no middle class (the people who consume, who buy things, who maintain jobs by buying tv sets, fridges, houses and cars)?. I mean: What is the purpose of getting rid of middle class if they/we are who consume?

After reading articles, books and watching videos on the subject, I have come to the opinion that Central Banks are indeed evil and a bane to humanity. No good has come out of it in the past, and no good will come of it in the future. No matter how many times throughout history governments and central planners always think that this time, central banking will work, but it never does. Ultimately, what Central banks do is devalue the currency to a point where the money that you have worked and saved for over the course of your life becomes worthless. The more money that has been printed and put into circulation, devalues the money that already is in circulation. Central banks do print money out of thin air and that money is backed by nothing of value; its backed by the full faith and credit of the government putting the money into circulation. Governments allow central banks to be chartered because its an easy way to borrow money to finance projects and programs without having to tax the population.

You have to ask why 30 years ago, a slice of pizza cost $1 and a can of soda cost 50 cents, and now that same slice of pizza now costs $2.50 and a can of soda costs $1.25. Or why an average new car back in 1970 cost $4,000 to buy now costs you at least $15,000. The only people or entities who benefit from newly created money/credit are the banks and corporations who get the money first when it hasnt been loaned/spent into circulation. By the time the money trickles down into our hands, do we lose that purchasing power.

You are all expert but I don´t even know what inflaction is or Fiat Money, though I am making an effort to learn it like "Economy for dummies" hehe, that would be the book for me.

Inflation is the devaluation of money. Fiat money is paper money that is backed by nothing. Fractional reserve banking is another thing to look up.

Archaix , you said: "Why bring up The Rothschild?". Do you really think they are not linked to what we are talking here, some way or another, in a big way in my opinion?. For what I am reading, Neither Bill Gates, nor any other person is the wealthiest person in the world but The Rothschilds, but somehow maybe they don´t want to be in the forefront, in the papers, and as they own the newspapes and televisions they just say: The less the people know about us, the better. Let them think Obama, Merkel and Puttin rule the world.

The Rothschilds were prevalent in the 1800's helping countries to finance their wars and cornering stock markets. They helped Napoleon finance his war against Russia for one. You can do some more research and discover more of what they have done in the past and what they are doing now. Me mentioning them before has nothing to do with them being jewish. They are just a footnote in history, dont listen to the others such as Cyclone and Archaix - they have some weird political axe to grind with people who identify themselves as individuals and commodity based currency supporters.

As I say, I am not an expert (I wish), actually, I know nearly anything about Economy, but I will (hopefully).

could someone put things in an easy way, with simple words, because you are all experts, I am impressed but lost, lost with the complex way you say things.

Just keep on reading and researching and you will start to slowly understand everything.

Other people you can look up is Paul Warburg, JP Morgan, Aldrich (related to the Rockefellers). One thing about JP Morgan, is that he was one of the people responsible for getting the US involved in World War 1 by tricking Germany into attacking and sinking the Lusitania. The US being dragged into WW 1 was because England and France owed JP Morgan close to $1 billion dollars that they borrowed to fight against Germany. When Germany caught wind of what JP Morgan and the US and English Government were planning, Germany attempted to warn the public and bought ads to put in newspapers and magazines warning people not to board the Lusitania. Back in the day, Along with the banks, JP Morgan also had a stranglehold on most publishing and newspaper companies along the eastern seaboard of the US and the ad was never published in most papers. Below is the German warning to the US public not to board the Lusitania, which the English government had built and designed to ferry army ammunition and artillery shells along with transporting people. The information is out there.

[loureed4]

302Riz, your post is astonishing.

1.I have to say that some of the things you say appear in the documentary "Money masters" probably one of the best documentaries , and more comprehensive I´ve ever seen, so far.

2.So, Andrew Jackson got rid of the National Bank and, my question: after that, did the country live a properous times without such central banks? and, why and who did built up Central banks again? , this last questions seem naive I should think.

3.Central Banks are evil, according to you, because they issue a lot of money out of the thin air to finance government projects so that they don´t have to tax people. That makes currency devaluate and inflaction grows. It is funny because I always took for granted that every year prices went up just as a natural way: The bus were a bit more expensive, so the cinema, so the electricity, just 2% more expensive, but that makes, over 20 or 30 years, to make a difference but I thought that it was how things worked. Atually I thought inflaction was good and deflaction was very bad to Economy and therefore, to people.

4. can´t government say to the people: if you have good health-care, highways, schools, parks, that is to be paid, so, you are going to be taxed, aren´t people aware that wellfare has to be paid by them, by us, by ourself (sorry for my English).

5. Why weren´t there any banking panics (I watched yesterday in an English TV program) between 1929 and 2005? and there were many of them between 1812 and 1929?. The journalist said it was due to something Rooselvet put into action "glass..." I didn´t understand it fine because my English is not that high.

6.It is true "Goldman Sachs" and "Fractional reserve Banking" appear everywhere, mmm...I´d love to look into that. Actually, a broker from London, in this same TV program said: "Goldman Sachs rules the world". It is on youtube.

7.The story of the Rothshild amazes me, why nodody says they are richer than Bill Gates? Is it not convenient? Is Bill Gates richer than the Rockefellers or the Rothschild?. I learned about how they finance Napeleon´s wars too, but I was told that they finance both sides: England (The branch office of the Rothchilds in London) and France (the Paris branch).

8.I had heard too about that ship being sunk and killing the passengers, that is a killing, isn´t it? I mean this because they argue that Comunism with Stalin killed 5 million people , but this ship issue is a killing too, it is not the same 5 million that 500 people, okay, but still is too big issue, too serious if true. Nobody paid for it of course. I only mention the ship but I think that, for the sake of Capitalism many people have died, like with Comunism.

9.I read American-Spanish war was provoked too by powerful people by making believe people that a ship was sunk by a bomb set by Spanish in the ship. And, as you say: they owned all the papers and radio stations so, it was easy to put to work the propaganda machinery to say: how evil Spanish are that have sunk a ship of our great Nation, the US, and they took over Cuba and other island after the war: Another prepared war , intentionally, gee, this astonishes me.

10. Who set the first central bank?. AS far as I know, the RothChilds with the creation of the Bank of England, where they rule everything.

[Archaix]

Do central banks transfer money from poor to rich?

No. Central banks allow the regulation of the currency (something not available if your currency is tied to the value of gold or any other commodity), as well as control over national debt -something I argue is a benefit to countries, so long as they have the ability to pay them back (this is why creditor's confidence in governments is so important, and devaluations aren't a good thing).

You are all expert but I don´t even know what inflaction is or Fiat Money, though I am making an effort to learn it like "Economy for dummies" hehe, that would be the book for me.

Inflation is really the value of money -think of it as how much money (paper and coins) there is out there in your country. If my country issues more money, all money will be worth less.

302Riz says that paper fiat money is worth nothing -this isn't true. Money is tied to confidence in your country. If it was worth nothing, you wouldn't be able to buy anything, and you could use ordinary paper to buy things. That isn't the case. He also says that Weimar Germany was destroyed by paper money, but I have shown in the past that it wasn't: the government (foolishly) printed more money because the economy ground to a halt because the French occupied their best industrial land (the Ruhr). Prices rose, but increasing money doesn't solve the problem -only a resumption in industry and supply can do that. That's eventually what happened, and Germany carried on with paper money (after destroying all the excess notes).

Notice that 302Riz still hasn't responded to my explanation of events. He does not know what he is talking about.

Archaix , you said: "Why bring up The Rothschild?". Do you really think they are not linked to what we are talking here, some way or another, in a big way in my opinion?

The Rothschilds are an important banking family, I agree with you on that note. But my point was that the association of the Rothschilds with a global banking conspiracy goes back to 19th and 20th century anti-semitism. If you want to know more about this, read The Ascent of Money -written by a Harvard professor of economics with actual business experience and about two decades' worth of experience in analysing the market.

It's not just guilty-by-association, as 302Riz suggests. As I have said before, the Rothschilds had nothing to do with the creation of the Bank of England -they weren't powerful until much later. They manipulated the system and got rich, and for some reason that goes against 302Riz's very instincts as a "free-market" right-winger.

In the Napoleonic war Nathan Rothschild was employed by the British: they got him to buy gold in Europe, smuggle it across the channel and sell it to the British government so they could finance the war. The war ended so abruptly with Waterloo (1815) that the Rothschilds very nearly went bankrupt, because they had acquired so much gold that nobody now needed. In the event he bought cheap British bonds (on the rise) and waited for the price of gold to peak before selling it all off in huge chunks.

A genius who deserves our respect.

3.Central Banks are evil, according to you[302Riz], because they issue a lot of money out of the thin air to finance government projects so that they don´t have to tax people. That makes currency devaluate and inflaction grows. It is funny because I always took for granted that every year prices went up just as a natural way: The bus were a bit more expensive, so the cinema, so the electricity, just 2% more expensive, but that makes, over 20 or 30 years, to make a difference but I thought that it was how things worked. Atually I thought inflaction was good and deflaction was very bad to Economy and therefore, to people.

Inflation in itself is neither 'good' or 'bad' -you must understand this. An increase in money supply is necessary because it matches economic growth. It's like if you had two games of Monopoly but only used one set of money: everyone needs more money to work with. Yes, the value of the money is slightly less, but you have a greater ability to earn more to compensate that devaluation because the economy is growing.

In short: inflation at low levels is good. I've heard some studies that say even up to 10%, it's good (most Western economies try to keep it within 3%).

[Freedom&Liberty]

Perhaps, but there is no alternative. Debt can be paid off at the crest of the business cycle.

We've gone deeper into debt every year for the last thirty. The only way to stop the debt cycle is to end the Fed.

[Archaix]

We've gone deeper into debt every year for the last thirty.

[Jim Colyer]

The banking system in the U.S. is hard to understand. Very complicated. Maybe if I were a billionaire, I would know more.

[Cyclone Ranger]

We've gone deeper into debt every year for the last thirty. The only way to stop the debt cycle is to end the Fed.

Uh, no. It isn't.

[302Riz]

What is the only way to stop going into debt? Stop borrowing money. The government has borrowed trillions of dollars from the FED and because of this, is government is trillions in debt.

Pretty simple logic.

[Cyclone Ranger]

When the government needs money, it sells Treasury bonds