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

[86Dùde]

I'm not Cowpunk, fatass.

Yes, you really are punk.

[Cyclone Ranger]

No, I really am not.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Give it up, Cowpunk. Everyone knows it's you.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Nope. I am not, and never have been, anyone called Cowpunk.

[9ball8]

The institution of capitalism predated Adam Smith, but he was its first theorist.

Perhaps Smith was among the first to describe the system, not so new even in his day. For a Marxist interpretation of the history of capitalism, see link: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/20...e-of-the-west/

Ignoring the apologist treatment for the Soviet Union (Nazi capitalism/war destabilizing and ultimately causing the demise of Soviet Socialism?? Some joke!), the article notes particulars on how capitalism was intimately tied with militarism. How could it not be, since it originated in Europe? It also demonstrates how developing capitalism dominated foreign markets -through coercion. Quote: "India’s strength vis-a-vis Manchester seemed to lie mainly in its ability to produce fine yarn. Much effort was directed in Britain to improve spinning machinery. Crompton’s mule, developed in the 1780s, went some way to improve spinning technology. But as it yet could not match Indian quality. Indian textile industry was not easy to finish off. Contrary to the conventional wisdom (shared universally by Marxist and non-Marxist historians alike) that it was machine production in England that killed the Indian textile industry, we can identify three factors that combined to bring about its steady decline. All three related to the choking off of demand for Indian textiles. First of all, as pointed out above, Britain imposed heavy protective duties and administrative measures to keep Indian textiles out of the British market. The second factor, no less important, was that this coincided with the period of the Napoleonic Wars. The British imposed cordon sanitaire around Europe closed off the European market for Indian textiles entirely. Its importance can be gauged from the fact that in 1789 85% of the calicoes imported into Britain were re-exported to Europe and 60 % of muslins were re-exported. (Baines,1966:330) Simultaneously with the closing of the British and European markets, there was also a collapse in internal demand for textiles in India. In pre-colonial India, taxes collected from the peasant supported a large urban population, including the ruling elite. When, after the British conquest, these taxes were appropriated by the East Indian Company and used to pay for the export of Indian textiles, the Indian urban classes were suddenly dispossessed. There was a massive de-urbanisation. For example, according to Charles Trevelyan, the population of Dacca, the ‘Manchester of India’, dropped from 150,000 to 30,000.(quoted by Palme Dutt, 1970:120) The weavers were driven out of the towns, to seek a livelihood in villages. The Urban elite and middle classes, the consumers, were gone too. The internal demand for Indian textiles collapsed almost simultaneously with the closure of its outlets abroad."

So much for voluntary association and truly free markets free from coercion. NAFTA and other current globalization efforts are unrealistic, due in part to factors like those that shut down the Indian textile industry, which still play in one form or another. Mexican farmers cannot compete against US corn imports, yet cannot find decent long term employment in Mexico's urban areas. It is not so much because Mexican corn is inferior to US corn, but because US corn is subsidized by the US gov't; an internal cushion against low-cost competition gives US farmers (farming corporations) an unfair edge even before the corn crosses any international borders. It is only when any fascist ties to the market are cut -which includes gov't. subsidies, invitations for corporate lobbyists to write any part of legislation, corporate rights as separate persons (Citizens United), etc., could we see what a "free market" would really look like. I would like to see this in operation, but only If we also have a socialist/collectivist sector that provides a backup for essential services when the free market screws up. Because it will screw up, as does any system run by humans. The objective, in my view, is to find the right balance between socialist and libertarian mechanisms which balance and direct a given nation's economy.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Perhaps Smith was among the first to describe the system, not so new even in his day.

Wealth of Nations is probably the first true work of economic theory, which was at that time considered a branch of moral philosophy.

So much for voluntary association and truly free markets free from coercion. NAFTA and other current globalization efforts are unrealistic, due in part to factors like those that shut down the Indian textile industry, which still play in one form or another. Mexican farmers cannot compete against US corn imports, yet cannot find decent employment in urban centers

That's where the concept of comparative advantage comes in. If they can't profit from corn, they'll switch to another more profitable crop, and import corn from the USA. Accordingly, both countries experience a net gain by trading and specializing.

[9ball8]

Wealth of Nations is probably the first true work of economic theory, which was at that time considered a branch of moral philosophy.

That's where the concept of comparative advantage comes in. If they can't profit from corn, they'll switch to another more profitable crop, and import corn from the USA. Accordingly, both countries experience a net gain by trading and specializing.

...And if they can't switch to a more profitable crop, they'll migrate to the urban centers. Link: http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/inde...-corn-farmers/
Quote from article: ".... Competition with artificially distorted U.S. corn prices has driven unsubsidized corn produced in Mexico out of its customary domestic market as Mexican consumers began to purchase American corn. Mexican corn farmers were no longer able to make a sustainable living due the plummeting demand for their produce and accordingly migrated from rural farms to urban centers in search of employment. Therefore, American corn subsidies are primarily responsible for the rural to urban population shift in Mexico that manifested following the NAFTA deal in 1994."

And, if there is high population pressure, relatively low employment, and highly paid positions in the illegal drug trade, perhaps that is where the ex-farmer and/or his children will find employment, rather than switching to wheat farming . As the drug trade is a relatively high-mortality "profession", this lowers the population of those who used to engage in subsistence farming. As long as there is enough money coming into Mexico for those who survive the narco-jobs and those who work in less dangerous professions, I suppose comparative advantage could allow stability to return to Mexico. Stability assumes organized crime doesn't control Mexico, of course. Should subsistence farming be needed again in Mexico, say because the US agricultural sector collapses, then a large portion of the Mexican population dies off while waiting for the ag sector to re-establish itself, which in turn reduces demand for food. Mexico might even be able to provide an agricultural surplus to the US, at least until her population rebounds.

Pretty drastic. Lots of people have to die if there is too much dependence on imported food from a country with questionable habits, and there are certain negative consequences for depending on the supply and consumption of stupifying drugs. But yes, it is an "economy" all the same, and comparative advantage would apply in the longer run.

[Going Postal]

Karl Marx wasn't a capitalist, and never claimed capitalism as an institutution was "Jewish," as if an economic and political system could have a religious identity.

Wiki didn't say he invented it or was a capitalist. He said the Jew (of which he was) embodied it. Google Jewish capitalism - jeez.

[Going Postal]

One would do well to ignore ethnic ties to rational economics -there are none. Applying economic regulations to the national population based on ethnic qualities also leads to collapse. Fer instance, making Jews the only class that could lend money at interest... bad results for Spain. One could easily argue that the very effort to assign economic control based on ethnic qualities is a sign of certain ignorance, and it was this ignorance that lead to economic collapse. Such idiocy happens in recent times: look at the history of "redlining" for home mortgages, based on neighborhoods (ethnic ghettos) rather than individual qualifications for large loans based on one's unique credit history.

This opens up an important aspect of the history of economics. Despite gov't. control -or lack of it- there were rules or customs that proved that our ancestors were often dumber than a bag of rocks when it came to applying rational thought to economics. The redlining example above proves that ignorance still persists. The other example we continue to suffer...that of believers in an all-knowing market force that somehow cleanses criminal and incompetent behavior from the economy. That all-knowing market force does not exist. Even before the state came into being, local despots occasionally used their control of critical resources (water, food) to impose their force, fraud or coercion on others. Outside of a tribal group that is functional (without despots) and has all required resources, regulation at some level is always required.

And why was that? Adopting the Jew religion which forbade usury (morphed to people of the same religion/tribe).

[Going Postal]

Love the utterly delusional insistence against all conceivable evidence that the Fed is somehow related to 'Communism.'

World needs a boogeyman, so you fund it.

[9ball8]

And why was that? Adopting the Jew religion which forbade usury (morphed to people of the same religion/tribe).

In the bad old days, Jews were easy pickins. Since usury (charging interest for loans) was considered un-christian, and few would take business risks without payback (loan interest), they found a group who were willing to do so. I forgot to mention that, while this form of economic stupidity didn't work out well for Spain (or many other European countries who did the same thing), the results were much more devasting for the Jews.

"Hey, we can burn these guys alive, earn christianity points at the local church, and not pay back those ururious loans. Oh, even better, we can take control of their assets after they are murdered, er, I mean 'purified'. "

Dirty history ....even better than your average horror flick.

[loureed4]

The Fed only lends money to banks if liquidity is needed to prevent runs.

Are you sure of that?. I am reading dozens of websites , saying the Fed lends (on interest of course) money to the government, so this government has not to raise the taxation, which is nonsense because in the end, tax-payer pay the interest back to the Fed.

[loureed4]

Here is a great interview...Skip to 1:21:45 for some facts I often present here...at DA! Specifically in regards to Cowpunk's satanic deity, Yahweh!

I watched the piece of documentary you linked here, and he talks about religion, What does it have to do with the issue concerning here?. Why do you say, you bring this to this forum often?. I think I´ll watch it later again, the whole of it, it seems interesting but I don´t find the connection with the Federal Reserve.

Anyway, Thanks!

[loureed4]

The Fed is run by a Board of Governors and a chairman selected by the POTUS, and confirmed by Congress. It reports to the Open Market Committee, and is audited by the GSA.

I am reading in many place that THE FED IS RUN BY ITS OWNERS: Goldman Sachs, Rockefeller Brothes in NYC, RothsChild in London and Frankfurt, and others whose name I didn´t understand (the sourse is an audio). In other places I read that it is a private-owned bank, and I don´t mind who the rulers are, though I named then a moment ago.

[Cyclone Ranger]

The Fed is run by the Federal Open Market Committee, certainly not Goldman Sachs or the Rothschilds.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Again, when the federal government needs money, it sells treasury bonds and notes.

[Freedom&Liberty]

More like it puts treasury bonds in a file and then raids the associated fund, knowing full well that those bonds will never be paid.

[loureed4]

The Fed is run by the Federal Open Market Committee, certainly not Goldman Sachs or the Rothschilds.

I´ll say again, this time, a bit louder. The Fed is run by some private bankers among which are the Rockefellers and the RothChilds, and Goldman Sachs. Again you´ll repeat, I suppose, it is not, Could I know are you so sure of your statement?. I´ve read so many times that "The Fed is a private bank that lends money to the government on interests" that I have taken it for granted, since there are so many sources claiming such a simple fact.

[loureed4]

Originally Posted by Cyclone Ranger
The Fed only lends money to banks if liquidity is needed to prevent runs..

Are you sure of that?. I am reading dozens of websites , saying the Fed lends (on interest of course) money to the government, so this government has not to raise the taxation, which is nonsense because in the end, tax-payer pay the interest back to the Fed.

[loureed4]

No. The consequence (of creating money out of thin air) is massive debt.

So, creating money out of thin air is not a good idea because it creates massive debt?. And what is wrong about "massive debt"?