|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 159 of 536:
| 
Oct 6 02:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 160 of 536:
|
Oct 6 06:05 UTC 2003 |
The feds also appoint 100% of the members of the federal reserve board,
which appoints 1/3 of the directors of the district banks and has final
say over the discount rate set in each district. Additionally, the
profits from the federal reserve system, past whatever is necessary to
pay expenses, are paid to the US treasury system. Presumably congress
could, at any time, choose to alter how the FRB is structured, or even
abolish it altogether, if they should so choose. I don't know what you
think "private" means, but FRB clearly derives its authority and acts in
a manner that is unique in the US; it is a public institution, and at
every level of its organization is so structured to serve the public
interest, at least as its designers saw the public interest.
|
jp2
|
|
response 161 of 536:
|
Oct 6 10:14 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 162 of 536:
|
Oct 6 13:04 UTC 2003 |
It seems to me that if the federal government appoints the Fed's
officers, then the government at very least *controls* the Fed (at least
indirectly) since anyone who doesn't act the way the government would
like can be replaced. You can argue that this doesn't make the Fed
*part* of the government, but that's a pretty finicky distinction if the
government has effective control of their policies.
|
jp2
|
|
response 163 of 536:
|
Oct 6 13:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 164 of 536:
|
Oct 7 07:45 UTC 2003 |
no one has brought up the considerable competition and differences
betaeen *fedearlly* charetered and *state* chartered banks -
nor teh bank holding companies which control some of each.
as for the ny.fed to try to state that they are
"operated in the public interest rather than for profit"
is mroe than just a tad twisted.
i';ll grant that they are not the piranha, vulture profiteers
that the member banks are (both fed ans tate chartered).
|
jp2
|
|
response 165 of 536:
|
Oct 7 12:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 166 of 536:
|
Oct 7 12:48 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 167 of 536:
|
Oct 7 13:15 UTC 2003 |
Isn't that what running a for-profit business is all about? ;>
|
murph
|
|
response 168 of 536:
|
Oct 8 00:31 UTC 2003 |
Only if your for-profit business derives its revenue from selling vultures...
|
mdw
|
|
response 169 of 536:
|
Oct 8 05:32 UTC 2003 |
I'm quite interested in which private for-profit institutions the
president of the united states appoints directors. I had always thought
it was traditional for the stockholders to appoint the directors, and
nearly as traditional for the stockholders to sign proxies for the
incumbant directors except in case of major malfeasance, usually with an
escape clause in case the stockholder then decides to appear in person.
Most of the private corporations I can think of aren't even incorporated
under federal law but instead under the law of some particular state.
The feds absolutely have the right to "just print more money" if they so
please. The constitution so grants them this right, and in absence of
any amendment altering this, they retain that right to this day. But
just "printing more money" creates more problems than it solves, so as a
matter of policy the feds don't do this; instead they use another
related mechanism, deficit spending, or in plain terms "borrowing".
There's another term related to all this, "seigniorage", which is
basically the increase in value of newly minted money over its raw
materials. For traditional precious metals, this increase in value was
strictly limited, but for modern paper money, the difference can be
dramatic.
|
jp2
|
|
response 170 of 536:
|
Oct 8 12:50 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 171 of 536:
|
Oct 8 13:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 172 of 536:
|
Oct 8 13:49 UTC 2003 |
Could you explain what the difference is betweein "coining" and
"printing" money?
|
jp2
|
|
response 173 of 536:
|
Oct 8 14:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 174 of 536:
|
Oct 8 14:41 UTC 2003 |
OK. Current coins have very little inherent value, being mostly zinc,
so I'm not sure there's really much of a distinction anymore.
|
jp2
|
|
response 175 of 536:
|
Oct 8 15:32 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scg
|
|
response 176 of 536:
|
Oct 8 16:19 UTC 2003 |
So, how's that Presidential campaign going?
|
tod
|
|
response 177 of 536:
|
Oct 8 16:51 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 178 of 536:
|
Oct 8 18:06 UTC 2003 |
I think we should have considered having POTUS appoint grex's directors.
|
jp2
|
|
response 179 of 536:
|
Oct 8 18:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 180 of 536:
|
Oct 9 01:09 UTC 2003 |
Only if the Grex membership gets to appoint POTUS first.
|
gull
|
|
response 181 of 536:
|
Oct 9 02:07 UTC 2003 |
I nominate janc.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 182 of 536:
|
Oct 9 07:27 UTC 2003 |
re #178: only if there's some sort of "blue ribbon panel" involved..
|
tsty
|
|
response 183 of 536:
|
Oct 11 03:43 UTC 2003 |
back to the topic at hand .. congress abrogated (as can be read in
several screeching texts) its twin responsiblilties of *monetary* and
*fiscal* policy back in 1913.
both were too much for any political body to consider simultaneoulsy.
sicne, it seems, they fscked up monitary policy in mroe gross terms
tha fiscal policy, they opted for removing monitary policy to
professionals.
one can only hope thay would sluff of fiscal policy as well given
their abject failures since 1913.
house of representatives doesn;t understand *numbers* let alone
arithmetic. (forget mathematics - dont' even go there.)
remember, please, *ALL* fiscal operations MUST be drawn in HR.
|
