Ur banks are belong to us

[Quixotic]

Gold standard held back a lot of economies back in the day, not just America (ex: France, Germany, Austria, England). All were going through financial crisis at the time of the Great Depression in America; and there were two things they could do to improve their situations: either move off the gold standard so domestic currency can correct itself (there was no way they could keep the par value they wanted due to limited supply of gold), or more government spending to increase GDP (suggested by Keynes when he thought Britain was adamant about staying on gold, he did think that moving off gold was better). The countries that moved off gold earlier, recovered earlier. More gov't spending wasn't much of an option since many countries became debtors due to WWI.

[guartz]

After all that if you still don't think its wise to have this kind of protection for our banks and its consumers, well, I guess you are entitled to your opinion.

So you recant that currency stability was the central goal, because now you are saying that what the fed did was artificially maintain banks as financial intermediaries.

What kind of protection does that provide for the consumer? Investment firms still do shady dealings, at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.

I mean you see it as some benevolence. I see it as using state power to make sure banks remain the most profitable business possible.

So we can call it whatever we want, but we just really have to look at the effects. Make our arguments from there. Seriously, Evilbau, why is the banking industry the most profitable business since 1930s ?

I'm not talking about a gold standard. Currency elasticity can be provided by other means.

[Beckwin]

...are you saying it took government influence to make banking highly profitable?

It's almost like centuries of antisemitism just vanish when you put fingers to keys, guartz.

[guartz]

Ha, beckwin. Good one.

Of course, I didn't mean to imply that politicians and the government establishment doesn't profit from this deal.

[Kyreth]

Since we're talking Jacksonian (not Michael, you pedo-lovers) economics here, let's take a look at why he was so pissed at the idea of a central bank.

It concentrated an excessive amount of the nation's financial strength in a single institution. In other words, if for some reason the Federal bank failed, there'd be an immediate collapse in the entire banking system, as the feds wouldn't be there to backup withdrawals.

It exposed the government to control by foreign interests. True, as foreign nations have most certainly invested in the dollars (and more critically, the DEBT) of the United States...and the Feds are certainly a chief motivator there.

It served mainly to make the rich richer. Yep, being the head of the biggest bank was a tremendous perk and certainly banks were more prone to outside manipulation at that point in history, even a national one. Special interests, go!

It exercised too much control over members of Congress. See above. At that point, there wasn't a national policy, and a national bank could (and still could, though it wouldn't) choke the ability of state banks to manage deposits and withdrawals, loans and repayment.

It favored northeastern states over southern and western states. True, because it tended to want to invest in bigger (industrial) projects, and that was the northeast at the time.


However, most of that's apples and oranges compared to now. The banking system is now very much rooted in a central bank, as opposed to oversight and laws relating to keeping smaller banks from fucking up. As a result, taxpayers absorb the cost of things like the savings & loan collapse and are taking it on the chin once again. It's a helluva lot better than the entire banking system going down the toilet, of course...

[evilbau]

Why would I recant my earlier statement, you asked me to explain what i meant by liquidity and I did.

[sunb1ind]

Funny, you take the lame ass opportunity to say I run away after making 'vague' comments during debate. It was like 11pm and I think most people have to work during weekdays, sorry bud. That's just complete bullshit about me never explaining myself because, judging from my recent threads(especially political topics) I'm basically writing mini-essays on bullshit I shouldn't have to explain.

This is the internets, I shouldn't have to open up books and start teaching gradeschool/basic college academics? And sometimes I do, but I prefer to throw out a few jabs and hope that there's atleast a couple people, like guartz in this case, who know where I'm at and respond without letting their ego take over on the subject.

There's plenty of good reading material and documentaries out there about Fed Reserve/central banking fraud that's been the norm for 100's of years. If you took the time to listen to what they're saying, then you would have no reason to think its a conspiracy or paranoia... whatever is preventing you from seeing both sides of the story and relying on the 'official' story.

You are only partially right about Andrew Jackson, it sounds like you chose to marginalize his accomplishments though, since he was not exactly the most popular or the most charismatic president you read about in school lol But he's certainly my favorite president simply for his balls of steel and an example of pride and patriotism that's virtually extinct in our govt. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject, I really don't have alot of time to go into long-winded discussions. I'll accept that as my fault for trying to put in my 2cents for those who are genuinely curious about the topic. My work is like a 24/7 job now, gotta stay on the grind

p.s. I think you should rethink what you said about "protection for banks/consumers" and "bank liquidity".

[aurik]

Funny, you take the lame ass opportunity to say I run away after making 'vague' comments during debate. It was like 11pm and I think most people have to work during weekdays, sorry bud. That's just complete bullshit about me never explaining myself because, judging from my recent threads(especially political topics) I'm basically writing mini-essays on bullshit I shouldn't have to explain.

This is the internets, I shouldn't have to open up books and start teaching gradeschool/basic college academics? And sometimes I do, but I prefer to throw out a few jabs and hope that there's atleast a couple people, like guartz in this case, who know where I'm at and respond without letting their ego take over on the subject.

There's plenty of good reading material and documentaries out there about Fed Reserve/central banking fraud that's been the norm for 100's of years. If you took the time to listen to what they're saying, then you would have no reason to think its a conspiracy or paranoia... whatever is preventing you from seeing both sides of the story and relying on the 'official' story.

You are only partially right about Andrew Jackson, it sounds like you chose to marginalize his accomplishments though, since he was not exactly the most popular or the most charismatic president you read about in school lol But he's certainly my favorite president simply for his balls of steel and an example of pride and patriotism that's virtually extinct in our govt. That's pretty much all I have to say on the subject, I really don't have alot of time to go into long-winded discussions. I'll accept that as my fault for trying to put in my 2cents for those who are genuinely curious about the topic. My work is like a 24/7 job now, gotta stay on the grind

p.s. I think you should rethink what you said about "protection for banks/consumers" and "bank liquidity".

No, you totally said "google Andrew Jackson" and then ran away.

[Beckwin]

i totally didn't say google it then run away

why should I have to explain things that support my position in an argument or discussion? wah.

here is where I hint at other things you should go read, because I won't explain it myself. these are things that told me what to think and I think you should read them too.

you're only partially right about andrew jackson. I won't elaborate at all, other than say you didn't talk up his achievements enough. I liked him because he was a patriot and had big balls.

p.s. I think you should explain what you mean about liquidity and protection

[sunb1ind]

That was only part of what I said anyways. I didn't have to justify why I left in the middle of the discussion, so take that shit somewhere else. Andrew Jackson is an important part of the understanding, hell its vital, if you're solely talking about Fed Reserve and why it was established. I was just trying to say that you should not ignore my 'seemingly vague' comment about Andrew Jackson and then talk about his insignificance when you haven't actually researched about him. Thus, the google it up comment.

edit: left out sentence fragment n shit

[Beckwin]

Guartz told evilbau that he didn't get the liquidity/security thing that evil was talking about, so evil elaborated further to explain his point and position.

sunbl1nd references Jackson as a reason for why the Fed is bad, others comment Jackson's time was too different from the 1910's not to mention today and someone also gave a rundown of Jackson's take on central banking. sunbl1nd says still no one is getting it, but refuses again to elaborate.

[evilbau]

I like Andrew Jackson as a president, and he may have been right about a national bank in his time. By bringing up his failed economic policies, I was showing you might agree with him, but that doesn't make him right. I have seen lots of films about the Federal Reserve. Even the negative ones. The juicier points of contention I have researched myself. And I will admit some have a lot of merit. Then I weigh that against what the Fed does to prevent our economy from collapsing, the benefits of the stability it provides, what it means to the world that America's economy is stable, and really its a no-brainer.

If they propose reform for the Fed that addresses some of the misgivings I have, I will be the first to support it. But until then, I won't agree with the 'throw the baby with the bathwater' way you guys think of getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

[aurik]

Guartz told evilbau that he didn't get the liquidity/security thing that evil was talking about, so evil elaborated further to explain his point and position.

sunbl1nd references Jackson as a reason for why the Fed is bad, others comment Jackson's time was too different from the 1910's not to mention today and someone also gave a rundown of Jackson's take on central banking. sunbl1nd says still no one is getting it, but refuses again to elaborate.

Thanks, you just saved me 10 minutes

[sunb1ind]

Guartz told evilbau that he didn't get the liquidity/security thing that evil was talking about, so evil elaborated further to explain his point and position.

sunbl1nd references Jackson as a reason for why the Fed is bad, others comment Jackson's time was too different from the 1910's not to mention today and someone also gave a rundown of Jackson's take on central banking. sunbl1nd says still no one is getting it, but refuses again to elaborate.

Actually, Kyreth posted a decent summary on Jackson and 'the bank'. But, I see how that doesn't fit into your trademark replies of taking shit out of context on here. I however, disagreed with his last paragraph, but that's basically what I wanted to hear from someone who actually took the time to research Andrew Jackson.

Ignorance is not a good excuse to have your blind faith in the Reserve and ignoring the abuse of power they have amounted.

[Beckwin]

addendum: , but informs us that we should google it.

[Correction]

Guartz told evilbau that he didn't get the liquidity/security thing that evil was talking about, so evil elaborated further to explain his point and position.

sunbl1nd references Jackson as a reason for why the Fed is bad, others comment Jackson's time was too different from the 1910's not to mention today and someone also gave a rundown of Jackson's take on central banking. sunbl1nd says still no one is getting it, but refuses again to elaborate.

You know something, the way you describe it reminds me of every single time I've had an argument with someone who was drunk/high.

Me: What?

Drunk: YOU'RE. NOT. GETTING IT.....MAAAAANNNN.

Me: Start making sense, a point, or shut up!

Drunk: *mumbles something about me not getting it*

Me: What is there not to get? You've hardly said anything at all!

Drunk: HEY! Maaannnn, I ain't got time to explain it all to you, go read a book!

Me: I've read many books. What you just said still doesn't make any sense because it's thinly described. You put up a flimsy 'I'm right because of X AND Y' and finalized your stand there. You never gave the slightest hint of original thought or analysis.

Drunk: Hey, hey...whoa. HEY! *stumbles off while muttering 'you don't get it.'

[Beckwin]

The Reserve isn't perfect (I don't think really anything in our government is perfect), but I do recognize what the Fed does and tries to do to maintain economic stability. Going completely overboard with artificially (that is, without economic growth to back it up) increasing the money supply is a very valid criticism, for instance- they've obviously made mistakes with that. In spite of the imperfections, you just aren't gonna convince me (or much of anyone) that the Fed is out to steal my organs while I sleep.

[sunb1ind]

I like Andrew Jackson as a president, and he may have been right about a national bank in his time. By bringing up his failed economic policies, I was showing you might agree with him, but that doesn't make him right. I have seen lots of films about the Federal Reserve. Even the negative ones. The juicier points of contention I have researched myself. And I will admit some have a lot of merit. Then I weigh that against what the Fed does to prevent our economy from collapsing, the benefits of the stability it provides, what it means to the world that America's economy is stable, and really its a no-brainer.

If they propose reform for the Fed that addresses some of the misgivings I have, I will be the first to support it. But until then, I won't agree with the 'throw the baby with the bathwater' way you guys think of getting rid of the Federal Reserve.

You don't necessarily need to "get rid" of the Reserve, just take some simple steps to avoid abuses for power and private gains that are tied to its foundation. If you agree with any of what the real Federal Reserve documentaries seek out to explain, then you would also find merit in the concept that the Federal Reserve is ultimately the ones who control whether we are going to have inflation/depression as we bare witness throughout history and today.

[evilbau]

I didn't have to justify why I left in the middle of the discussion, so take that shit somewhere else.

This part is funny because when I go to sleep, I just leave. I pick it up the next time I'm back on bg (usually around my first coffee break). I don't feel the need to say

Hey, I would love to stay here and give you a history lesson, but I'm afraid someone else will have to pick-up where I left off and maybe provide some pictures to help explain the Fed Reserve better. I'm off to dream about winning the lottery and buyin me a house in the Bahamas, peace,

I would explain it myself when I had the time. If you didn't announce you were leaving you wouldn't have been called on it.

[sunb1ind]

The Reserve isn't perfect (I don't think really anything in our government is perfect), but I do recognize what the Fed does and tries to do to maintain economic stability. Going completely overboard with artificially (that is, without economic growth to back it up) increasing the money supply is a very valid criticism, for instance- they've obviously made mistakes with that. In spite of the imperfections, you just aren't gonna convince me (or much of anyone) that the Fed is out to steal my organs while I sleep.

So you don't believe there could be people that would abuse the kind of power the Reserve has given? I think this sounds like a movie plot, yes, but far from fiction. War profiteering anyone?