Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: End the Fed, etc.

Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 6:06 p.m. EST by Frank (19) from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Both the Tea Party and OWS agree on some major points:

  1. End corporate bailouts.
  2. End central banking (Fed).
  3. End lobbyists.
  4. End corruption in government.

Working together this can be accomplished. Yes, there are major points on which we diverge but why not cooperate instead of fighting on those we agree on? So much could and would get done. After that we can go back to disagreeing about everything else, but at least some positive changes have been effected.

One other note. My contention is that any government which redistributes money is by definition, corrupt. You could have the most angelic person with the purest intentions in office, it doesn't matter. Someone can always buy your influence by selling their wares on the predication that it is for the public "good". We have never rid ourselves of special interests in our entire history, examine every government expenditure and you always find some corporate interest, special interest group or self preservation at work (buying votes, pandering to your electorate).

A year ago I talked to this guy who said it was wonderful that his district got high speed internet courtesy of a government project. Then I reminded him that the money to do so came out of my pocket and I went without to supply his desires. Easy to praise government when you are the beneficiary...

13 Comments

13 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by WorkingClassAntiHero (352) from Manchester, NH 12 years ago

Could the OWS and TP agree on an end to private and corporate campaign financing?

[-] 1 points by PragmaticEconomist (39) from New York, NY 12 years ago

• $16 Trillion is a number often referenced as the total bailout given to banks. This is the sum of all loans given out over a long length of time to banks from the Fed. Large banks have thousands of loans (Assets to the bank) maturing and deposits withdrawn (Liabilities to the bank) everyday. Sometimes, this activity does not net to zero and a particular bank is not able to meet the 10% reserve requirement of deposits at the Fed. Typically, the bank would seek to just borrow overnight money from another large bank that had a surplus reserve but the crisis escalated to the point that banks were unwilling to lend to each other out of fear of never getting repaid. Thus, the Fed stepped in to make multiple large but very short term loans that were trued up the next day. Had they not done this, we would have been much worse off today. • The Fed's actual purpose is 1. To create price stability and 2. To be the lender of last resort to banks. What it did during the Debt Crisis is completely consistent with its intended purpose. Furthermore, the Fed is actual capitalized through the aggregate of all US banks' reserve deposits. In other words, the Fed has money from the banks in the first place. • The Fed does not literally print money. The treasury print's the actual bills, which it then gives to the Fed. The Fed injects this into the economy through Open Market Operations. Meaning, it goes into the marketplace and buys various duration US government debt (T-bills and bonds). This may sound like the Fed gets free money but please keep in mind that the Fed is a quasi-government entity and is required to give all of its profit to the Treasury. So essentially, it's a clean swap, accounting wise, an exchange of US bonds for dollars. • Money multiplier and velocity of money. I see these terms used incorrectly all of the time. Money multiplies because every time someone makes a $100 deposit at the bank (surplus cash in the economy), the bank deposits the required 10% reserve at the Fed and reallocates the remaining $90 surplus to loans to people and businesses. The $90 ends up at another bank after it is spent by the people/business and that bank is now required to make a 10%, or $9, deposit at the Fed and free to make an $81 loan. This goes on until there is no more money left to loan. The end result with a 10% reserve requirement, $900 is created in the economy and $100 is held at the Fed. • The Fed is a quasi-government entity. Yes, they operate independently - and for a reason. Have you noticed how politicians spend money? Economics/Money Supply and Politicians should be kept as far away as possible. Can you imagine the swings in Fed policy as different parties get elected? Anyways, the Fed's Board of Governors are appointed by the POTUS. Additionally, there are a number of layers of additional personnel including banking representatives and representatives from all of the major industries in the US.

[-] 1 points by mgiddin1 (1057) from Linthicum, MD 12 years ago

I would also add... Repeal Citizen's United decision

[-] 1 points by Markmad (323) 12 years ago

I would add it to your well presented list the following article: 1) the current electoral voting system does not reflect the people’s choice. When the outcome of the election is always the same numbers of electoral votes each state is entitled why bother voting? 2) We need to know why our monetary system is in the hands of the FED. What happened there? It’s constitutional? The FED is a Pandora box that must be exposed to the eyes of every American and its shareholders prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 3) How about the Independent Treasury Act of 1920? To whom am I paying tax if not to the constituted Treasury Department?

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 12 years ago

I think we can completely agree on 3 and 4. Seriously, is there any argument against "End lobbyists." and "End corruption in government.".

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 12 years ago

OWS does not agree on ending bailouts per se. We want to end bailouts that favor corporations while harming citizens (the 99%).

OWS does not agree on ending the Fed. Ending the Fed now would create an economic disaster larger than the one we're still suffering from, causing tremendous amounts of harm to everyone, especially the economically vulnerable (the 99%).

By your definition, any government that does anything would be corrupt, since doing anything costs money. That means taking money from some (i.e. the taxpayers) and giving money to others (e.g. government officials). But government ought to do things; indeed, it ought to do big things. Government ought to regulate markets. Government ought to prosecute white-collar crime. But that means setting up and funding institutions to regulate markets, oversee corporations, and prosecute those who do not comply with the law. And that requires money.

These are things that only government can do. Corporations certainly won't regulate themselves, let alone hold themselves accountable when they act criminally. That's why the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce and the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

The problem isn't government. The problem is corrupt government.

The problem isn't power. The problem is the exercise of power without accountability.

We need to regulate lobbying and campaign finance. We need to restore checks and balances. We need to regulate markets and prosecute criminals, regardless of title and income. We need to hold Wall Street accountable.

And that means we need a strong federal government.

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 12 years ago

Just like corporations won't regulate themselves, governments will not either. That is what leads to corruption. The way is to make sure they have specific and limited power. The public has to give them those powers and be able to take it away by general consensus.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 12 years ago

I'm not sure what your objection here is. You agree that corporations can't regulate themselves, and yet they must be regulated. So it seems like you would agree that we need a strong government to regulate corporations.

And yet you say that governments will not regulate themselves either. That strikes me as true of bad governments. The genius of America's government, though, is that its power is limited by constitutionally-established checks & balances. This means that it can regulate itself.

Not that this is an automatic, completely dependable process. Rather, its proper functioning depends on an informed, critical public holding government accountable, ensuring that it does its duty.

That's precisely what this movement is about. We are demanding that government do its job. We are holding Washington accountable for not holding Wall Street accountable. Accordingly, we demand an expiration on the Bush tax cuts for the rich, responsible regulation of the markets, and prosecution of white-collar crime. We are here to strengthen the federal government, because a strong federal government is a necessary means to our goal of holding Wall Street accountable for its actions.

[-] 1 points by LulzMofo (9) 12 years ago

"End corruption in government."

You cannot end corruption with in a system that is inherently corrupt.

[-] 1 points by Frank (19) from Washington, DC 12 years ago

Agreed. Democracy is inherently corrupt because it allows the majority (or a controlling bloc) to vote themselves money.

Only a Republic with limited powers works in my opinion. Note: Laws are still in effect, this isn't anarchy.