Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: HOW IS END THE FED NOT ONE OF THE DEMANDS!?!?!

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 4, 2011, 6:09 p.m. EST by quietlike (194)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

answer this question please

43 Comments

43 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by RG32 (81) 2 years ago

End the fucking Fed! Don't let the Establishment Hijack this movement!!!

http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/10/1964809/dont-let-occupy-wall-street-be-hijacked

[-] 1 points by Fallspring (30) from Silver Spring, MD 2 years ago

I do not want to sound like a dick, but can someone explain to me how getting rid of the fed will create economic equality for all? from what I understand the fed has prevented some major crisis, I look at them as a buffer wall against waves of economic panics like runs on banks. and since they were invented we have not had many problems. they also protect credit rights of consumers so dickhead banks can't gouge you for 30% interest. The fed was honestly attempting to stop any depression but they couldn't IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE its human nature. it just goes to show you these wild swings walk hand in hand with capitalists. Marx predicted the breakdown of capitalism (as a result of class struggle and the falling rate of profit) I know everyone hates Marx in america but he is no dummy in my book. The rich were so happy with their victory of communism they forgot to remember marx's warning.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

simply, the FED keeps wall street (and govt keeps many other industries) bubbles going with fiat currency stimulation, whether or not its called stimulus. When you throw money at a problem, it raises the price, effecting all. ( e.g. edu, med, housing) Its their intevention into the market to "soften a recession" that prolongs and exacerbates the recession, because ultimately the market corrects itself. Booms and busts DO happen, but the FED policies, good intentioned or not, compound them. You can always reform it, but what will stop corrupt people from using it to their advantage?
Instead of having an institution determine what is and isnt good for the economy, you let the economy function, booms busts and all. Since B&Bs are inevitable, stop trying to prevent it by intervening, and they wont last as long or wont be as bad because capital flees from bad investments into good. Allow it to happen, learn from our mistakes, and move on. People gauge their risk/reward when determining their investment, so you should allow people to succeed AND fail. Having the safety net (or access to cheap capital to hedge losses), like banks do because they are deemed too big too fail, encourages risky behavior, allows you to gamble more for bigger gains, knowing that if you fail, someone will bail you out. By eliminating the FED, we no longer are at an economic disadvantage to the banks when it comes to supplying money -they have to earn it like the rest of us, instead of just issuing debt on capital they dont have -fractional lending. The FED can direct capital to specific industries when working with govt. This is actually what many probably want, not realizing inflationary practices are really a tax on every dollar holder because as supply expands, demand falls (for dollars, meaning it takes more dollars to purchase the same item prior).
Remember the housing boom was supported with Bush's "american dream" program. It sounds nice, but it would be better if the housing market fell, and instead of allowing people to get into debt, they could actually afford a house outright by saving, or with shorter term loans, ultimately owning the house. When people cant afford a house, the prices fall because homes will reach the level where people can buy them, or they would stop building houses until demand rose. Now, most people never pay off a mortgage fully.. That sounds like renting to me.
Deflation is good for savers and bad for debtors. We should promote (not force) savings for "rainy days" so we don't need to be dependent on others or govt (and we are in a better position to help someone in need). A free person is not someone who is in debt. Same in edu. Offer student loans, so schools can charge whatever (instead of cutting costs or innovating, and making it affordable for students to attend) knowing that govt will back them. I dont think that everyone should go to college. Many go and wouldve been better off not going, and entering the workforce earlier and learning real skills on the job. Bill Gates, the fcebook guy both either didnt go or dropped out of college. Or how about Jay-z, Im pretty sure he doesnt have a business degree, and he is one of the most successful businessmen out there. im rambling... You want to tax the rich? Going into more federal debt, for whatever reason, is a tax on everyone. If there is something the people want that serve a public good (like a dam or bridge), then you should raise taxes on everyone (or at least those who use it), and tell them where its going, so they know how their money is spent. Printing money is like getting a free lunch from the theif who stole your money. With no FED, going into debt wouldnt be so easy, thus prioritizing our budget.
Bank runs occur because banks leverage their money out fractionally, and they DONT have the money to pay all of its depositors -to me this is counterfeiting (but banks 'legally' can do it). The FDIC backs them, and gives them a cushion (which is actually another safety net, allowing them to issue more debt (loans) than they have money). People run on the bank when they realize that they dont have the money they claim, so they get theirs before they run out. Loans should come from capital invested in CDs or money market accounts, not savings or checking accounts -this is why we need glass steagal back. Bankers were hung for this back in the day. The FDIC backs this to an extent, but that is an advantage over the people and all other industries. I have to have the money to loan it to someone, and banks don't -that is a MAJOR economic disadvantage. The FED can literally, with a few keystrokes, create trillions of dollars into existence. And its the chase to get these debts that rule our economy.

[-] 1 points by Fallspring (30) from Silver Spring, MD 2 years ago

Yes I am well aware of this, and pretty mush agree with everything you said. But I like safety nets, I think they are helpful, I do not believe in over regulation just bad regulation. we need to try more regulation and if it doesn't work fix it, instead of doing nothing like we are now. and to be honest you and I can not predict what will happen if we do abolish the FED. it could be really ugly. you act like a run on the banks would only hurt the banks. the consequenses of abolishing the fed is a big deal. That clutch is like the Federal Reserve. By not being the government and not being the economy, it acts as a buffer between the two to allow the rates to change between them without blowing either one up. If it was replaced by a governmental body, you would risk control issues between the economy and the government and force a lot more risk into the government. Every major industrialized economy utilizes some form of central bank. If the Federal Reserve were to be dissolved, something would have to take its place. The reason most countries do not give that responsibility to its Treasury department is because that is usually too close to the politicians. Politicians love to make decisions based upon their short-term interests and do not care much about long-term forecasts. If you think this recession is bad, just wait until the politicians control the money supply. are you suggesting that we let private banks regulate the money supply and set their own reserve/overnight lending rates? does that sound feasible and or smart? I do not love the fed man I just want to be realistic and demand actions that could possibly happen and will help bring the top 1% to their knees without hurting the rest of us. keep up the fight my friend.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Im for sound competiting commodity money, with 100% backing, no fractional lending rates. If this is the case, yes private banks can issue their own notes as long as they keep a 100% reserve. Because if they issue too many notes for the specie on hand, people run on them. This actually a market regulation on the banking system, by not allowing bank runs, this gives the bank ability to create money at will. Who will put money in a bank that is known not to pay its depositors? And entering the banking sector no longer requires any permit, just the ability to pay what is on your books, and protect the storage of people's funds. Reputation will determine if a bank survives or fails.

here's a minute audio about life w/o an official central bank. I encourage checking out mises.org, and the austrian perspective on economics.
http://mises.org/media/5074/14-A-Free-Market-CENTRAL-BANK?ajaxsrc=audio

I dont advocate for govt control, in most things really, but some do. This would be better than a private entity who has no accountability to the people. At least politicians could get kicked out, we cant impeach bernanke, nor do we vote for him to be elected yet he decides monetary policy for the country (and really the world's reserve currency). I still think politicians would be corrupt with this power. The truth is even tho the FED is private, it still bows to the whims of political leaders anyway. bailouts, govt financing. I like Ron Paul's idea of competitng currencies. If you want to take dollars you can, if you want to take gold/silver that too is good. I believe good money will run out bad money -this would be the transition, and gold and silver would become the new money (thats what always happens when money competes -its even happening now), whose rate of lending or supply isn't determined by any one entitiy, the market determines this. I suppose that you may have to pull it from exchanges to avoid market manipulation and make it a cash market, but I'm not too sure about that.

Quick note about safety nets, why should govt provide this, shouldnt we be encouraged to develop our own (ie savings), instead of asking someone else to do this for us? When someone does it for us, we tend to not do it ourselves.. if you do need someone to save for you, why cant an investment firm do it, especially when they are specialized to do so -IRAs 401ks (not that I like those either, personally)
Look at SocSec... If there were no safety net, people would know that they would have to save on their own for their retirement. Now people tend not to, because they think it will be there for them when they get older. Not to mention, you can buy govt bonds privately (which is all SocSec is -bond buying), so why do you need govt to do that for you, in fact force you to do so? Rambling...

[-] 1 points by revg33k (429) from Woodstock, IL 2 years ago

Check the link after the edit mark on this page for a working list of goals http://occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupy-wall-street/

and this Warning from the original Tea Party before it got hijacked http://occupywallst.org/forum/an-open-letter-and-warning-from-a-former-tea-party/

and this list of usefull PDF files http://occupywallst.org/forum/demonstration-materials/

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

you lost me at jews. How about instead of generalizing a whole group of people, you call out the actual people. You have no faith in others, and you are getting beat by the tactics of our oppressors. They want you to think there is no hope, so you just sit there at your computer bitching, instead of moving toward action and coming together to come to real resolutions. You've already lost because you arent even trying.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Hey I dont doubt that there are jews and blacks and whites and asians and so on at the top of these power structures. But to say that "its the jews" gives reference to all jews. thats like me saying white people are the reason we have racism. Obv. there is racism among many races, against many races. And yes white people are probably the majority offenders, but is it fair for me to say that? Of course not. I too have taken action in my own hands, and am not waiting for someone to fix it for me. But isnt it better for all to understand the problem so they can protect themselves also? By calling them names, you push them away from you even though you have some truth to tell, and they would benefit from that knowledge. you even group people in as "liberals" and they would group you in "anarchist' or "conspiracy theorist' and just block you from the beginning. So you have to look in the mirror and understand where they come from if you want them to understand where you come from, and that really is the only way we all can learn from each other, even when we disagree.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Im aware of the jewish people in media and banking actually. Are these people anything other than jews? is their jewish belief what drives them to be corrupt? Is it because they are jewish that they are corrupt bankers and social engineers. These are more proper generalizations to put these type of people in, because now you are including people of all races who are working to enslave us.. Im not gonna lie, I dont buy the whole jews want to take over the world, I think its power hungry human sociopaths that do, and they come in all races and creeds. It always comes off wrong when I hear the jew stuff, unless you are saying that it is because they are jewish that they do these things.. If thats the case, I have to disagree with you on that.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

I cant explain that. Youre right though they have been kicked out of many places. but currently are only in Israel because Europeans seized land from the Arabs after ww2, and sent them there. And since they occupy arab land, I can see why arabs hate them for occupying it. But that is only a result of European policy, where they were being oppressed in the first place. Maybe its the belief that they are trying to rob everyone that leads people to hate them in the first place... Long standing prejudice? I really dont know, only offering my thoughts on this one. But just because people have kicked them out of where they were living, is not enough evidence that they (all jews) are up to something either.

[-] 0 points by Thoughtcraft (22) 2 years ago

I have not been convinced that we need to end the fed. In particular, I have not heard alternatives that I am comfortable with (I dont like the gold standard, a basket of commodities et cetra). I'm still willing to listen to arguments about it, but I find it hard not to be turned off by the dogmatic single-mindedness of those who want to end it.

You folks might be right, but you all seem so 100% sure of yourselves, so un-nuanced in your views that my instinct is to run, not walk in the opposite direction. (sorry to be harsh but that really is my impression of the vast majority of anti-fed people I have talked to).

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

A gold standard is good because gold's quantity is limited (industrial demand is low, and what is mined each year covers that demand, otherwise it hoarded). Therefore it a good "ruler" for measurement against other items. being on a gold standard make govts live within their means.. You can just print up some gold because you have a new project you want, you'd have to generate taxes from the people. I personally am for competitive money. no one should be forced to use any form, and business will take whatever they want as payment. Ultimately, in free markets, they go to gold and silver, by choice, not govt mandate. If you want to use dollars, go ahead, but using dollars carries counter pary risk from the govt through its deficit spending and inflationary model to pay off that debt. When you measure real things vs other real things, you will notice price doesnt fluctuate as much. Whereas in fiat currencies, prices always tend to rise, because the supply of currency keeps expanding. You have think like how many ozs of gold will buy a barrell or oil, or bushel of wheat. If you look at the commodities, all of them have risen, since they all are in low supply when compared to the rising supply of currency to purchase them with. When you have money backed by something tangible (anything really), you will always get the same amount as when you receive the money.
If I have a 1 barrel of oil money unit, ten years from now, I should be able to receive on barrel of oil. With dollars, I could've bought 1 gal of gas for $2.50 last year, but now it costs me 3.5 units (dollars)...
Gold over centuries has proven to be the best store of value over time, with silver a close second (and better for everyday transactions), whereas currencies usually last between 20-50 years...

[-] 1 points by Thoughtcraft (22) 2 years ago

But wouldn't the people with the means to get metals out of the mines become the only people with the power to create "real" money? And wouldn't the richest person be the one who could get the most gold out of the ground the cheapest? Even if industrial use is modest, I don't like the idea of any resource just sitting in treasury vaults and not being available for use. Plus wouldn't it's value increase (and this be more expensive to use) just because so much would be sitting in vaults? Plus, I'm not convinced that it's entirely bad for the value of currency to be able to be adjusted. Though it may be scandalous at times, it also is pretty convenient at other times.

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

yes, and they deserve something for their efforts. You claim that rich will just hoard the money, well dont they need to eat? Dont they want nice houses that people build? I wouldnt want it sitting in treasury vaults, id want it in the hands of the people, and they can choose to put it in vaults if they like.
Yes its value would increase the more you hoarded (saved), what a novel idea, your savings actually grow as you get older! What good is it to have all the money in the world, if you never spend it? Money is not the be all end all, its only a store of value until you see something you want, then you trade your money for that. Everyone has a price, and no one is willing to work for nothing, money is store of value that when you receive it, you get something of equal value when you spend it. i believe in competitive money, simply to avoid a cornering of a market.

[-] 1 points by Thoughtcraft (22) 2 years ago

My problem is that precious metals are a very specific form of wealth, which only a very few people have the resources to actually produce (through mining). I dislike the idea of a particular resource being the end of the line in terms of deciding value. I am more comfortable with the idea that money is backed by my ability as a citizen to work and produce goods and services in a more abstract sense (although if I understand correctly this is the same fact that makes anti-fed people call fiat currency "debt slavery". Am I misunderstanding something, or do we just see it differently?

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

part 2, and a better answer to your question http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=FqhX4FUj3fQ

[-] 1 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

Metals are just what the free markets always go to for a store of value. There have been many other types of money, from clams to jems, but gold serves best because its store of wealth through thousands of years. Its just what humans have been drawn to save and keep, and are seen as valuable, for whatever reason. I advocate for competiting monies, but for a 100% backing on all money, to avoid counterfeiting. Eventually the money preferred by the people will prevail -usually gold and silver. Food can be money too, but you cant save food like you can save gold over time.
Debt slavery comes from the fact that all Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) in circulation are loaned into existence (from the FED to banks, govts, corporations). The treasury can literally create its own money, debt free. I dont advocate that, some do, but who can you trust not to take advantage of creating money for their own personal gain at the expense of all who use that money. Heres a good video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BT9E1SRrXU

[-] 1 points by forumwarrior (53) 2 years ago

congress prints the money instead, its pretty straight forward

[-] 1 points by emanonman (36) from Lahaina, HI 2 years ago

Oh that would work well. That's why the Fed was created to get that power away from the political process.

Could you imagine the current Congress guys TOTALLY IN CHARGE OF THE FLIPPIN' TREASURY????

Talk about handouts....you've seen nothin' yet

[-] 1 points by forumwarrior (53) 2 years ago

they would be more accountable, the fed reserve is a private company with no obligations to the american people what so ever, they arent elected or voted into their positions

it was how the forefathers intended money to be issued and it was up until 1913

[-] 1 points by emanonman (36) from Lahaina, HI 2 years ago

FW - I agree the FED system needs to be reformed, but throughout history, the coups and intrigues that resulted from one group or party trying to take control of the kingdoms' treasury has caused real problems.

Do you realize that the FED rebates back to the US government much of the interest it collects?

It's true...You could look it up.

[-] 1 points by forumwarrior (53) 2 years ago

oh how kind of them

[-] 1 points by emanonman (36) from Lahaina, HI 2 years ago

Hey, its better than nothing....but don't get me wrong,the FED? its a f**ked-up system. I'm just not sure that I want Eric Cantor's little hands on all those tax receipts. Founding fathers didn't bring in $18 trill a year. Dat's all I saying.

[-] 0 points by Fallspring (30) from Silver Spring, MD 2 years ago

I do not think the fed is the major problem, the fed doesn't promote destruction of the middle class. its the inequality that is pissing me off, and if we get rid of the fed it will not bring equality.

[-] 2 points by RG32 (81) 2 years ago

Dude, you better go do some homework. Who do you think is responsible for your gas prices, clothing prices, food prices, and everything else skyrocketing in the middle of a recession?

[-] 2 points by quietlike (194) 2 years ago

whaat? you gotta do some research homie. They create the entire boom/bust cycle. They are the reason why a gallon of gas is no longer 25 cents. They are the reason you have to invest your money in 401k, IRA, and SS in order to save for retirement and beat their inflationary practices.
No ending the fed will not solve all the problems, but it will go a long way toward having money that is actually worth keeping. Not to mention it will end MUCH malinvestment and govt intervention. The FED has a monopoly over the worlds money supply, and we all use that money to conduct business, ie. unlimited demand. So to say it is not a major problem, is very much an understatement.

[-] 1 points by Fallspring (30) from Silver Spring, MD 2 years ago

from what I understand the fed has prevented some major crisis, I look at them as a buffer wall against waves of economic panics like runs on banks. and since they were invented we have not had many problems. I am not saying the they also protect credit rights of consumers so dickhead banks can't gouge you for 30% interest. The fed was honestly attempting to stop any depression but they couldn't IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE its human nature. it just goes to show you these wild swings walk hand in hand with capitalists. Marx predicted the breakdown of capitalism (as a result of class struggle and the falling rate of profit) I know everyone hates Marx in america but he is no dummy in my book. The rich were so happy with their victory of communism they forgot to remember marx's warning.