End the FED?

[maui1]

As of the 1st of January 2011, use of the Euro.

The 10 that do not are:

United Kingdom
Bulgaria
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Hungary
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Sweden

and for those that can't read, please have someone read the above list for you.

[maui1]

Your claim was that China would not make the same mistake that Japan did, when in fact China holds 3x the foreign currencies that Japan does

measuring chinas 2011 numbers against japans 1979 numbers would be better suited to make your weak, unthoughtful argument, don't you think?

and again, for the 4th time, china is making every effort to get out of their high dollar position, as they know they are vulnerable to what the usa does with the dollar, directly effects their large dollar holdings.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

maui1, I luv talking to people like you. You think your right because you insult me.. it's not just the euro that's in trouble it's the EU.. That is why china is touching those toxic assets, because they don't want their biggest trading partner to go offline.

For the forth time. China isn't getting out of USDs, at all. They supposedly had 891 billion in Dec. This was supposedly down from 895 in Nov. Whoops, nope that's not right, fact is that number is actually 30% higher at 1.16 trillion. China had been buying debt and collecting USD all last year. Even though the STORIES, which your are spouting right now, were that China is reducing USD(dollars and debt). Dec 2010 are the most current numbers.

China's US debt holdings now at $1.16 trillion:
www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-03/01/content_12091868.htm

Here is some more homework for you.. Make sure you read section 2 a few times just so you get it.

www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2000/wp00131.pdf

Oh, and you want to compare USD holing between Japan 1979 and China 2011. This is a great interpretation of that.



That would be about 100 Billion USD Japan held in '79. Thanks for proving my point that China is in deeper than Japan, and in fact if you look at the chart, not a single major power that exist today hasn't increased their UDS holdings since Japan was caught. You couldn't be more wrong maui1.

[verrip1]

Interesting poll was held over at P&TM over who would you vote for President. It listed President Obama, a long list of Republican candidates, generic third party candidates and a few miscellaneous categories.

The big surprise was that the overwhelming winner among Republican candidates (by P&TM posters) was:

Ron Paul.

Yes, 74 year old Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Former Libertarian Party candidate for President. A man who espouses the dismantling of the Federal Reserve Bank. A man who would 'End The Fed' if he could. However, no need to get any hopes up about the imminent demise of the Fed. Even if Paul were elected (extremely unlikely), the President cannot unilaterally end the Fed, since it was created by Act of Congress.

Just thought that was an interesting sidelight about popularity among our fellow message board posters.

[verrip1]

Also, Ron Paul got more votes than President Obama did. If you rolled all the Republican votes together, Obama lost by a wide margin. Wasn't even close.

I don't really expect that to occur in the 2012 election, but I'm just an armchair quarterback re election outcomes.

[Driftr]

Aug 27, 2011 17:57:12 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Also, Ron Paul got more votes than President Obama did. If you rolled all the Republican votes together, Obama lost by a wide margin. Wasn't even close.

I don't really expect that to occur in the 2012 election, but I'm just an armchair quarterback re election outcomes.

True as far as it goes, but doesn't take into account that if Dr Paul isn't on the ballot, people like me may just vote for President Obama. If the bus is going to go over the cliff (as I believe it will with Obama or most of the other Republican nominees) I would prefer it to go over as soon as possible, and I believe Obama will get us there fast.

[The Virginian]

people like me may just vote for President Obama.

And........ I Thought you were a sensible friend! Please reconsider your thoughts!

[Driftr]

Aug 29, 2011 11:18:28 GMT -5 The Virginian said:

people like me may just vote for President Obama.

And........ I Thought you were a sensible friend! Please reconsider your thoughts!

You can't take that out of the context it was presented. The way I look at it is we are going to go over the cliff unless someone 'radical' like Dr Paul comes in to save us from ourselves. Give the choice between a slow ride to the edge of the abyss (RINO) and a bullet train (Obama), I'll choose the train. Let the rebuilding begin that much quicker.

[The Virginian]

Let the rebuilding begin that much quicker.

I'm hoping we can do that with someone new! ;D

In any case I'll stick with stocks.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

What would happen if the FED was ended? It was politicians with bankers that caused the problems.

[bimetalaupt]

Aug 29, 2011 22:41:01 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

What would happen if the FED was ended? It was politicians with bankers that caused the problems.

A++,
We looked at a Bank that worked as a bankers bank. . Problem they had was they could not get funding as cheap as the Federal Reserve so if we lost the Federal Reserve you can bet on the cost of loans increasing. We could also get a real central bank owned by the Treasury like the Bundesbank or Bank of the United States.

Just a thought,
Bi Metal Au Pt

K4U and yes for me!!

Attachments:

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

We could also get a real central bank owned by the Treasury like the Bundesbank or Bank of the United States.

If the Profits from the Federal Reserve go into the UST. Doesn't the Treasury own the Federal Reserve? Profits go to the owner of a business.

K4u!

Aren't the Bank Of Canada. PBoC, BOJ, and the Bundesbank, Reserves?

[dothedd]

Gold Coins: The Mystery of the Double Eagle

How did a Philadelphia family get hold of $40 million in gold coins, and why has the Secret Service been chasing them for 70 years?


U.S. Mint/AP Photo

This coin is worth $7.6 million

The most valuable coin in the world sits in the lobby of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in lower Manhattan. It's Exhibit 18E, secured in a bulletproof glass case with an alarm system and an armed guard nearby. The 1933 Double Eagle, considered one of the rarest and most beautiful coins in America, has a face value of $20—and a market value of $7.6 million. It was among the last batch of gold coins ever minted by the U.S. government. The coins were never issued; most of the nearly 500,000 cast were melted down to bullion in 1937.

ARTICLE CONTINUED:

www.businessweek.com/magazine/gold-coins-the-mystery-of-the-double-eagle-08252011.html

[verrip1]

Aman, all profits of the Fed, including interest from the Treasuries in QE I and II all go to the Treasury Department. However the Fed is not owned by the US Government. The Fed was created by US banks, but it is an entity that controls itself, with oversight by Congress. With respect to your terminology, its 'boss' is itself.

The advantage to being an entity not owned by the government is that it does not flip flop direction according to the whimsy of dysfunctional, ideologically-driven Congresses or Administrations. A very appropriate thing to do in a republic, IMO.

[flow5]

The FED is run by the bankers it serves. The Lobbyists virtually control the House Committee on Financial Services & the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

These interested parties (including the American Bankers Association) routinely spend more money influencing legislation, than all other industry and labor groupings.

Privatization would exacerbate the current problems. Nationalization is maybe the lessor of two evils.

[verrip1]

Aug 30, 2011 15:44:20 GMT -5 flow5 said:

The FED is run by the bankers it serves. The Lobbyists virtually control the House Committee on Financial Services & the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

These interested parties (including the American Bankers Association) routinely spend more money influencing legislation, than all other industry and labor groupings.

Privatization would exacerbate the current problems. Nationalization is maybe the lessor of two evils.

This post illustrates the ignorance people have in how the Fed works.

[bimetalaupt]

Aug 30, 2011 16:45:37 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Aug 30, 2011 15:44:20 GMT -5 flow5 said:

The FED is run by the bankers it serves. The Lobbyists virtually control the House Committee on Financial Services & the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

These interested parties (including the American Bankers Association) routinely spend more money influencing legislation, than all other industry and labor groupings.

Privatization would exacerbate the current problems. Nationalization is maybe the lessor of two evils.

This post illustrates the ignorance people have in how the Fed works.

Mr. V.
Please explain your point of view.. Flow5 did a great job and has posted few errors in the past five years.. He know his subject. According to Paul Moritz Warburg; the Federal Reserve system is a modified Central bank.. They had to do it to get it through Congress and Wilson to sign.. We call it a compromise.. That is why we have Districts from St. Louis and Kansas City.. Compromise.Some one of power chaired the Finance Committee and he was from Missouri.. Also the First Bank of the United States missed having a second 20 year charter in the House by one vote.

Just a thought.. The ball is in your court..

Bi Metal Au Pt

[flow5]

I expected as much from anyone that would even broach the subject. But as George Santayana quiped "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System both credit & the money supply were inelastic. The needs of a growing economy went unfulfilled, & this severely impeded the economic development of the country. Periodically the system generated financial panics. These financial crises caused hardships & brought undeserved losses & bankruptices to business that were basically sound.

The problem had been under discussion & study for a long time when following a crisis of unusual severity in 1907, Congress appointed a National Monetary Commission to determine what should be done.

After several years of thorough consideration, Congress evenutally adopted legislation embodying the recommendations of the Commission & other authorities - hence the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

We don't want to go back to conditions which were far worse than even the status quo.

[usaone]

Aug 30, 2011 19:23:25 GMT -5 flow5 said:

I expected as much from anyone that would even broach the subject. But as George Santayana quiped "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System both credit & the money supply were inelastic. The needs of a growing economy went unfulfilled, & this severely impeded the economic development of the country. Periodically the system generated financial panics. These financial crises caused hardships & brought undeserved losses & bankruptices to business that were basically sound.

The problem had been under discussion & study for a long time when following a crisis of unusual severity in 1907, Congress appointed a National Monetary Commission to determine what should be done.

After several years of thorough consideration, Congress evenutally adopted legislation embodying the recommendations of the Commission & other authorities - hence the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

We don't want to go back to conditions which were far worse than even the status quo.

I agree. The 1800's were a disaster. Going back to the Gold Standard would also hurt the economy. Not enough flexibility.

The banks, in 2008 should have been chopped up and sold to the highest bidders.

[flow5]

Chopped up indeed. The FDIC, FED, & Treasury's stabilization efforts might have been less intrusive if they had fired bank management & made stockholders take a hit.

See example: Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company (the seventh-largest bank in the United States) - 1984 bankruptcy

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 30, 2011 15:08:52 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Aman, all profits of the Fed, including interest from the Treasuries in QE I and II all go to the Treasury Department. However the Fed is not owned by the US Government. The Fed was created by US banks, but it is an entity that controls itself, with oversight by Congress. With respect to your terminology, its 'boss' is itself.

The advantage to being an entity not owned by the government is that it does not flip flop direction according to the whimsy of dysfunctional, ideologically-driven Congresses or Administrations. A very appropriate thing to do in a republic, IMO.

That was my point with the bank of Canada ,ect, ect Vman..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Canada

The responsibilities of the Bank are: monetary policy[6]; sole issuer of Canadian banknotes and currency[7]; the promotion of a safe, sound financial system within Canada[8]; and funds management and central banking services "for the federal government, the Bank and other clients."[9][10]

It's a private corporation that is owned by the gov't. It operates in the interest of the economy with oversight, just like the FED. The difference is that unlike the FED there are no regional banks, so in fact the bank of Canada is more Central than the FED.

I think the point that is making is that the compromise was to make it so that not all the banks powers were in NY but spread around the US.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 30, 2011 19:23:25 GMT -5 flow5 said:

I expected as much from anyone that would even broach the subject. But as George Santayana quiped "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System both credit & the money supply were inelastic. The needs of a growing economy went unfulfilled, & this severely impeded the economic development of the country. Periodically the system generated financial panics. These financial crises caused hardships & brought undeserved losses & bankruptices to business that were basically sound.

The problem had been under discussion & study for a long time when following a crisis of unusual severity in 1907, Congress appointed a National Monetary Commission to determine what should be done.

After several years of thorough consideration, Congress evenutally adopted legislation embodying the recommendations of the Commission & other authorities - hence the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

We don't want to go back to conditions which were far worse than even the status quo.

Great post flow5, but I think your missing that vman is saying the same thing.