FED Conspiracy theories

[SpringHallConvert]

drkitten, no offense, but you really don't understand the U.S. monetary system or the Federal Reserve. That's not your fault, though, and I don't hold it against you personally. To most people this is a very nebulous subject and our education system certainly doesn't teach it to any real extent. If anything, our schools try to steer us away from understanding the nature of money.

Anybody else here want to give this a shot?

 

[Travis]

All ideas that are later proven to be true are at first denied, laughed at, and mocked. Then, later on when they are proven credible, they are accepted.

That is not true. Many, if not most, ideas that turn out to be true are not denied, laughed at or mocked.


And your ideas on fiscal policy: do you seriously want to emulate Zimbabwe? Because controlled inflation is generally good but without controls you will invariably either get run-a-way inflation or deflation.

 

[Travis]

drkitten, no offense, but you really don't understand the U.S. monetary system or the Federal Reserve. That's not your fault, though, and I don't hold it against you personally. To most people this is a very nebulous subject and our education system certainly doesn't teach it to any real extent. If anything, our schools try to steer us away from understanding the nature of money.

Anybody else here want to give this a shot?

drkitten is actually a noted expert on that very subject. Go look through the economics sub forum to see how many wrong headed people such as yourself have tramped in here only to have their rear end served to them....as you invariably will here too.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

And your ideas on fiscal policy: do you seriously want to emulate Zimbabwe? Because controlled inflation is generally good but without controls you will invariably either get run-a-way inflation or deflation.

Once again, revisit U.S. monetary history prior to 1913. We had a largely free, decentralized banking system and never suffered any periods of runaway inflation or deflation. There were natural ebbs and flows to the economy as it expanded and contracted, but nothing that wasn't naturally corrected.

We never resembled Zimbabwe in that time.

 

[drkitten]

That only addresses the interest paid on the national debt. You are forgetting of course the thousands of Federal Reserve System member banks making thousands of loans to consumers and businesses every day and all the interest they collect on this counterfeited money.

Ah, so you recognize and admit that your claim that the Fed controls the US governmetn fiscal policy was absolutely specious, since now you're talking about what private enterprises do with their own money.

Each dollar created as loan money carries a burden of interest,

... in exchange for the privilege of buying things for which the borrower does not have enough money.

So this cycle goes on and on, generating billions of dollars in profit on money created out of thin air.

... and even more billions in profit on created money for the borrowers who are able to use the newly created money as leverage to create more wealth than they could have otherwise.

Banking is sounding more and more like a net good to any rational observer.

After that sinks in,

What's to sink, other than your credibility? I said you were wrong. After reading your extended response, I can emend that to "you're totally wrong."

 

[SpringHallConvert]

drkitten is actually a noted expert on that very subject. Go look through the economics sub forum to see how many wrong headed people such as yourself have tramped in here only to have their rear end served to them....as you invariably will here too.

If drkitten is your "noted expert" here, it's no wonder so much of the stuff I have read here in the last 24-hours is utter nonsense.

He's getting effortlessly blasted in this thread.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Ah, so you recognize and admit that your claim that the Fed controls the US governmetn fiscal policy was absolutely specious, since now you're talking about what private enterprises do with their own money.

For everybody reading this thread, take note of how often drkitten needs to lie and false frame the debate.

Here's what he claims I said:

so you recognize and admit that your claim that the Fed controls the US governmetn fiscal policy

Now here's what I really said:

The Federal Reserve is the fulcrum of all U.S. monetary policy and is the primary determinant of U.S. government fiscal policy.

This is a rather large difference.

... in exchange for the privilege of buying things for which the borrower does not have enough money.

Why should a private cartel printing counterfeit notes determine the privileges of U.S. citizens?

... and even more billions in profit on created money for the borrowers who are able to use the newly created money as leverage to create more wealth than they could have otherwise.

Which is why our economy is so out of balance with so much malinvestment and waste. A sound economy wouldn't be hemorrhaging wealth, shipping jobs overseas, facing record trade imbalances, have so much private and public debt, and be losing ground to it's competitors around the world.

Banking is sounding more and more like a net good to any rational observer.

There's nothing inherently wrong with banking and bankers, but the version of banking in the United States is, once again, a Bernie Madoff-style Ponzi scheme. We have a casino economy run by private bankers.

What's to sink, other than your credibility? I said you were wrong. After reading your extended response, I can emend that to "you're totally wrong."

Actually I am right. You know it and I know it. You're just naturally frustrated by someone who won't allow you to float your B.S. across the board without it being challenged.

 

[Lyrandar]

If drkitten is your "noted expert" here, it's no wonder so much of the stuff I have read here in the last 24-hours is utter nonsense.

He's getting effortlessly blasted in this thread.

As you may have noted, I've been giving this a try as well. From my point of view, your arguments are getting blasted to pieces by drkitten. I was tempted to leave this debate to him, but I suppose I owe you the best response I can muster to your arguments.

What risk are you talking about? What's risky about trying to influence politics through monetary "donations", think tanks, tax-exempt foundations, and NGOs?

What's risky is that it doesn't always work and tends to result in nothing but a lot of money spent to no purpose when it fails. There are also hard limits to its power - there are some things which money can't buy, essentially.

If this group you're postulating has this much power and such a massive hunger for control, why can't they come up with a more reliable way to get it?

I have no doubt that some politicians go into politics with good intentions. The problem is the lobbying money we are talking about here is in the billions. Many politicians become corrupt over time and will do anything to remain in government. Some are given inducements to vote a certain way on a certain bill and some are promised millions to help their re-election campaigns. That's how things work in Washington. Money over morality, for the most part. I wish it wasn't so

I'm not trying to argue that the system is perfect. It's not, and you have mentioned some of its problems. This doesn't mean that these organizations with money are the only ones that get what they want out of Capitol Hill, nor that people with no money never get what they want. As much as that money matters... there are still far more people in the lower income brackets then there are rich people.

On top of that, people can and do get caught for things like corruption. If it was as widespread as you seem to think, I think far more people would be in trouble for it.

The Fed, and those behind it, is at the very top of the pyramid. Everything flows down from the Fed. It's difficult to blame other factors because they aren't independent of Fed policy.

The Fed can't control every single factor affecting the economy. Things such as the attitudes of the general public have a massive impact.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

I came here to discuss monetary policy, monetary concepts, and central banking with well-read people who have the ability to argue the non-conspiratorial viewpoint that runs counter to mine. I actually enjoy being challenged and made to think. So far I haven't found that in this thread.

Is there anybody else on this website who can intelligently carry an argument without being disingenuous or is this the best I am going to get? Because if this is the best, there are other boards I can participate on where the level of discussion is higher.

I don't mind explaining these concepts to people or sharing my views, but wasting my time combating trolls is old and it always ends the same way.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

As you may have noted, I've been giving this a try as well.

And I appreciate that. Thank you.

From my point of view, your arguments are getting blasted to pieces by drkitten. I was tempted to leave this debate to him, but I suppose I owe you the best response I can muster to your arguments.

It's really the other way around. I know this because I've seen all his arguments before and they don't hold up under scrutiny. Your understanding of the Federal Reserve and U.S. monetary policy, as far as I can tell, has been molded by your participation here. That is to say, you've been done a disservice.

What's risky is that it doesn't always work and tends to result in nothing but a lot of money spent to no purpose when it fails. There are also hard limits to its power - there are some things which money can't buy, essentially.

That's just it. The efforts of those who control the world's largest capital pools aren't failing. They are succeeding. That's what Carroll Quigely was trying to reveal in his book. The U.S. political paradigm between the Democrats and Republicans is largely a false construct, where no matter who a voter votes for, the same policies are pursued. If you've noticed, Obama has carried out many of the same policies Bush did, even though he promised not to.

If this group you're postulating has this much power and such a massive hunger for control, why can't they come up with a way to get them

Because it's difficult to convince, condition, and brainwash so many different types of people, and ultimately, the people, if informed of the direction their country is moving, have the power to put a stop to it.

The last thing the powers that be want is a revolt or revolution against them. They proceed cautiously and hopefully without many people taking notice.

I'm not trying to argue that the system is perfect. It's not, and you have mentioned some of its problems. This doesn't mean that these organizations with money are the only ones that get what they want out of Capitol Hill, nor that people with no money never get what they want. As much as that money matters... there are still far more people in the lower income brackets then there are rich people.

This is true, but all people, whether rich or poor, are subject to the information barrage of the corporate media, government education system, and other controlled mediums. Poor people, for instance, who may not be able to buy books, do research on the internet, or pursue a higher education, are the most vulnerable of all to propaganda.

Hermann Goering summed control up during the Numerberg trials after WW2:

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Public policy is easy to frame and then sell to the people, essentially. Even when it's a complete fraud.

On top of that, people can and do get caught for things like corruption. If it was as widespread as you seem to think, I think far more people would be in trouble for it.

Again, the facts don't support this. Our system is overrun with corruption. Just look at all the fraud in the banking sector that was uncovered during the financial meltdown. How many people have been prosecuted?

Not very many.

The Fed can't control every single factor affecting the economy. Things such as the attitudes of the general public have a massive impact.

The attitudes of people are largely shaped by whether or not they have a job, can pay their bills, and keep up with the price of goods and services. Federal Reserve monetary policy has the biggest impact on all of these, as they dictate the supply of money and credit.

This is just basic common sense stuff.

 

[Sledge]

I think post 89 must surely count as bingo on a CTist card.

 

[Lyrandar]

It's really the other way around. I know this because I've seen all his arguments before and they don't hold up under scrutiny. Your understanding of the Federal Reserve and U.S. monetary policy, as far as I can tell, has been molded by your participation here. That is to say, you've been done a disservice.

Most of what I've posted here was stuff I believed before I came to this forum, although I didn't have as many chances to publicly air it.

That's just it. The efforts of those who control the world's largest capital pools aren't failing. They are succeeding. That's what Carroll Quigely was trying to reveal in his book. The U.S. political paradigm between the Democrats and Republicans is largely a false construct, where no matter who a voter votes for, the same policies are pursued. If you've noticed, Obama has carried out many of the same policies Bush did, even though he promised not to.

Regarding the idea that the same policies are pursued, I actually agree. I think many people get caught up on the political differences and fail to realize that both sides can recognize what's best for the country and do it.

Basically, you also need to convince me that these same policies which everyone is pursuing are designed to benefit these few rich people at the expense of the general populace.

You also do need to account for the fact that there are still many differences between what the parties do, some on issues that could well have a major effect on these few rich people.

Because it's difficult to convince, condition, and brainwash so many different types of people, and ultimately, the people, if informed of the direction their country is moving, have the power to put a stop to it.

The last thing the powers that be want is a revolt or revolution against them. They proceed cautiously and hopefully without many people taking notice.

The argument I'm seeing here is that there's a slippery slope - we won't notice a gradual change where we would notice jumping off a cliff.

The problem I have with this argument is that I think there are some lines people will resist crossing, no matter how slowly we approach them. I also don't think that we would lose the power to reverse the changes at any point.

This is true, but all people, whether rich or poor, are subject to the information barrage of the corporate media, government education system, and other controlled mediums. Poor people, for instance, who may not be able to buy books, do research on the internet, or pursue a higher education, are the most vulnerable of all to propaganda.

You're arguing that money can be used to have an effect on just about anyone, I think. Which is true, but again, there are limits. Not everyone will be affected. And what about academics and researchers that can look at these things for themselves and come up with their own answers?

Again, the facts don't support this. Our system is overrun with corruption. Just look at all the fraud in the banking sector that was uncovered during the financial meltdown. How many people have been prosecuted?

Not very many.

The only problem I have with this is that I find it questionable as an argument regarding political corruption and the willingness of various political groups to allow rich lobbyists to entirely dictate their choices.

The attitudes of people are largely shaped by whether or not they have a job, can pay their bills, and keep up with the price of goods and services. Federal Reserve monetary policy has the biggest impact on all of these, as they dictate the supply of money and credit.

This is just basic common sense stuff.

I think there's a difference between direct control of these factors and indirect control. I don't think the Fed can very readily make public opinion and spending habits swing exactly the way they want at will. For that matter, that isn't even the only factor anyway. What about things like availability of natural resources?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Which makes this a conscious political decision on the part of the US government.

I somehow missed this response from the second page.

So, you're saying it's a deliberate and conscious political decision by our politicians to spend the U.S. taxpayer into higher and higher levels of debt?

What might their aims be in following such a ruinous fiscal policy? Any ideas?

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The governments raises money by selling securities on the open market to anyone who wants to lend money to it. (And the organization that sells the securities is the Treasury department, not the Fed.)

All you're really saying here is the Treasury prints up pieces of paper called Treasuries and sells them on the open market, as well as the Federal Reserve, who then prints up money and/or deposits credits in the U.S. Treasury account.

Which doesn't disprove anything I have said. The government has to borrow money from outsides sources, including our own Federal Reserve, to pay it's bills.

It's only in the past year or so that the Fed has been buying and selling securities in the market as part of the stimulus plan,.... which given that this corresponds almost exactly with the period you already noted as near deflationary makes your suggestion that the Fed is manipulating US government debt to cause inflation even more ludicrous.

This is another of your fabrications. For anybody reading this thread, this claim right here:

It's only in the past year or so that the Fed has been buying and selling securities in the market.

This is either a complete and total lie or a mistake only made by someone who doesn't understand the U.S. monetary system. The Fed has ALWAYS bought and sold securities on the open market as a function of monettary policy as it relates to the money supply.

From Wikipedia:

Open market operations are the means of implementing monetary policy by which a central bank controls the short term interest rate and the supply of base money in an economy, and thus indirectly the total money supply. This involves meeting the demand of base money at the target rate by buying and selling government securities, or other financial instruments. Monetary targets such as inflation, interest rates or exchange rates are used to guide this implementation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_market_operations

Again, for anybody reading drkitten's responses in this thread, he is a complete farce. Forming your opinion on the Federal Reserve and U.S. monetary policy based off of anything he writes in any of these threads would be like regarding a snake oil salesman as an expert on medicine.

Buyer beware.

 

[Travis]

I came here to discuss monetary policy, monetary concepts, and central banking with well-read people who have the ability to argue the non-conspiratorial viewpoint that runs counter to mine. I actually enjoy being challenged and made to think. So far I haven't found that in this thread.

Is there anybody else on this website who can intelligently carry an argument without being disingenuous or is this the best I am going to get? Because if this is the best, there are other boards I can participate on where the level of discussion is higher.

I don't mind explaining these concepts to people or sharing my views, but wasting my time combating trolls is old and it always ends the same way.

Trying to fool us into thinking you're "winning" is not going to work. At some point you will have to actually provide some non-gibberish evidence.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Basically, you also need to convince me that these same policies which everyone is pursuing are designed to benefit these few rich people at the expense of the general populace.

You have to read Quigley. He explains all that, including how the U.S. political system has been hijacked and is secretly run by the Council on Foreign Relations and why these policies are pursued (basically to bring about economic conditions in the United States where the people will actually want world government). I can't do his multi-page explanation justice.

You really should also go back and watch those videos I linked. Nothing short of a lot of Quigley reading will explain what's really going on better than those videos. In less than an hour you will know more about what is going on in the United States and the real geopolitical picture than anybody on this board.

You also do need to account for the fact that there are still many differences between what the parties do, some on issues that could well have a major effect on these few rich people.

There are NO MAJOR DIFFERENCES. Any differences you see are cosmetic only and meant to keep you from realizing that the two parties are really just one party controlled by the same people. For instance, one party might favor a 35% tax bracket while the other might favor a 32% tax bracket, and they'll sell this to the American people as a huge issue. It's really not. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

The argument I'm seeing here is that there's a slippery slope - we won't notice a gradual change where we would notice jumping off a cliff.

The problem I have with this argument is that I think there are some lines people will resist crossing, no matter how slowly we approach them. I also don't think that we would lose the power to reverse the changes at any point.

I wish this were true, but I think if you were to go back in time to 1910 and describe for them how society would be in 100 years (racial integration, porn on demand everywhere you look, a completely usury-based monetary system, etc...), they would laugh at you and say some variation of, "there are some lines people will resist crossing!". Barriers are constantly being broken down. People get used to things they never would have believed even possible.

You're arguing that money can be used to have an effect on just about anyone, I think. Which is true, but again, there are limits. Not everyone will be affected. And what about academics and researchers that can look at these things for themselves and come up with their own answers?

Academics and researchers can be bought off, and those that can't be are ignored and shunned.

I have an article I'd like you to read and fully digest. It's very important in understanding this conversation. From the Huffington Post:

The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession, an investigation by the Huffington Post has found.

This dominance helps explain how, even after the Fed failed to foresee the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, the central bank has largely escaped criticism from academic economists. In the Fed's thrall, the economists missed it, too.

"The Fed has a lock on the economics world," says Joshua Rosner, a Wall Street analyst who correctly called the meltdown. "There is no room for other views, which I guess is why economists got it so wrong."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html?view=screen

The only problem I have with this is that I find it questionable as an argument regarding political corruption and the willingness of various political groups to allow rich lobbyists to entirely dictate their choices.

I think there's a difference between direct control of these factors and indirect control. I don't think the Fed can very readily make public opinion and spending habits swing exactly the way they want at will. For that matter, that isn't even the only factor anyway. What about things like availability of natural resources?

Truth be told, this issue goes way beyond lobbyists. I only reference their power and influence because most people know they exist and won't automatically label it a "conspiracy" if you point to them as an example of how bought-off our political system is. Above and beyond lobbyists there are groups of people representing other powerful interests not known by most of the public.

As for natural resources, this is a separate issue and I don't know how you are intending to integrate them into this conversation. I will point out that the process by which natural resources are found, processed, and distributed to the market is controlled by... [drum roll]... money. He who controls the money controls the resources, and if he doesn't, it's a fairly easy matter to buy them up.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Right, and I'm sure Bernie Madoff informed all of his investors that he was operating in their interests.

Do you really believe everything you are told?

I haven’t been “told” anything. I know how the Fed works because I’m not some childish conspiracy theorist. You’re the one that’s regurgitating un-parsed information of well-known false information. You don’t understand economics and you don’t understand how central banks work.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Trying to fool us into thinking you're "winning" is not going to work. At some point you will have to actually provide some non-gibberish evidence.

What specifically do you need evidence for?

Do you need evidence that our monetary system is controlled by a private cartel?

Do you need evidence that our monetary system is debt-based and not back by any commodities or assets?

Do you need evidence that the Jekyll Island meeting that later birthed the Federal Reserve was conducted in absolute secrecy?

Do you need evidence that all money in our system is created at interest?

Do you need evidence that the U.S. government and people are under massive debts due to the nature of this system?

Do you need evidence that over the last one hundred years that governments and financial systems of this world have been slowly consolidating and coming together?

Help me to help you. Tell me your understanding level and I will try to fill in some of the blanks.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

I haven’t been “told” anything. I know how the Fed works because I’m not some childish conspiracy theorist.

You should be. You'd actually have a more well-rounded approach to complex issues.

You’re the one that’s regurgitating un-parsed information of well-known false information.

Who's falsified it? Get them in this thread, ASAP. I'd like to discuss it with them.

You don’t understand economics and you don’t understand how central banks work.

Says the person who hasn't made one single argument above a grade school level that can be scrutinized in this thread.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

You should be. You'd actually have a more well-rounded approach to complex issues.

Yeah, if by “well-rounded” you mean “completely wrong”.

Plenty of ignorant people, but we can start with Griffin. He’s the one that popularised the nonsense.

Says the person who hasn't made one single argument above a grade school level that can be scrutinized in this thread.

Why must I yet again be forced to debate somebody who doesn’t understand economics or central banking? How many times must I do this with people who are immune to facts and logic? It’s very very easy to learn about central banking and those that spew the nonsense you do have already deliberately ignored all the facts. Seriously, I’ve tried to educate people like you about this topic more than 3 dozen times over the last few years, and I’m well and truly over repeating myself. Hell, this is the second Fed CT thread in as many months.

Go through life ignorant, see if I care. Just because I am unwilling to respond at length to your nonsense only means I have conspiracy theorist fatigue. Go get a degree in economics and stop wasting everyone’s time.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Yeah, if by “well-rounded” you mean “completely wrong”.

Surely you've heard or read the expression:

History is written by the victors.

In other words, those who win the battles get to tell the story of the battle, why it was fought, and who benefited. Obviously, this is problematic, as there are always two sides to every story.

The conspiratorial view of history forces anybody interested in history to view all sides, not just the mainstream side provided by the victors.

Plenty of ignorant people, but we can start with Griffin. He’s the one that popularised the nonsense.

This isn't accurate. Eustace Mullins, for instance, was writing about the Federal Reserve and Jekyll Island long before G. Edward Griffin. And before Mullins there were congressmen questioning the Federal Reserve.

Why must I yet again be forced to debate somebody who doesn’t understand economics or central banking? How many times must I do this with people who are immune to facts and logic? It’s very very easy to learn about central banking and those that spew the nonsense you do have already deliberately ignored all the facts. Seriously, I’ve tried to educate people like you about this topic more than 3 dozen times over the last few years, and I’m well and truly over repeating myself. Hell, this is the second Fed CT thread in as many months.

Nobody forced you to reply to the thread or my posts. If you aren't up for it there's nothing preventing you from leaving.

Go through life ignorant, see if I care. Just because I am unwilling to respond at length to your nonsense only means I have conspiracy theorist fatigue. Go get a degree in economics and stop wasting everyone’s time.

Read that Huffington Post piece I linked up above and then ask yourself how much an economics degree is really worth when the academe is largely controlled by the Federal Reserve along with all useful criticism.