Dude ... Where's My Recession?

ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Economy of Words​
Dude, where's my recession?

By Jonah Goldberg


The US economy — yes, that economy — grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate last quarter. This no doubt caused consternation at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, perhaps forcing some to consider a new convention film at the last minute: “Dude, Where's My Recession?”

To hear the Democrats at their convention this week, you'd get the sense that a recession is merely a technical term for the worst human misery ever visited upon a once-great people. You'd think Americans were listening to the Democratic speeches as they huddled around their kitchen tables (if they hadn't already been used for firewood), deciding which of their children to pack off to the orphanage and how much tree bark they can afford to eat next week.

Last night, Barack Obama proclaimed: “Our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.” He went on to describe an America reminiscent of the Grapes of Wrath (if not Mad Max).

But this was a week-long theme. Over and over again, Democrats insisted that the “American dream” is being snuffed out, crushed, beaten, stabbed and quite possibly dismembered in President Bush's West Wing bathtub, where Bush and Dick “The Cleaner” Cheney can dissolve the remains in sulfuric acid.

On Wednesday, Joe Biden reminded the world that he rides Amtrak home to Delaware from Washington. (Apparently not since Gunga Din has there been a more heroic commute.) He told us that when he gazes out the window of his barreling locomotive, he can “almost hear” the conversations in the houses he sees whizzing by.

He “almost hears” things with an awful lot of specificity: “Should Mom move in with us now that Dad's gone? Fifty, 60, 70 dollars just to fill up the gas tank? How in God's name, with winter coming, how are we gonna heat the home? Another year, no raise? Did you hear — did you hear they may be cutting our health care at the company?” Super Joe even hears people asking him, “How are we gonna retire, Joe?”

Is there nobody between DC and Delaware talking about “American Idol” or their kids' school play or how they're sick of meatloaf?

Obviously, there is real economic pain out there. Food and energy costs are rising too fast and by too much. The mortgage crisis is real.

But while Americans don't like the direction in which the country is heading, and hate high gas prices, they're pretty satisfied with their lives.

Some 94 percent of Americans polled by Harris Interactive this month said they were satisfied with the lives they lead. Gallup reports that only 9 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with their jobs and only 13 percent are dissatisfied with their job security. The unemployment rate is at a five-year high of 5.7 percent, but it wasn't long ago when that was considered close to full employment.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” mourned Sen. Biden, the “American dream feels like it's slowly slipping away. I've never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up.”

Quick question: Was this the same Washington that oversaw the largest expansion of entitlements (aka the prescription-drug benefit) since the Great Society? Was this the Washington that recently started doling out $168 billion in stimulus checks?

Biden's keen ability to hear only awful news is symptomatic of a Democratic Party that isn't merely eager to return to the White House, but desperate to launch a new New Deal.

The mind-set is on display in almost every speech. Sen. Hillary Clinton decried the policy of “giving windfall profits” to oil companies. She seems to believe that all of the money, everywhere, is the government's, and your profits are a gift. Windfall profits are defined as too big a gift from government.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, borrowing a line from Obama, complained that John McCain wants to give “$4 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil?”

No. McCain wants to lower the corporate tax rate to make us more competitive with our rivals. Yes, oil companies are included — but by this logic (as my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru notes), Obama's middle-class tax cut will be a tax break for hookers and serial killers.

The greatest irony is that the one area where the Democrats are right about American pain — high gas prices — is the one area where they're most reluctant to do anything substantial. Why? Because global warming appears to be their best shot at finding a major crisis to justify a new New Deal.

The bad news for the throngs in Denver is that Americans aren't as miserable as the Democrats need them to be.

— Jonah Goldberg is the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

 
FLoJo

FLoJo

Well-Known Member
we can all have jobs and expand at mind blowing speeds but that doesnt change the fact that we will be hitting a recession of cataclysmic proportions. they can give all the tax cuts they want, and send out however many stimulus checks they feel neccissary but its not going to do shit.. the problem lies in the base of our currency and that fact that the value on the dollar only lies in the belief that it is worth a shit... we have seen inflation unseen by any other generation because we switched from having our money backed by gold to being nothing but printed paper.... that printed paper which is SOLD to the us government by the federal reserve which by the way is a PRIVATELY held company.

the reason the dollar stays high is because oil is valued in the us dollar and so that is what many contries have in secondary reserves.. for instance the middle east has the highest concentration of treasury bond holdings of anywhere on the planet.. their main source of income is oil so what is going to happen now that russia has found an oil field that has more oil in it than the entire middle east combined? they wont have a need to keep their secondary reserves of us currency so high which will mean they will be dumping their bonds causing hyperinflation back at home and a collapse of our monetary system... that would be a perfect time for the north american union and a new currency wouldnt it (amero).

here is a very interesting article which explains a lot of the history behind our monetary system and why we are heading towards a collapse.. at this is not some conspiracy bs if you note that it has quotes from members of the world bank, imf, and the federal reserve bank from several different arms. its a lengthy read but eye opening to say the least

Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

dont mind the title it is just a comparing a similar historical situation..

and check this one out which talks about super deep drilling and how we have been misinformed about "peak oil" i checked out a lot of his facts and they do pan out

Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam

also if you have not already check out lindsey williams and the energy non crisis his predictions over the last 15 or so years have been almost spot on
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Flo ...

Thanks for that lengthy post. You are right on. Here's an essay that says it all. Hope you enjoy it:


[SIZE=+2]Gold and Economic Freedom[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]by Alan Greenspan
[written in 1966][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This article originally appeared in a newsletter: The Objectivist published in 1966 and was reprinted in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal[/SIZE]
​
[SIZE=-1]An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense - perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire - that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one-so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World Was I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline-argued economic interventionists-why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely-it was claimed-there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form-from a growing number of welfare-state advocates-was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which-through a complex series of steps-the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]###[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Alan Greenspan
[written in 1966][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This article originally appeared in a newsletter called The Objectivist published in 1966 and was reprinted in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Buy the book from Amazon[/SIZE]
 
Microdizzey

Microdizzey

Well-Known Member
Last night, Barack Obama proclaimed: “Our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.” He went on to describe an America reminiscent of the Grapes of Wrath (if not Mad Max).
Click to expand...


That's a scary quote. So what do we have to sacrifice now?
 
FLoJo

FLoJo

Well-Known Member
neither side, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, will rest until the constitution is nothing but recycled trash
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
Even more of your/our economic liberty. Sacrifice until its all gone.

Galt's Gultch, anyone? bongsmilie

Vi
Click to expand...
Bolderdash, McSame wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent with the deficit growing like a snowball from hell. What idiotic fiscal responsibility is that? Whatever president comes next will have to raise taxes, or the chinese may as well start moving in to the country they will own.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
medicineman said:
Code: 
[COLOR=red]Bolderdash, McSame wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent with the deficit growing like a snowball from hell. What idiotic fiscal responsibility is that? Whatever president comes next will have to raise taxes, or the chinese may as well start moving in to the country they will own.[/COLOR][/
quote]

Balderdash, my ass. The problem isn't too few taxes ... the problem is too much spending. You'll see some major vetoes come down if/when McCain/Palin are in the White House. This is what is scaring the bejeezus out of the so called "progressives," i.e., socialists, communists and fascists that now run the Democrat Party."

Let's see ... more constructionists on the bench, veto massive spending bills, maintain our military strength, abolish defunct federal bureaus, lower taxes and more economic liberty. Sounds about right to me. :mrgreen:

Vi
Click to expand...
 
VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
ViRedd said:
The problem isn't too few taxes ... the problem is too much spending.
Click to expand...
True.
ViRedd said:
You'll see some major vetoes come down if/when McCain/Palin are in the White House.
Click to expand...
Like Obama, I've not heard much from the McCain camp regarding reductions in federal spending.

ViRedd said:
Let's see ... more constructionists on the bench, veto massive spending bills, maintain our military strength, abolish defunct federal bureaus, lower taxes and more economic liberty. Sounds about right to me.
Click to expand...
McCain voted in favor of the last federal budget that allowed the deficit to grow to 9 trillion dollars. That, to me at least, is quite telling. He can say anything he wants, but I look to his vote and he voted to grow the federal gov't. Has he mentioned anything about dismantling any gov't departments? And as for the military, I am opposed to our occupation overseas. The original intent of the military was to protect our borders...not maintain a presence in untold countries across the globe.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
Back to the subject recession and taxes. To curtail the recession, the answer is not and never has been to reduce taxes. That is a republican talking point to snatch democratic voters. All reducing taxes does is make those at the top richer. The taxes will have to be increased, economics 1-A. You can't survive on deficit spending ad-infinitum. Someone has to pay the piper, and I vote for the rich. No matter who wins the white house, taxes must be raised. The last eight years have bankrupted the nation, and the coffers need re-filling.
 
ccodiane

ccodiane

New Member
ViRedd said:
That right, cc.

America use to be unique, in that, vast oceans separated us, and protected us from foreign invasion. Not now. Not with modern technology and rapid transit.

Vi
Click to expand...
Amazing, isn't it. We can hop on a plane today and be half way around the world tomorrow. I'm glad to be alive at this time in history, as an American. God bless us.
 
FLoJo

FLoJo

Well-Known Member
Dopalicious said:
no black man named Saddam Hussein Osama Bin Laden will win the Presidency after a terrorist attack....
Click to expand...
dont be so sure of yourself.. a smooth talker can do wonders on an uneducated and ignorant public...

and back to the topic... no amount of taxes will ever be able to refill our coffers. the federal reserve (a privately held corporation) prints our money and sells it to the government in flat denominations... last i read it was something like 14 cents per bill no matter if it a one dollar or a hundred.. printing more and more fiat money that has no backing does nothing but increase inflation, lowering our savings values, and reducing the buying power and global confidence in the dollar. basically the more money we print, the less the money is worht, and the more in debt we become.. it has gotten to the point where we cannot even pay the interest on our national debt.. we are having to borrow from other countries to keep from going nationally bankrupt.. this is exactly why we are going to war in foreign lands... resources

hell now we are having to change the composition of our coins.. inflation has brought us to the point where a penny costs like 1.2 cents to make... they have to find a cheaper alternative to copper. a nickel costs about 5.1 cents or something like that.. and we need an alternative to nickel... whats going to happen when people start melting down money and selling the metal? its all just a fucking mess and it may be too late to do anything about
 
john.roberts85

john.roberts85

Well-Known Member
FLoJo said:
dont be so sure of yourself.. a smooth talker can do wonders on an uneducated and ignorant public...

and back to the topic... no amount of taxes will ever be able to refill our coffers. the federal reserve (a privately held corporation) prints our money and sells it to the government in flat denominations... last i read it was something like 14 cents per bill no matter if it a one dollar or a hundred.. printing more and more fiat money that has no backing does nothing but increase inflation, lowering our savings values, and reducing the buying power and global confidence in the dollar. basically the more money we print, the less the money is worht, and the more in debt we become.. it has gotten to the point where we cannot even pay the interest on our national debt.. we are having to borrow from other countries to keep from going nationally bankrupt.. this is exactly why we are going to war in foreign lands... resources

hell now we are having to change the composition of our coins.. inflation has brought us to the point where a penny costs like 1.2 cents to make... they have to find a cheaper alternative to copper. a nickel costs about 5.1 cents or something like that.. and we need an alternative to nickel... whats going to happen when people start melting down money and selling the metal? its all just a fucking mess and it may be too late to do anything about
Click to expand...
The Fed isn't a privately held corporation. It's as much public as it is private, if not more so. The president nominates every member of the BOG and can give the boot to all with little cause. The Fed oversees the expansion and contraction of the monetary supply mainly through the FFR. THE FED DOES NOT PRINT MONEY; that'd be the Department of Treasury (through the US Mint and BEP), which was formed 130+ years prior to the formation of the Fed. Friedman wasn't right about much, except that we should stick to fiat. bongsmilie

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/by_juliet_eilperin_when_alaska.html
 
FLoJo

FLoJo

Well-Known Member
john.roberts85 said:
The Fed isn't a privately held corporation. It's as much public as it is private, if not more so. The president nominates every member of the BOG and can give the boot to all with little cause. The Fed oversees the expansion and contraction of the monetary supply mainly through the FFR. THE FED DOES NOT PRINT MONEY; that'd be the Department of Treasury (through the US Mint and BEP), which was formed 130+ years prior to the formation of the Fed. Friedman wasn't right about much, except that we should stick to fiat. bongsmilie
Click to expand...
ok technically they do not print the money but they do sell it to the government! check yo self...

Court says differently
Court Rules Fed is Privately Owned
The Federal Reserve is a Private Financial Institution

so does encyclopedia britannica

Federal Reserve System -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
The Federal Reserve System is the central banking authority of the United States. It acts as a fiscal agent for the U.S. government, is custodian of the reserve accounts of commercial banks, makes loans to commercial banks, and oversees the supply of [COLOR=#009900 ! important][COLOR=#009900 ! important]currency[/COLOR][/COLOR], including coin, in coordination with the U.S. Mint. Created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the system consists of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the 12 Federal Reserve banks, the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Advisory Council, and, since 1976, a Consumer Advisory Council; there are several thousand member banks.

A Federal Reserve bank is a privately owned corporation established pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act to serve the public interest; it is governed by a board of nine directors, six of whom are elected by the member banks and three of whom are appointed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The 12 Federal Reserve banks are located in Boston; New York City; Philadelphia; Chicago; San Francisco; Cleveland, Ohio; Richmond, Virginia; Atlanta, Georgia; St. Louis, Missouri; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Kansas City, Missouri; and Dallas, Texas.

From Liberty Dollar
Who owns Federal Reserve Notes?
The privately owned Federal Reserve Banks owns all money in circulation. The Federal Reserve Notes are printed for 4.2 cents per bill, regardless of denomination, and then lent into circulation to be repaid at full face value, plus interest. The printing of the Federal Reserve Notes creates our National Debt.

Federal Reserve - The Federal Reserve is a Privately Owned Corporation

were headed down the same road as the continental congress who at the time printed vast sums of money out of thin air to fund the war... it quickly inflated and was worthless hence the term not worth a continental... next it will be not worth a dollar!! wake up peeps

GO RON PAUL!
H.R. 2755: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act (GovTrack.us)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top