Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Iraq Dinar/News is a popular topic among many topics this board offers. You must log in to see and participate in our Dinar sections.

Your welcome to be apart of Anesis Club (Private) after at least becoming a FREE Rookie in my Network at this link https://www.onelife.eu/signup/nenosplace

Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 7am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2017


Fed v Congress v Bankers

Share

Lobo
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 19685
Thanked : 940
Join date : 2013-01-12

Fed v Congress v Bankers

Post by Lobo on Sun 15 Nov 2015, 1:31 pm

Fed v Congress v Bankers

Posted on November 15, 2015 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Don’t you think it is wrong that the private banks own the institution that administers them.
ANSWER: You have to understand what was intended. It was originally a bailout entity for banks so they had to fund it. That made sense initially, Then with time and circumstances, the Fed has morphed into something that is now some quasi-political-governmental-agency that nobody would have created from the outset.
I do not think the Fed should be owned by the Treasury since then politicians will control it for political purposes. I can hear it now: “Vote for me and I will give free interest on credit cards!” I do not think in its present form it should be owned by banks collecting 6%. I would advocate a public float as is the case in Switzerland.
My point is the politicians keep changing the Fed and relieve themselves of ALL fiscal responsibility for economic booms and busts and blame the Fed, which is wrong, since they are the primary cause of aggravating the business cycle.
I do not advocate conspiracy theories against the Fed or criticism of exclusively the Fed ignoring the role of Congress. To solve the problem we MUST look at the whole. You need a central bank to clear. Bank failures were because of relationship banking where they borrow short-term and lend long-term. Elastic money made sense under the idea you did not have to liquidate loans to repay depositors in a panic. The elastic money would expand during a panic and then contract when over.
Now that banks are doing transactional banking and not holding long-term loans on their books, then they no longer need elastic money or bailouts and should collapse when they screw up. They should be held for CRIMINAL prosecution if they are trading with other people’s money. You cannot have it both ways. If the Fed is to stimulate, then they should buy corporate paper, not government, and then the money is directly injected into the economy whereas currently the banks still refuse to lend money long-term.
The Fed is caught between politicians and bankers. That is not a very nice place to be these days. We will have to REFORM this position after the crash, but eliminating the Fed will create chaos and it will not solve the problem as long as Congress has any power to create debt and the big banks moved to transactional banking abandoning relationship banking.
 
This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Martin Armstrong. Bookmark the permalink.

    Current date/time is Wed 18 Jan 2017, 8:16 pm