harry alot of institution are neither private nor controled by the governement (say justice for one) again you present all these things in a "conspiracy theory" sort of way that doesn't add any value to your point. on top of that, and i repeat myself, the fed has very limited impact over the economy, both financial and real. in normal times (where there's no bankrun) the only function of the fed (to whish it is enttled by the US senat after the 1913 bank run) is to print a legal currency whish is in turn landed to the private banking systeme at fixed rate for overnight barrowing used to meet legal maintenance requirement. and this is all the fed does, now while i can understand that some people have a bad time digesting that printing money magic part of the equation and feel that there lacke of knowledge allows them to fantacize about money creation and the power it creats i can assure you that all the "magic" behind that mystery box of yours is troughtfully explained in any undergraduate economic book and that there nothing neither so magic no worrying about that.
So you think that the Rotschilds who are main shareholders of the FED - see above link - are interested to have no influence at all . I pick this from this thread http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=31543 "Give me control over a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws" - Baron M.A. Rothschild (1744 - 1812)
harry c'mn a link to some post/crap on a public forum can hardly add any credibility to your point look i don't mind a disscussion, but only to the extend there's something to debate about. even do, from a legal stand point of view, the fed is a monopoly (again pretty much like the justice departement) from an economic standpoint of view the fed has no monopoly in the economic world a monopoly has full simultaneous control over the quantity and the price of the good it produces (like pfizer on the viagra brand), the fed only control one side of this equation (as a proof there's substitute to the dollar available on the market, whish woudln't be the case if the fed had a monopoly over money supply)
I'm sorry but this study from Congress is publicly reknown so if all your argument is about its authenticity then I invite you to ask the Congress yourself. And the fact that you just ignore it like many prove indeed the level of disinformation about the FED. Just try to know the shareholders of the FED and you will see how difficult it is to get it whereas it should be as easy as it can for any other corporation not even as important as the FED. The FED controls every side since they represent the bankers and the bankers are behind all corporations. And all their interests is about ... interests and so tax people and they can since they control the public debts since it is the tax that serve to repay the financial debts. And to make this debts grow they have interest in wars and poverty since assistancy generate public spending and so debts and so taxes. And the final consequence is each time a big crash to "clean" the system at the expense of a whole generation notably those who will retire.
Since I am saying what Alan Greenspan said also I suppose that he was also a conspirator then ? And if you doubt he said that here a public record on gov site http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=31759 From "Gold and Economic Freedom," in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1967, Alan Greenspan "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.... The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money 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.... 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... The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirade against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."
look if you want to know how the fed works (whish should be your first step if you aim to criticize it) then be independant enought not to feed your brain with these crap links posted by unemployed people on public forum and just jump into the first univerity library an learn abut money supply i'm trying not to be disrespectfull here, just trying to be helpfull, again having an independant spirit is good, probleme is in this century nobody will take you're word seriously unless you know what you're talking about
Yes here it is: isn't it independant enough for you what Alan Greenspan said WHEN HE WAS INDEPENDANT ? Or do you prefer the welfare SOCIALIST STATISTS THOUGHTS which seems to have BRAINWASHED YOU ?!!! Sure you don't have any notion of ECONOMICS AND FREEDOM ! For the moment you still have freedom. We will see in the future for your children I will see also as I'm still young. From "Gold and Economic Freedom," in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 1967, Alan Greenspan "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.... The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money 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.... 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... The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirade against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."
Unemployment develops, that is to say, because people want the moon;âmen cannot be employed when the object of desire (i.e. money) is something which cannot be produced and the demand for which cannot be readily choked off. There is no remedy but to persuade the public that green cheese is practically the same thing and to have a green cheese factory (i.e. a central bank) under public control. It is interesting to notice that the characteristic which has been traditionally supposed to render gold especially suitable for use as the standard of value, namely, its inelasticity of supply, turns out to be precisely the characteristic which is at the bottom of the trouble.
It is Bush that wants to go not to the Moon but farther to Mars How much he will spend for that and create again new debts ? This is just KEYNES SOCIALIST VIEW OF SPENDING MORE AND MORE as reminds Milton Friedman ! "Radio Australia: Professor Friedman, may I first ask you what you think was the main impact of the Keynesian orthodoxy on public policy which, basically since the Great Depression, tended to influence economic policy makers around the world? Professor Friedman: It certainly did, although the effect was primarily, I'd say, after World War II. Keynes's book, after all, came out in 1936 and only three years elapsed after that before the world was at war. So the main effect was after the war and the effect was very extensive, there's no question about that, and it still exists. The effect was to encourage politicians to do what politicians love to do: spend money and not raise taxes. The Keynesian theory; not as Keynes himself necessarily presented it, but as it was interpreted in the intellectual community, the media and the political community; said that if you have high unemployment, the way to solve that is to cut taxes, increase government spending and create a government deficit. The government could have created the deficit entirely by cutting taxes and not increasing spending, but if you're sitting in the House of Commons in London or in your counterpart in Canberra or in Washington, obviously the thing you'd like to do is increase spending. So the major effect of the Keynesian orthodoxy in the post war period was to encourage an expansion in government spending as a fraction of income and to contribute to the inflation of the 1970s, not because of the spending, but because of the loose monetary policies that went along with it."
Fascinating discourse. But conspiracy? How do all those people act as one mind with this common goal? Michael B.