so much emotion invested into this issue. Why? your analysis of jurisprudence is manifests a lack of experience. Have you heard of appellate courts and a split of opinion in the appellate courts? I think you may be confused about lower courts being bound by "binding" precedent. I have pointed out to you many times... although you are a smart guy... your understanding of jurisprudence is lacking. You have no business speaking authoritatively on legal matters. You don't have the training or experience or license to do so. Besides - most lawyers understand there are exceptions to every rule - so lawyers rarely speak authoritatively... especially when we could be sued if we are wrong. By the way... did you read the case. Did the court distinguish their case from other cases? They did do that didn't they? So do judges always feel compelled to follow precedent? no... they do not. In my experience when logic and precedents (not a typo) disagree, judges frequently distinguish their case from prior cases and make new laws and new rulings. So you read the case and you see how well the case was reasoned. In the case of the Federal Reserve bank being a private entity not owned by the Federal Govt... the case was well reasoned indeed.
the disparity comes when the central banks puts trillions of dollars out into the public in addition to the spending by the federal govt. those with the assets see the value of their assets increase dramatically via inflation. those paying taxes see their incomes destroyed by progressive tax rates and and ever expanding set of new federal state and local taxes. It becomes a world in which each year more and more people fall into the poverty trap created by big inflation and big taxation. Even if you do have some assets its very hard to keep making inflation beating investments... then when you die... you get taxed again. Its set up like a hamster wheel to get everyone and every family outside of the top .1 percent or less. Eventually all the assets go to those with connections to the Federal Reserve money spigot or those who can pay armys of lawyers to set up very expensive and complex tax avoidance structures. In the end those with the assets get to buy the politicians and own the govt.
Correct... now read the analysis why its not part of the Federal govt for the purpose of the act. That is a much better test... not your test of profits. "There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of federal government control over the "detailed physical performance" and "day to day operation" of that entity. . . . Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . ., whether the government is involved in the entity's finances. . . ., and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States, . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purpose of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations. Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stockholding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors. The remaining three directors are appointed by the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks, but direct supervision and control of each Bank is exercised by its board of directors. 12 U.S.C. Sect. 301. The directors enact by-laws regulating the manner of conducting general Bank business, 12 U.S.C. Sect. 341, and appoint officers to implement and supervise daily Bank activities. These activites include collecting and clearing checks, making advances to private and commercial entities, holding reserves for member banks, discounting the notes of member banks, and buying and selling securities on the open market. See 12 U.S.C. Sub-Sect. 341-361." - by the way... did you read the part about "making advances", that is the creating money with a keystroke or money out of the either or money out of thin air part. Which makes a "profits" analysis irrelevant.
Garry Kasparov: Hey, Bernie, Don’t Lecture Me About Socialism. I Lived Through It. Why my rant against the Democratic candidate’s prescription for America went viral. 2016 seems like a strange time to be arguing the merits of socialism in an American presidential campaign. But it’s also strange for the prospective leaders of the free world to be talking about the KKK and their appendages, so clearly this year is not like any other. While the latter topics are, thankfully, beyond my purview, I have a great deal of interest in socialism. Last week I expressed some of these thoughts on Facebook after hearing a clip of “democratic socialist” candidate Senator Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday. This was already a rarity, considering how little time the networks have left after their blanket coverage of Donald Trump’s latest outrages. My post on the nature of socialism was 113 words long, a quick response to critics of a cartoon I had posted of Bernie Sanders wearing a baseball cap reading “Make America Greece Again.” My goal was to remind people that Americans talking about socialism in the 21st century was a luxury paid for by the successes of capitalism in the 20th. And that while inequality is a huge problem, the best way to increase everyone’s share of pie is to make the pie bigger, not to dismantle the bakery. Much to my surprise, my little rant went viral, as the saying goes. Instead of the usual few hundred Facebook shares, this paragraph quickly reached tens of thousands. By the next morning it had reached several million people, more than any of the day’s political posts by the leading candidates. A week later and it has over 3,000 comments, 57,000 shares, and a 9.3 million reach that is in the category usually reserved for photos of pop stars and kitten videos. My conclusion that “the idea that the solution [to inequality] is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd” apparently had great resonance, and I think I know why. There is a growing consensus that America has deep troubles, and no one can agree on solutions. Everyone agrees that Washington should change, and some want the government to do much more while others want it to do much less. Many of the traditional economic numbers say that America is doing fine, and yet polls say that Americans—especially Sanders supporters—are angry about the present and fearful about the future. I often talk about the need to restore a vision of America as a positive force in the world, a force for liberty and peace. The essential complement to this is having big positive dreams at home as well, of restoring America’s belief in ambition and risk, of innovation and exploration, of free markets and free people. America transformed the 20th century in its image with its unparalleled success. American technology created the modern world while American culture infused it and American values inspired it. In recent decades that storyline has flipped. The tireless work ethic and spirit of risk-taking and sacrifice have slowly eroded. This complacency was accelerated by the end of the Cold War and it has proved very difficult to overcome in the absence of an existential enemy to compete with. The booming innovation engine of job creation has fallen behind the accelerating pace of technology that replaces workers. The result has been slower growth, stagnant wages, and the steady shift of wealth from labor to capital. In such situations many people turn to the government for help and the siren song of socialism grows louder. I respect and even like Bernie Sanders. He’s a charismatic speaker and a passionate believer in his cause. He believes deeply in what he is saying, which is more than what can be said about nearly every other 2016 candidate, or about politicians in general. I say this while disagreeing vehemently with nearly everything he says about policy. The “revolution” rhetoric of Senator Sanders has struck a chord with many Americans, especially the young voters who are realizing that their own lives are unlikely to match the opportunities and wealth of their parents and grandparents. They are being left behind in a rapidly changing world. It is a helpless, hopeless feeling. (more...) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...lism-i-lived-through-it.html?via=twitter_page