The Chairman of the Fed and the members of the Board can be fired for cause by the President. Seriously, if you are going to make such broad claims, at least learn a little bit about what you’re talking about.
And I would like adhay to give some examples of other central banks that are better-run, and compare and contrast those banks with the Federal Reserve.
But in reality, I’m not sure adhay really understands what a central bank is. If the quality of the OP is anything to judge by, I believe he thinks they meet in a building like this, eat caviar out of the bellybuttons of Asian prostitutes smuggled in to the country by the Illuminati, and line their pockets with T-bills in order to pay off the Trilateral Commission for their efforts to keep marijuana illegal.
From what I’ve seen, distrust of the Fed is a form of economic populism based on a general distrust of the financial sector based in turn on producerism, the idea that people who make things you can hold in your hands are the only makers of “real” wealth and all others are parasitic on them. This kind of thinking is actually very old in America. British conservative Paul Johnson commented in his A History of the American People:
Depends…how long is the ‘long run’? Considering how unstable our financial system was BEFORE the FRB was enacted, and considering how long it’s been in use and how stable things have been since, I’d have to say that, taking out your uninformed ‘conflates debt and wealth’ part, yes…I think it will be viable in the long run.
Can you show me a system that doesn’t use centralized banking that has been stable for as long? Or can you propose a counter system that would work better than the Federal Reserve has worked for us to this point? Anything? Bueller?
JPMorgan Chase can meet the Fed’s requirements. If are a bank and you could meet them, you could open an account with them, and receive the loans you’re looking for.
Your “cite” is a worthless uncited opinion piece. You have nothing for me to contradict.
When you stop having nothing, then it might become my job to argue against whatever you manage to present. But until then, your judgement of the Fed is based on ephemeral fantasy.
BTW, I will address the question of “criminality” soon.
[/QUOTE]
When’s “soon”?
Except that becoming Zimbabwe overnight would be very, very bad for the very people who would be seeking to profit from being big players in this system. Goldman Sachs does not want to find itself holding 20 quadrillion worthless hyperinflated dollars and “ownership” of an economy consistent of smoldering ruins, where a box of .223 ammunition in the hands of a member of the mob outside their door would be more valuable than any billion-dollar bond issue they could make.
The general assumption in any conspiracy theory is that the Evil Geniuses that are manipulating things to their evil ends are 1) evil, and 2) evil. Nothing else. Regardless of how stupid the the actions attributed to them might be, as long as the actions are Evil, the theorist assumes the Evil Geniuses are poised to carry them out any moment now.
You have stated that the Federal Reserve Bank is a Criminal Enterprise.
Since you refuse to tell us what laws have been broken by the Federal Reserve Bank, are you changing your statement to “The Federal Reserve Bank is an Enterprise.”?
If so, what is there to debate?
Anyone else here wonder why adhay – who, if I remember, has described himself as some type of left-winger – keeps using that extreme libertarian/goldbug citation? Is his argument that if Ron Paul believes it, it must be true unless proven otherwise?
I think adhay is dodging or, rather, rejecting that question, judging by this post:
Well, I don’t think any of us, including lawyers, would reject out of hand the idea that something can be “legal but criminal” – but it applies only as a moral or political, not as a legal assertion.
How would someone do that? I gave a cite already showing their figures (which you ignored). So, how do you propose someone prove to you that those figures are real, since any cites they give would, you know, use the official figures that you discount without proof.
Here’s a thought! Why don’t you prove that the official figures are wrong??
Like what we’re looking at today? Do you honestly believe that any system that conflates debt and wealth is viable in the long run?