Isn't The Federal Reserve Bank Simply A Criminal Enterprise?

[adhay]

This process of reclassifying bank demand deposits as time deposits is the fraudulent part of the new procedure. Despite the fact that both are called deposits, time deposits are fundamentally different from demand deposits as follows:

*      A demand deposit is money given to a (banking) institution that does not earn interest and can be withdrawn by the person who gives it (the depositor) whenever he wants (on demand).

 *     A time deposit is money given to a (banking) institution that earns interest but cannot be withdrawn except after giving notice for a defined period of time (usually 90 days). A time deposit at a bank should be thought of as similar to a certificate of deposit. You can't get your money out for a certain period of time, but while it is there, it earns you interest.

Because of these differences, economists, for many centuries, have classified demand deposits as money but have said that time deposits are not money. A simple example will illustrate the point. Money is that economic good which can be used to buy things. Suppose you go to the store and see an item that you want. If you pull out your checkbook, which is a demand deposit, it will be accepted as money. But if you pull out your passbook to the savings account, then you will politely be told to take the passbook to the bank and get money for it. The passbook is not money (because of the time restriction on it), and you cannot buy things with it.

Get it?

[foolsguinea]

I suppose it’s too much to hope that the OP & his source/cite know the difference between M1 & M2? I *took macro once *& I’ve forgotten how it works exactly.

[samclem]

@BrainGlutton

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.

@adhay

Thank you for clarifying the OP for these teeming millions.

Well, at least to me.

You still don’t understand. “legal but criminal” has no legal standing/basis. It’s only a value judgement based on moral or political verbiage.
Repeat—it has NO legal basis.

So, you contend that what the Fed does is immoral, but not illegal? Right?

[TriPolar]

@adhay

@BrainGlutton

… 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.

Thank you for clarifying the OP for these teeming millions.

Well, at least to me.

BTW, I’m not unaware that our FF supported property rights over all.

The Constitution represents the legal enshrinement of the Original Thirteen Oligarchies, complete with slavery.

I’d still like to know why I should recuse myself, and how that would make you more honest?

[adhay]

@TriPolar

… I’d still like to know why I should recuse myself, and how that would make you more honest?

It would make you more honest.

[tomndebb]

adhay, you have had most of the day to provide the answers to the questions needed to clarify your OP and you have chosen to not do that.

Now you are openly insulting other posters.

This thread is closed–and if you continue to submit this sort of thread and behave in this manner, you are going to start collecting Warnings for your behavior.

[ /Moderating ]