- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Will Trump Try to end the Federal Reserve?
Posted on 4/29/17 at 9:36 pm to TigersHuskers
Posted on 4/29/17 at 9:36 pm to TigersHuskers
dammmmmmnn boy, u is stopid!
0
Posted on 4/29/17 at 9:49 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
not interested in tutoring, sorry. if you proudly fail to understand why "ZIRP" was the appropriate policy at the time and think rates self-evidently should have been materially higher, you can go on wearing that dunce cap.
but maybe you can teach me something, like what i've been asking you about. specifically, how the fed either isn't acting in accordance with its mandate (also known as its job), or how the mandate itself is bad or suboptimal.
sorry, but vague claims about "circle jerks" or being "complicit" or "the best interest of those institutions" or "another scam" are woefully insufficient. say exactly what you mean!
Since you did not answer my question regarding your employment/business I'll have to assume you're in academia, possibly teaching economics/finance or working in the financial sector. If the previous statement is true you already have a vested and biased interest in the current monetary system and would naturally defend that system.
I work in the telecom sector and I also have a bias and vested interest in my company (any of you fricks who think net neutrality is a good idea can choke on it!)and I will defend the policies and goals of my company because it's what's best for me as an employee and shareholder. You see how this works?
The difference is, there is true competition in the telecom industry, not so much with the Fed.
My original post was a slight rant against the "monetary policy on steroids" that the Fed enacted in 2008/2009 to save us all from the economic abyss of which we would have never recovered. (sarcasm)
I also stated that ZIRP was a wealth transfer from savers to the risk takers by directly inflating the equities market.
ZIRP cost to savers
The Fed's mandate is well known, however what the Fed did in 2008/2009 was not about controlling inflation, interest rates, prices, employment, etc. It was to save "too big to fail entities" primarily the investment/institutional banks.
I told you we'll never know if letting these entities take their own bath would have been better long term because the official word from the Fed was "we just averted another great depression by enacting TARP/QE/ZIRP, that's the story and we're sticking to it".
The circle jerks comment, well that's my opinion of the relationship between the Fed and investment/institutional banks. When you consider how many members of the Fed/FOMC have ties back to the investment/institutional banks it's easy to see why there is a vested interest from the Fed to make sure those entities are solvent no matter what the cost, well except for Lehman and Bear Stearns but JP Morgan and Barclays say thank you.
Just google the Fed and Goldman Sachs and it's obvious at a minimum they are a "circle of friends" looking after each others best interest.
Posted on 4/29/17 at 9:51 pm to Doc Fenton
Doc, you seem reasonable. 
Posted on 4/30/17 at 7:53 am to Iowa Golfer
quote:
I don't need some 20 something graduate of the LSU College of Banking arguing for the sake of argument.
I love how you've hatched some weird thesis about my identity, and how mad the fact that I'm "argumentative" makes you. quote:
The free market has a natural filtering process where things reach their level of equilibrium. I think he's reached his
oh, how cute. golfer's trying to sound all economics-y
Posted on 4/30/17 at 8:10 am to Doc Fenton
quote:
Remember just how extreme those Volcker movements were
I know- that's allI meant with "the smaller swing in inflation rate". The possible difference being the crossing of the threshold of 0 inflation. I know, that does assume a tipping point there is really only a theoretical argument for. This was intended to be a secondary point anyway though
I see you are acknowledging the typical pro-central-bank arguments as things that will be risky to do without during this hypothetical transition period, and would want some kind of automatic triggers to get a similar mechanism to manage things from getting too wild (You use the example of a hard -2% inflation floor).
I can deal with that all, I guess. But I still don't think that the low/negative inflation target is a more ideal macro policy, I don't think the historical support you offer is sufficiently compelling. Also, (disclaimer: my intuitive opinion/preference follows) even if it were, I'd still honestly probably rather that the target be managed by a CB. I definitely don't want idiot congressmen or administration people doing that shite.
And I certainly wouldn't support this policy shift for the purposes of attacking government financing. I definitely think monetary policy should be monetary policy and federal spending policy should be federal spending policy. This would seem like an artificial constraint on spending and if the people want to spend more than I or you think is wise, they should be allowed to make that choice, likelihood of bad outcomes and all.
Posted on 4/30/17 at 8:30 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
The Fed's mandate is well known, however what the Fed did in 2008/2009 was not about controlling inflation, interest rates, prices, employment, etc. It was to save "too big to fail entities" primarily the investment/institutional banks.
JFC, what they did in 2008/9 was to combat a liquidity crisis, which had the potential of causing an overall slump that was far more deep and far more persistent than what we did have. That's what happens in severe financial crises. Yeah, it's great conspiracy fodder that financial institutions & banks are in such a great position to be protected, but the fact is we need them working. And another of the fed's jobs is keeping them working.
You don't even know what the "natural" equilibrium rate of interest even was in the conditions we had, or what it would have been had we let every financial institution "take their own bath". But to the extent that it may have been higher, that's a harder hurdle for investment, and a slower recovery- and that has big, permanent costs. (I of course do not deny that low interest rates as a matter of policy has costs to savers)
Also, I make no assumptions about you personally, and I ascribe no reason for you to be biased or dishonest in your arguments, unless you give me very strong & consistent reason to. You obviously don't have to pay me the same courtesy- just pointing it out. But spare us the "vested interest" crap- just make arguments if you want to make arguments.
Posted on 4/30/17 at 8:36 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
oh, how cute. golfer's trying to sound all economics
Not really. I'm sure you have more education in economics than I do. My point was there is a reason why you've risen to the level you have. You've reached your point of equilibrium. You're disingenuous. You always take partial quotes from other posters intentionally. You always demand links, even when the links are nothing more than stipulating to something most junior high grads already understand.
We're all unique on here. You are especially unique. Again, the free market has a filtering process, a scoreboard if you will. And the score isn't determined by your posts on this website, it has been determined elsewhere. Consequently I mostly ignore and don't engage you.
Posted on 4/30/17 at 8:48 am to Iowa Golfer
quote:
You always take partial quotes from other posters intentionally. You always demand links
What's your point? I am careful to not mischaracterize the arguments of others.
It looks very much like what you are actually miffed about is that I successfully point out your own weak premises where you are unable/unwilling to defend them, but are trying to quickly move beyond them anyway.
You're the one who's disingenuous-consistently- and it's clear to anyone paying attention. You even do it here in the post I'm responding to- pretend that what you say is self-evident, even to middle schoolers
Posted on 4/30/17 at 9:05 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
I'd still honestly probably rather that the target be managed by a CB. I definitely don't want idiot congressmen or administration people doing that shite.
Yeah, that's the folksy refrain I always seem to get in response, but my -1% target is not really a target, so much as a prediction. Indeed, the whole point of my system is to end consumer price inflation as a primary target of ordinary monetary policy. It would be allowed to float, with the caveat (as there is for most floats) that there would a monetary spillway available for unusual situations where the hard floor of -2% is in danger of being exceeded.
But the agency in charge of that spillway would not really be different in expertise and character from the FOMC. It would simply have a different mandate and function. In both cases, Congress has the ultimate authority to make provisions for policy. In both cases, Congress would delegate authority to a quasi-independent bureau or agency to vote on monetary policy. Hell, they could even keep the Federal Reserve as an institution, just give it a different policy mandate with different monetary tools. I just don't think the "Congressmen are idiots, and this is too important" argument holds much water. The difference is, under my standard, the experts would intervene much more sparingly. The system would mostly run itself, and hopefully, the "spillway" would never even have to be used.
quote:
And I certainly wouldn't support this policy shift for the purposes of attacking government financing. I definitely think monetary policy should be monetary policy and federal spending policy should be federal spending policy.
But the real world doesn't work that way, and I'm not advocating this for the purposes of attacking government financing. I'm doing this to attack our current system of artificially manipulated interest rates, because I think the consumer price stability it provides is not worth the wider economic cost. This is especially true given the recent monetary history of Japan, which shows just how much of a tar baby ZIRP can be--if you stay in that danger zone for too long, you lose the ability to attain the escape velocity necessary to leave it behind. That phenomenon is of course related to...
quote:
This would seem like an artificial constraint on spending and if the people want to spend more than I or you think is wise, they should be allowed to make that choice, likelihood of bad outcomes and all.
But the public is not really being presented with an honest choice, are they? The near-ZIRP environment hides the true costs of the long-term liabilities that their representatives are piling up. If you want the people to be given an opportunity to make their own fiscal choices, likelihood of bad outcomes and all, then they will only be presented with the reality of those choices without a central bank pursuing ZIRP (and even then it's dubious that the public really understands and votes on liabilities foisted upon future generations). Thus, I don't buy the "democratic choice" argument against eliminating central banking either.
Digression on Austrians
For the Austrians of course (and I am not one of them), this is the very thing they attack central banking for the most--because it enables the government to finance unsustainable liabilities while hiding the costs to the public through sleight-of-hand. That (and the general theory of decentralized pricing information in an economy) is where the Austrians and I agree.
Where the Austrians and I disagree, is on their Austrian business cycle theories that lay the cause of all business cycles on fractional reserve banking. I think that's an absurd theory that misses out on the fundamental freedom of individuals to provide credit that has always been present throughout history, and which would take draconian police state measures to prevent. But I digress...
This post was edited on 4/30/17 at 9:16 am
Posted on 4/30/17 at 9:25 am to Doc Fenton
quote:
my -1% target is not really a target, so much as a prediction.
But you said your view was that the -1% or so was optimal. So it makes sense that you'd advocate for a system you predict that result from.
quote:
I just don't think the "Congressmen are idiots, and this is too important" argument holds much water.
The problem is that they are beholden to idiots, or worse. And they control the mandate, so they could probably deviate from it on a whim and with less consequence to their professional prospects. The bottom line is that if you really believe that target is optimal, and if you think it's important that we stay near it, it's very hard to argue there is a better way to achieve that target. If you're not arguing that, you're arguing something slightly different than the target being optimal.
quote:
I'm not advocating this for the purposes of attacking government financing
You indicated in an earlier post that that was what you were really interested in here. It's possible I misunderstood you, but I'm not sure how:
quote:
Now as for the government's ability to finance public debt, and its likely propensity to increase taxes in order to maintain public spending levels... that could cause some problems. Then again, that's the biggest part of the beast that I'm trying to slay.
The following, I do think, is a fair and good point:
quote:
But the public is not really being presented with an honest choice, are they?
A target of low inflation, and the ability our system yields to finance big spending, does reduce the "price" of deficit spending. I agree that taking the avenue away makes it more costly, perhaps vastly more costly. But doing away with this system be throwing away a perfectly valid and powerful tool to access funds for an ideological end- and on purpose.
quote:
Thus, I don't buy the "democratic choice" argument against eliminating central banking either.
To restate a point, it sounds like you just want to remove the possibility of a choice available to the public because in your opinion the public doesn't sufficiently appreciate the hidden potential eventual cost of it. If we want to cut spending this way, it would be a real stretch to call it out of either democratic choice or real necessity (like a situation where the government actually cannot access cash to make payrolls or pay contractors).
The Austrian stuff should get its own thread.
ETA: I appreciate that you say what you mean rather than dancing around it, like with that beast-slaying comment i quoted above. you also make points worth thinking about, and that are clearly not simply based on uninformed anger.
This post was edited on 4/30/17 at 9:28 am
Posted on 4/30/17 at 9:36 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
I am careful to not mischaracterize the arguments of others.
quote:
self-evident, even to middle schoolers
A schooler? Like yourself?
Did you ever answer the question about gold leases? Based on your response, most people have already made the assumption you weren't even aware of what they are becuase you seem to think it's a conspiracy. And the Kansas tax situation is like Trump's plan. And the House plan and Trump's plans are alike.
Just admit it, you're a douche bag. So am I. It's really no big deal. But you're no "schooler".
Posted on 4/30/17 at 9:51 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
But you said your view was that the -1% or so was optimal.
Sure, based on historical tradition and my intuition. But it's not really a target. I may have used that term somewhere flippantly, but I also said that it's more of a predicted side effect. I'm not building my preferred monetary system around the need to target a CPI deflation of -1%. The idea is that I think consumer prices can be allowed to float, because there are natural economic forces that will tend to drive them down slightly over time. The key idea here is the "float," not the -1% deflation.
quote:
And they control the mandate, so they could probably deviate from it on a whim and with less consequence to their professional prospects.
Who? Congress? They already can. I really don't see the categorical difference here.
quote:
You indicated in an earlier post that that was what you were really interested in here.
I'm interested in a lot of things, but again, this is not what I'm building my preferred monetary system around. I'm building it around artificially manipulated interest rates for other reasons. If we could somehow separate all the fiscal crap out of the equation, then I would still want to remove the FOMC, because near-ZIRP policy is economically destructive for more fundamental reasons. However, if a side-effect is that it forces a more accurate accounting of government liabilities, then I can't ignore that.
quote:
I agree that taking the avenue away makes it more costly, perhaps vastly more costly. But doing away with this system be throwing away a perfectly valid and powerful tool to access funds for an ideological end- and on purpose.
I don't think that's a fair way to characterize it though. The way I see it, here we have this problem with artificially manipulated interest rates (and especially, in current times, with near-ZIRP), and it's destructive, so I advocate a different type of monetary system. I have always thought that the ideal monetary system would operate without a central bank, similar to the U.S. in the late 19th century, although I want to keep some features of the 1930s, such as emergency liquidity financing and the FDIC (which I actually want to be given an expanded scope).
But now one of the things getting in the way of my preferred system are long-term government liabilities, which would likely not have been incurred to the extent that they have without the help of the Fed. Removing the Fed would make it much more difficult to maintain them, and I don't think we should maintain them. Fine.
But my initial preference for not having a central bank has nothing to do with that. So if this new fiscal obstacle is put in the way (and with somewhat questionable public accounting) as a reason why I shouldn't be able to remove the central bank, then I don't think it's fair to say that I'm the one being ideological for citing that as yet another reason in favor of removal. It makes just as much sense to call the central banking advocates ideological for having favored it, in part, to help manipulate public opinion in favor of the status quo.
Now I admit that the status quo is a legitimate argument against making radical changes for larger political goals, but the ideological goals are really not the core part of my argument here. My core argument is a gradualist one that says we should eliminate the FOMC and let consumer prices float more than they currently do. That could be phased in over decades, and it wouldn't represent a shock to persuade the public, so much as it would be a long-term re-normalization of interest rates to let the public decide gradually, and on its own, what it wants to do, in more honest terms.
Posted on 4/30/17 at 10:54 am to Doc Fenton
I love when the grownups let us stay in the kitchen and listen.
Thanks 90proof and doc.
Thanks 90proof and doc.
Posted on 4/30/17 at 1:55 pm to Doc Fenton
quote:
and it's destructive
You're losing me with this assertion. We can talk about that more, but I'm not going to be able to chime in much more until later in the evening.
quote:
Who? Congress? They already can. I really don't see the categorical difference here.
I'll quickly say this though: I do see a solid & credible institutional wall protecting the MP actions of the CB from political influence. Giving the reins directly to either agents of a presidential administration at Treasury or directly to some Congressional committee or something would clearly subject the decisions to something other than the market.
I'm trying to think of some other way of preventing an outcome that is not guaranteed to be driven by the "political business cycle" as they say, but I can't think of a single one, outside of taking the power to coin/regulate money away from the government outright, which perhaps you would argue for (I wouldn't). Board of economists and bankers guiding policy by targeting seems by far the least-worst way.
ETA
quote:
Now I admit that the status quo is a legitimate argument against making radical changes for larger political goals, but the ideological goals are really not the core part of my argument here. My core argument is a gradualist one that says we should eliminate the FOMC and let consumer prices float more than they currently do.
I'll certainly acknowledge again that your point about the modern economy introducing certain things that may organically yield more price stability than we saw in the late 19th century is a good one. I'll also acknowledge that my own preference for the inflation targets chosen is, like the Fed's consensus, driven by nothing more than the implications yielded by mainstream modern macro, which is itself a science in its infancy.
To lay out what would make me change my mind, I'd need:
-a system likely to produce better outcomes in either stability or growth, and worse outcome in neither, or
-a system likely to produce similar outcomes at a materially lower institutional and/or macroeconomic cost. (I don't find the claims about mal-investment sufficient.)
This post was edited on 4/30/17 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 4/30/17 at 8:14 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
JFC, what they did in 2008/9 was to combat a liquidity crisis, which had the potential of causing an overall slump that was far more deep and far more persistent than what we did have. That's what happens in severe financial crises. Yeah, it's great conspiracy fodder that financial institutions & banks are in such a great position to be protected, but the fact is we need them working. And another of the fed's jobs is keeping them working.
You don't even know what the "natural" equilibrium rate of interest even was in the conditions we had, or what it would have been had we let every financial institution "take their own bath". But to the extent that it may have been higher, that's a harder hurdle for investment, and a slower recovery- and that has big, permanent costs. (I of course do not deny that low interest rates as a matter of policy has costs to savers)
Also, I make no assumptions about you personally, and I ascribe no reason for you to be biased or dishonest in your arguments, unless you give me very strong & consistent reason to. You obviously don't have to pay me the same courtesy- just pointing it out. But spare us the "vested interest" crap- just make arguments if you want to make arguments.
You had to pull out the JFC? You seem angry, or maybe you're just naturally condescending and arrogant.
So we had a severe liquidity crisis in 2008/2009, yep I agree. Why did we have a severe liquidity crisis? Well, the story is a bunch of investment banks were over leveraged with subprime investments when the real estate market crashed.
Who's frickin fault was that? I'll help you out because I know you're a quick study, It wasn't all of us folks who put 20% down on our homes and acted in a responsible manner. I guess that leaves the creative geniuses that run our banking and investment institutions.
Go ahead and blame the CRA, George Bush, Barney Frank the Dims, etc. for throwing a tantrum demanding that lending standards be lowered so everyone could own a part of the American Dream, you'd be wrong but that did help to set the table for the fiasco.
There was rumblings of the impending real estate collapse as early as 2005-2006 and the rumblings became screams in 2007 but those folks were generally scoffed at because there was a lot of money being made on these fog a mirror loans as they were packaged up with other mortgages, bonds and assorted loans and sold as investments called CDO's, hey don't go anywhere yet, you're gonna need these CDS's for your protection..., lol!
But we had to trust Bennie Boy, he told us all subprime had been contained in the summer of 2007 so y'all can relax now, that deserves another
. Bottom line is this 90proofprofessional, these institutions knew they were dancing with the devil but they were making a frickin killing off of this shite (CDO/CDS) until the music stopped. So now we got your damn liquidity crisis, once again who's fault was it and which segment of society paid for it? The prudent savers (retirees) and the American taxpayer. You try to handle your personal finances like that and see where you end up when the music stops..., I'll help you again, broke and possibly in prison.
Yeah, you're going to say no laws were broken and everything was within the laws of lending and finance, that's a damn problem!
Not one person of note went to jail for that complete shite show unless you count Ponzi Madoff and Martha Stewart for a little insider trading. As a matter of fact if I recall, a bunch of those alligator shoe wearing sosnsabitches were still getting their bonuses while receiving Fed assistance.
Anyhow, I got my opinions on the 2008/2009 financial debacle and you have yours.
Oh, and I don't give a shite about "natural" equilibrium rates during the financial crisis because those conditions were due to a bunch of careless, greedy Wall Street suits that probably do more crawling than walking.
As of 2013 ZIRP had cost savers nearly $500 billion dollars.
Posted on 4/30/17 at 8:16 pm to Bass Tiger
Federal Reserve is usury sponsored by the state
Posted on 4/30/17 at 9:42 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
I'll quickly say this though: I do see a solid & credible institutional wall protecting the MP actions of the CB from political influence. Giving the reins directly to either agents of a presidential administration at Treasury or directly to some Congressional committee or something would clearly subject the decisions to something other than the market.
Why do you seem to think I don't favor the same kind of setup for the agency I'm proposing? It would of course be set up as a quasi-independent agency just like the Fed is today. It could even remain within the Fed, but in that case the Fed would just have a new mandate.
quote:
To lay out what would make me change my mind, I'd need:
-a system likely to produce better outcomes in either stability or growth, and worse outcome in neither, or
-a system likely to produce similar outcomes at a materially lower institutional and/or macroeconomic cost. (I don't find the claims about mal-investment sufficient.)
Those two things together are blended together in my mind. The bulk of the macroeconomic cost with the current system IS less stability and growth. The stability part is more questionable, but I think the growth part is a lock.
Regarding the stability, I think the Fed gets over-blamed for causing bubbles, but I do tend to think it tends to mildly exacerbate them in the run-up.
Regarding the growth, near-ZIRP is economically destructive.
quote:
You're losing me with this assertion.
Well no wonder you thought this was all about public entitlements for me!
I assumed that you were up to speed on neo-Fisherite arguments against ZIRP, but first a little background...
Prior to the the 2001 & 2008 crises, my preference was for a monetary system without the Fed, but (like Friedman) I didn't think it was a big deal, because the Fed had a moderating influence on the economy, and was staffed by competent professionals adhering to solid monetarist theory. So I tended to defend the Fed against its critics, even though if I were drawing up a system from scratch, I wouldn't include it.
However, with ZIRP, I think we're seeing a much more significant problem with the central banking system that's getting exposed. It was already somewhat exposed by Japan earlier, but that tended to be waved away as an exception based on those weird Japanese people.
The problem is this: The central banking system we have is too one-sided, well-designed to deal with inflationary problems like we saw in the late 1970s, but not at all equipped to handle deflationary shocks.
Even assuming that you think that central banking tended to cause inflationary problems in the first place, at least you could breathe a sigh of relief knowing that it had the proper toolkit to counteract and remedy the problem. Not so with deflation. Which brings us to...
Neo-Fisherite Theory
I'll give you several links below of varying quality, but the best link is probably the one from last November from the St. Louis Fed (which in turn gives links to other credible academic references): " What Does Neo-Fisherism Say about Unconventional Monetary Policy?." It describes the monetary policy trap that I've mentioned so many times before in other Money Talk Board threads:
quote:
Low-Inflation Policy Trap
If a central bank follows conventional practice—in particular, if it follows the Taylor principle—this implies that it would respond to falling inflation by lowering the nominal interest rate target. Williamson explained that, because of the Fisher effect (i.e., a positive relationship between the nominal interest rate and inflation), this leads to lower inflation. In turn, this causes further reductions in the nominal interest rate target and further decreases in inflation, and so on.
“Ultimately, the central bank sets a nominal interest rate of zero, and there are no forces that will increase inflation. Effectively, the central bank becomes stuck in a low-inflation policy trap and cannot get out—unless it becomes Neo-Fisherian,” he wrote.
Now my argument is a little wider than that, and my preferred solution is more theoretical and radical (and maybe also politically impractical). However, the main crux of the problem is given by the neo-Fisherites--or at least by people partially sympathetic to neo-Fisherite arguments--such as Andy Haldane, James Bullard, David Kelly, Stephen Williamson, etc. The argument is that the misallocation that results from artifically low interest rate policy is not some small glitch in the system--rather it is a stubborn, significant, and pervasive feature that is especially acute in times of deflationary shocks to the global monetary system. Like now.
This is what turns my preference for a monetary system without a central bank into something more than just a silly little eccentric hobby, and makes into (at least I think) a potentially significant critique of something gone terribly awry.
Other Links
Forbes (3/21/12): " Zero Interest Rate Policy Is Batting Zero"
New Monetarism blog (9/20/15): " The ZIRP Blues"
Economics StackExchange thread (10/9/15): " Can holding interest rates at zero (ZIRP) for a very long time cause the deflation it is trying to prevent?"
Barron's (from a private industry money manager, JPM's David Kelly) (10/28/15): " A Fed Rate Hike Can Spur the U.S. Economy"
Business Insider (2/18/16): " ZIRP and NIRP have created 'financial hell' "
Australian Financial Review (3/20/16): " Zero rates may be the problem stopping inflation"
This post was edited on 4/30/17 at 9:47 pm
Posted on 4/30/17 at 10:14 pm to goldennugget
quote:
Federal Reserve is usury sponsored by the state
The Federal Reserve Bank's discount rate is 1.5% right now and was 1% a year ago. Do you really think 1.5% is usery? If you do, you're a moron.
You called for an audit of the Fed in a prior post. I was an Internal Auditor at the FRB for 3 years and I can assure you that they are audited constantly. I'm in commercial banking now, but I still think we have the best financial system in the world. The 2007/09 recession would have been a lot worse without it.
Page 6 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News