Political And Socioeconomic Inequality In The U.s.: Who Governs?

Why would the banksters give a damn about what's debated in the legislature and who wins elections?

 

Yeah, I wasn't making myself clear there. I don't think Obama is a good person. I just think his presidency initially uplifted people, which I thought was an important thing to do at the time after eight years of Bush. That's why I voted for him, despite thinking he was a phony. What I'm trying to say is that how you effect the nation's psyche is just as important as what you are able to achieve.

It remains to be seen how Trump will fare in this regard. This may be the first time we've had a president who simply doesn't even bother appealing to man's better nature. I think in the end he's going to be forced to, though. I think he genuinely wants to be loved and admired, which is going to cause him to be very open-minded and liberal with others. Publicly, anyway. What he will do behind the curtain is serve his rich friends, probably.

And all of this, working together, creates what? Apathy, in my opinion. A public that pays attention to the news for soundbites alone, never mind the details. Slap a nice sounding label on something, like "Citizen's United," and the public will let it pass. They'll overturn Roe v. Wade and call it the "Quality Lives for Babies Act."

 

Because it can mean more of less regulation of their interests. We got less under Bush, less under Obama. In 2008, banks and mortgage brokers offered risky mortgage loans to consumers who couldn't pay them back. Trade in mortgage-backed securities spread this risk thoughout the financial system. Both President Bush and Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, told us that the housing market was sound, and didn't hint that these Mortgage-backed securities represented a problem for our financial structure..The Dodd-FrankWall Street Reform a Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Obama in July 2010, imposing new oversight for Wall Street under the newly created Financial Stabiity Oversight Council, requiring banks to divestthemselves of hedge fund holidings, Ordering the SEC andthe CTFC to regulate derivatives, establishiing SEC regulation of hedge funds, and requiing audits for the Fderal Reserve Bank's emergency loans. Needless to say, some in the bankng industry didn't like this, and last June, Congressional Republicans called for its replacement by a new, banker friendly piece of legislation. Some of the bigger banks, like Goldman-Schs, are cool with Dodd Frank because they think it stabilizes the industry and handicaps their competitors.http://www.wsj.com/articles/regulation-is-good-for-goldman-1423700859 During the election campaign, Trump promised to dismantle Dodd-Frank.
http://fortune.com/2016/12/08/trump-dodd-frank-2008-financial-crisis-steve-mnuchin/
http://moneytips.areavoices.com/2016/06/24/dodd-frank-act-under-attack/
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/consumer-advice/today-headlines-dodd-frank-under-attack/0llENH7DWUeEHZr8w9LovO/
http://www.ajc.com/business/consumer-advice/today-headlines-dodd-frank-under-attack/0llENH7DWUeEHZr8w9LovO/

 

You missed my meaning. The Federal Reserve banksters--the actual elites--don't care who is elected or what is debated in the legislature as long as they are able to print up money and loan it to us at interest. What goes on at the lower tiers is irrelevant to them.

 

For most of us, banks included, there are lots of other important issues in elections, and as I've explained at considerable length in my posts above, concentrations of wealth and power go considerably beyond the banking industry. What difference does it matter to the Federal Reserve bankers what our social or environmental or immigration policies are like? I don't know, but they mean a lot to most Americans.

 

It makes no difference to them. They print money, and they lend it to us at interest. Short and sweet.

 

You've seized upon the "one key fact" that explains American politics and eclipses everything else. From previous posts on other threads, I gather that you're going by the thesis developed by Geraldine Perry and Ken Fusek in The Two Faces of Money. The problem I have with it is not that it's wrong but that it, and your use of it, are simplistic. To their credit, the authors don't claim that its the only important thing to know about American politics. And if they did, they'd be wrong. You may be aware that their book hasn't attracted the attention of serious scholars.Maybe that's because of a conspiracy to suppress it, but I think it's because the thesis is somewhat simplistic and the authors lack credentials on the subject. Geraldine Perry has a Masters degree Education, with a minor in Library Science,and is a Certified Natural Health Consultant. Her co-author Ken Fusek is an "independent government administrator" in Excelsior. MO. What would they know about economics and how the United States is run? The book is published by Wasteland Press, which is a vanity publishing company. It may seem snobby to downgrade their work on this basis, especially if they've uncovered the secret of the "one big thing" explaining political reality. But I tend to respect the scholarship of the professors I've been relying on in my posts above, who have done very thorough research backed by lots of facts and figures.Yes I agree the big banks are out of control, as we saw in the 2008 financial crisis. If they're right, scrapping the existing international banking and money system and adopting another seems like a tall order. Meanwhile, we've elected a President who is about to give the keys to the economy back to bankers and big business to drive it over a cliff again.

 

Actually, one need not refer to the link I provided to know that the Federal Reserve is a ripoff of the people. So, based on what you've come to believe, how is it that that paying interest on money printed up by the FED, and then loaned to us at interest is way better than having it printed up by our own government interest free as per the constitution?

Here is something that was published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago:

After the Federal Reserve creates new so-called "reserves" by "buying" government securities through Open Market Operations, the fractional reserve expansion through the private commercial banks takes place thus creating private debt. This then is how all new "debt-money" is created, almost all of it created "out of nothing" by the privately owned commercial banks. With the exception of coins, all of our "money" is really debt acting as a substitute for real, Constitutional money. Real money would be created and spent into circulation by the government, tax free and interest free. Instead we continue to let private corporations use the government's own power to create money and loan that money to us and charge us interest for the use of our own money.
​_____________________________________________________________________________________________

​​And here is something from a former central banker:

"While economic textbooks claim that people and corporations are competing for markets and resources, I claim that in reality they are competing for money - using markets and resources to do so. Greed and fear of scarcity are being continuously created and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using. For example, we can produce more than enough food to feed everybody, and there is definitely enough work for everybody in the world, but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all. In fact, the job of central banks is to create and maintain that currency scarcity.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, without resorting to trashing sources, explain how the above is just plain wrong.

 

One more time, ti's not "just plain wrong", unless it purports to be the central fact of political reality rendering everything else unimportant, which seems to be your position. I've been explaining my view of the U.S. power structure in several lengthy posts supra , so maybe its your turn to explain why those are wrong.

 

No, my position concerns the Federal Reserve's creation of money out of nothing. My question to you was:

Based on what you've come to believe, how is it that that paying interest on money printed up by the FED, and then loaned to us at interest is way better than having it printed up by our own government interest free as per the constitution?

 

I think these sum up my view on that matter.
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-the-US-Government-print-its-own-money
https://www.linkedin...n-edgar-mihelic
http://business.time.com/2009/12/29/visiting-ron-pauls-fed-free-utopia/
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/federal-reserve/myths-federal-reserve-1.aspx
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/04/23/Five-Myths-About-the-Federal-Reserve

But the big problem is that nothing you've said addresses the question why voting is futile and why you thing the Federal Reserve bankers control all political decisions in this country. That is the question that's relevant to this thread, and one which you continue to dodge. Over to you? Do you believe that the Federal Reserve is dictating every major policy of the U.S. government? Do you think that this level of control is so substantial that civil rights, social programs, and environmental policy are all dictated by the Federal Reserve or are just not that important? Do you have a feasilble plan for solving the problem? Do you support Ron Paul, Rand Paul the Tea Party, which seem to be the principle political group beating this drum? And why then do you disagree with my detailed posts supra?

 

I've made it clear to you that the Federal Reserve couldn't care less what goes on with policy as long as it is being paid interest on the money it creates out of thin air.

I asked you why--in your own words--you believe that interest bearing money is way better than interest-free money as per the constitution. If you can't sum it up, then just say so.

 

Sorry Bud. That question has been answered and is irrelevant to the thread. You said that it's futile to vote because the presidents won't do anything about the federal reserve banks. I've explained ad nauseum that there are lots of other issues to worry about. I won't wast further time with you.

 

The question was: In your own words, tell me why you believe that interest bearing money is way better than interest-free money as per the constitution. Contrary to your belief, you did not answer that question.

You are the one who said that it might be useful to take these sound bites (the ones you quoted from others) and look at them in greater depth and more critically. And then you asked whether or not U.S. leaders are just puppets in a marionette show run by an elite operating behind the curtain . . .?

I'm pointing out to you that the Federal Reserve is a fine example of that something behind the curtain. Exponentially increasing debt from created money with debt attached to it can never be paid off. It is a burden, not a blessing.

The public is thrown bones like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc. to fight over while the grand theft is taking place.

 

I don't consider those issues "bones" and nothing you've said so far shows that the Federal Reserve, while admittedly a power to reckon with, is running the country.

 

The Federal reserve is printing up money out of nothing and lending it to us at interest when the U.S. could and should be printing up our own interest-free money as per the constitution, and not a squeak about it from your representatives. So the Federal Reserve is being allowed to rob you, and you don't see that as them running the show?

 

I concede that Wall Street bankers are an important component, perhaps the most important component, of the U.S. elite. Certainly, the 2008 financial crisis and the “too big to fail” rationalization for the bailout highlighted how big and out of control the industry has become. The issue is whether it’s so important that politically nothing else matters. Storch tells us “The solution to the problem is to first recognize the difference between owned money and owed money. Voting for a candidate who does not acknowledge the problem is meaningless.” He also says: “The Federal Reserve banksters--the actual elites--don't care who is elected or what is debated in the legislature as long as they are able to print up money and loan it to us at interest. What goes on at the lower tiers is irrelevant to them.” And finally: “I'm pointing out to you that the Federal Reserve is a fine example of that something behind the curtain. Exponentially increasing debt from created money with debt attached to it can never be paid off. It is a burden, not a blessing.” “The public is thrown bones like abortion, gun rights, gay rights, etc. to fight over while the grand theft is taking place.” Neonspectraltoast says: “It's so silly to think an organization calling itself the Federal Reserve, which actually isn't a part of the federal government at all, that prints money out of thin air and refuses to allow itself to be audited, would do anything that wasn't in the American people's best interests. A trillion goes missing here, a trillion goes missing there...no biggie...I'm sure they're giving it away to charity or something.” All this is consistent with the views of Perry and Fusek in Two Faces of Money. While the arguments have some merit, I find thrm somewhat politically naïve and unlikely to lead to any productive solutions. Like the choice between Hillary and the Donald, real world policy choices are often choices between the lesser of evils.

Last time I looked, only four nations in the world did not have a central bank: North Korea, Cuba, Iran and the Federated States of Micronesia. I don’t know much about Micronesia, but the others on the list don’t strike me as utopian paradises, so right off that would give me pause. The distinction between “owed” (or debt-based”) money and “owned” (or “debt free”) money that Storch considers central refers to the fact that the banking system, not the government creates our money. Bankers, like other businessmen, operate to make a profit, charging compound interest for their services and lending out money on account. This debt grows exponentially, and before you know it, we’re another day older and much deeper in debt. And somewhere something’s gotta give. At the helm of this structure are the central banks, co-ordinated by the Bank of International Settlements in Basil, Switerland. But the de facto leader is the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, not really a bank at all but a bankers’ bank, with the power to create money. So far, so good. Where I think the argument goes off the rails is when it says that: (1) the Fed is unconstitutional under Art.I, sec. 8 delegating power to Congress to “coin money and regulate the value thereof”; (2) the Fed is not really a government entity but is “a privately owned cartel with a corporate structure; an (3) that “bankers produce no usable product nor any usable wealth”, and amount to a “usury robbery system”; (4) the Fed operates largely in secret, with no significant limits to its ability to print up money arbitrarily and lend it to us at interest; (4) a system in which Congress replaced the Fed with itself (a “New Liberty Congress) or some other authority under its direct control (maybe the Treasury Department) would be better.

First of all, the meaning of Art.I, sec. 8, was decided long ago by the Supreme Court in the leading case of McCulloch v. Maryland. Contrary to Perry and Fusek’s erroneous assertion that Art I, Sec. 8 “expressly charges” Congress to coin and regulate money, the plain language of the Article simply delegates to Congress the power to do so, and the Court held that it was constitutional and appropriate under clause 18 of the same section, the “necessary and proper clause” to charter a national bank to carry out that function, among others.

Second, the Fed is unique among central banks in that the Board of Governors is an independent regulatory commission that is part of the U.S. government, just like the FTC, the FCC, the Sec., the NLRB and the rest of the alphabet soup. It was set up this way to shield it from inappropriate political influence, so that a President or Congress couldn’t play house with our monetary policy. Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Federal Open Market Committee, the policy making organ of the Fed, is a twelve member body consisting of seven Fed Governors and five members selected from the twelve Federal Reserve bank presidents. Fed employees are all federal employees.” The mistaken notion that it is resulted from the fact that the 12 Reserve Banks are organized like private corporations, each separately incorporated with its own board of directors. The district banks are legally owned by the member banks. Commercial banks belonging to the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District's Reserve Bank. But the Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the system. Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for necessary expenses, legally required dividend payments, and maintenance of a limited balance in a surplus fund. So it is inaccurate to describe it as “a privately owned cartel”.

Third, the notion that the Fed amounts to a “usury robbery system” is downright medieval. Banks charge interest for their services; interest is usurious if it is unfair to the borrower or an unreasonable return for services rendered. Critics of the Fed often share a point of view known as “producerism”, the notion prominent in the Alt Right that people who are not producers of tangible goods or labor are not contributing value to society. http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Producerism
http://www.publiceye.org/right_wing_populism/producerism.html
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2000/11/11/the-producerist-narrative-in-repressive-right-wing-populism/#sthash.zdMHINIo.dpbs
This ideology takes a dim view of financeers for that reason. But that view seems extreme. To people in need of loans or relatively safe places in which to keep their money, the services provided by banks are valuable http://www.investopedia.com/university/banking-system/banking-system1.asp.


This brings us to the fourth and fifth question: What, if any, are the political constraints on the Fed? What would replace the Fed if we got rid of it, and would it be an improvement? The answers may have to wait until after Christmas.

 

...

 

You are trying to show that the creation of the Federal Reserve falls under the necessary and proper clause as stipulated in the Constitution concerning Congress' powers as it relates to creating money. However, you have yet to explain or to show how it is "necessary and proper" for the Congress to abdicate to a private corporation its power to create money--money which is then lent back to us with interest attached. So, explain the necessity of having a private corporation print money out of thin air and then lending it to us at interest. The money wasn't real, but the interest paid is. What, in your opinion, makes such a scam necessary and proper? Explain why the the inclusion of a middleman (Federal Reserve) who will profit from the money it never had is necessary and proper.

Here is a case that points to the illegality of the Federal Reserve method of money creation:


First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly,
Defendant
JUDGMENT AND DECREE

The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.


A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.


Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.


Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.


The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.


Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.


As to your second point concerning your belief that the Federal Reserve is part of the U.S. government, some guy who was injured by a vehicle that was used by an employee of the Federal Reserve wanted to sue the U.S. government. Here is what the Supreme Court said about that:

The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 890 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services.

 

Obviously the numbering in my previous post is screwed up. the second #4 should be #5.