Quote:
Originally Posted by Paisley
|
I'm not sure if this person you're quoting should be considered compartmentalized or biased but.
"The legitimacy of the Federal Reserve is the same as all other aspects of the government: ZERO."
"Has that happened also? Is Blackwater effectively the US military now?"
"Government has no legitimacy, so arguing the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve is pointless in comparison."
" Just because the Supreme Court or a Federal appeals court says something is acceptable, doesn't automatically mean it's true. Just like Congress and the President were subverted, the court system was also subverted."
How can you fight this with reasonable arguments?
If we simply decide to back our arguments with the "fact" that the entire nation is essentially "subverted" then any serious person will simply have to lift their hands up in the air and yield. There's no point. To his credit, he does state it himself - but this kind of arguing is the mother of all strawmen.
"The Federal Reserve's open market operations have never been audited. The full details are carefully kept secret."
This has to do with the theory of central banking (I'm not going to go into details - say, L.E.O Svensson has written a lot on the subject of inflation targeting, and it has to do with this). Government audits also do not necessarily have to be public. All of this is moot, however, since after the article was written, Fed has had quite a bit of a change in their policy on open market operations.
Additionally, any such charge on Fed would simply be about Fed - anyone following the field could for example point out the transparency principles of the European Central Bank to explain that this isn't what everyone in the monetary system do. In fact, ECB do what they do for a purpose - and Fed seems to have started to somewhat follow suit.
"This is entirely the whole point of the Compound Interest Paradox. Every dollar in circulation only exists due to a loan. The principal is created but not the interest.
In January 2008, the Federal Reserve announced a surprise 0.75% decrease in the Fed Funds Rate. People who knew in advance profited immensely."
We've heard this a few times now. Still, it persists on ignoring the temporal component of the a) loan and the b) economy.
The second paragraph is simply quoted to again emphasize difference on different central banking systems. There were reasons why central banks used to apply 'shocks' to economies. There's debate on which is the correct way to function - either way, European Central Bank is extremely predictable (and it's a part of their strategy).
"
Whenever Congress wants to, it could pass a law allowing it to directly print and spend money to pay down the national debt."
However, if they really wanted, they could also just devalue the dollar. There's really nothing that'd prevent them from doing it - they wouldn't even have to go as far as to print money. All in all, it's obviously a tax to those people who hold dollar currency. Namely, households (internally). None of this is 'shocking' or 'new' - say, Finland used to devalue frequently, even though it wasn't 'really allowed'. It was done to kick gear into exports, and it was more or less a direct transaction from households to export companies.
"Money directly printed and spent by the government prevents the Compound Interest Paradox from enslaving everyone."
Really. Robert Mugabe tried this in Zimbabwe. He was somewhat limited in his success.
"This is a legal technicality. I don't recognize the US Constitution as having legitimacy, so why should I care if it allows unbacked fiat money or not."
Again. How do you argue with this? Please?