DEBATEitOUT.comHave Your Voice Heard, 24/7.

They don't even have that much power, the Federal Reserve.

I'm not too familiar with this man, what is his deal?

Nobody who has observed his academic work seems to know either. His actions once in charge have differed widely from his observations on the Bank of Japan or Depression-era monetary policy.

The guy is in charge of our entire money supply. We have two types of policies in the United States, fiscal and monetary. Fiscal is Obama, with taxes and stuff like that. Bernanke is in charge of our money supply. The Federal Reserve is a group of federal banks in the United States. These banks are our banks' banks.

Fiscal is Congress. Obama doesn't get to just raise taxes or spend money on what he wants to do.

And fiscal policy is usually counteracted by monetary policies, at least if they are intelligently designed policies that use either a targeted NGDP growth rate or a targeted inflation rate. It would have no real impact on the money supply under those conditions.

It is therefore not really accurate to say that fiscal policy is part of the money supply policies anyway.

Obama has the power to get anything passed that he wants to get passed, especially with Democrats being the majority of the House.

In case you haven't noticed, things aren't passing at a prodigious rate. Democrats are hardly a unified body of ideological parity.

They are both separated, I said that. Counteracted?

Yes. If the monetary policy is appropriately designed, then when the government passes an expansionary fiscal program ("stimulus") then the federal reserve should adopt something which counteracts this by adopting a marginal contraction of the monetary base. Otherwise you're looking at a situation of undesirable or unexpected inflation.

This is pretty much why it is more desirable to use expansionary monetary policies than fiscal stimulus packages. They don't even mention "fiscal stimulus" as a legitimate economics term in many post graduate texts anymore for that reason.

The Fed shouldn't HAVE power at all. They are an unconstitutional institution, at least when they are in control of our monetary system. That's Congress' job, not a foreign banks'!

According to the Constitution, it is Congress' job. I'm not an expert but I think this was because Congress had nothing to lose- or gain- in the market. Of course, with career politicians nowadays, it might be dangerous. But it would have to be better than letting private bankers completely control it- not to mention more Constitutional.

Career politicians have always been with us. The problem is more the amount of general influence Congress has over the economy, and its defined interest in satisfying simple economic indicators for re-election concerns (unemployment for example) which can be easily funded with pork projects. These are cheap relative to extensive spending programs or wasteful bureaucracies but amazingly effective to buy votes or support. Removing the central banking system doesn't remove that problem (though certainly a 10ther position helps), so my concern is that Congressional control of the money supply is more highly prone to inflation and irresponsibility than even a central bank. A simple central bank with limited and explicit powers is probably a safer hedge to keep it as a de-political agent.

The problem with the Federal Reserve is that there is nothing to back up the money that it is printing.

Before there was the gold standard and the silver certificate which had gold and silver backing the paper currency, respectively. Absolutely nothng is backing the federal reserve note.

Just my not-so-humble opinion.

That's because the only topic at hand at the moment is healthcare.

Yea but with expansionary monetary policies, it's hard for the public to really understand it. With the stimulus package, more people had confidence in the system.

It's not necessary anymore. It's kind of like training-wheels on a bike.

1) Haven't repealed DADT or the federal DoMA. A bill to do so is on the house floor.
2) Haven't passed any climate bill. Waxman-Markey already passed the House. It's been dead in the Senate since before health care even came up and isn't going to pass.
3) Gave up on a Congressional bill for indefinite detention standards
4) Patriot act provisions renewals or amendments have been on the table for the last month.

You can obviously disagree with any of these as an ideological standpoint, but they were all items on the campaign platform and have all been at the table. Nothing has happened. It isn't because the only thing going on is health care because they did take time out to pass that ill-thought out ACORN amendment to de-fund them.

Actually the funny part is the "stimulative" parts of the package (that have already happened) are the things that people are least likely to understand (they usually dealt with arcane tax issues or made very slight modifications to the tax rates, so much so that virtually nobody noticed).

It's the idiotic, destructive things that people "understand". "cash for clunkers" for example.

Most people don't even know about the federal reserve and the policies they take part in. They are much more likely to watch Obama than Bernanke.

True to a point. But the stock market was watching Bernanke back in late 2008. When he and Paulson basically came up with a plan that said "give us almost a trillion dollars" and the answer to "why?" is "we cannot tell you" and the answer to "well what are you going to do with it" is "we don't know", this isn't very inspirational either.

Yea. He's a smart guy though, Bernanke.

As of the last time I checked, gold was at over a thousand dollars an ounce and the U.S. dollar was on a steady decline. Silver is also on the rise.

The federal reserve was founded on the principal of the ability of the government to tax the people. Have you noticed that the people are getting a little bit upset lately about all those taxes the government seems to be coming up with?

I began investing in gold way back when it was $35.00 an ounce.

Something a young man should think about.

Just my not-so-humble opinion.

I think that all goes back to the fact that the American people is so easily swayed.

The Constitution was written with one basic assumption in mind- that the American people would keep up their side of the deal, bringing the politicians to task for their actions. We've gotten so far into the world of easy-peasy that the American people collectively don't care about what the politicians do because they "don't understand it", or "it doesn't concern them", or they "have better stuff to do." (All stuff I've heard, by the way)

That is our problem, not politicians that want to be reelected.

My one concern is that the Federal Reserve is yet another indicator of our lapse in Constitutional authority in this nation. The Constitution lists monetary policy as Congress' job, not a bank that is owned by foreign powers that have a vested interest in bringing our money system down!

Gold isn't necessary? Uh, in case you didn't know, gold is the basic monetary unit. Without something of actual value, that paper in your wallet is worthless. Did you get that? WORTHLESS.

Do you really think paper is worth anything?

If he's such a smart guy then why are you concerned that he's the second most powerful guy in the country?

Our currency is not backed by gold anymore. That's what I meant. It hasn't been for many years. We were able before to go to the bank and exchange our money for gold but that doesn't happen anymore.

Exactly. That's wrong.

PS- sorry, I must have misread you.

i hope you all are aware that the federal reserve is a private company. They finance the american govrnment, thus they can pass any law they want.

That is how Ben Bernanke is the real president of the United States, using Obama, Bush or any other president as his puppet to take all the falls.

In the 1910′s the federal reserve was created a few days before christmas, when most of congress was at home. Paul Warburg, one of the Rothschilds and some other banker paid off the rest of congress to pass the federal reserve act giving themselves the power to create money.

This is how america is truly a dictatorship. Read this quote from the president who passed this act Woodrow Wilson years later

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world – no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

Okay you borrowed all of that last statement from the debunked conpsiracy movie wake-up call. Enough with the conspiracy nonsense.

The Federal Reserve has government people in control of that system. This whole myth that it is privately owned comes from morons like Alex Jones and other lunatics.

I am against the Federal Reserve for REAL reasons. Not because they have some illuminati/freemason/nwo/911/jfk/cia blah blah blah connection

I

acts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.

Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.

Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.

Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.

Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.

Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.

Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?

Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.

Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.