The Fed is Taxation without representation.

[Dr. Zaus]

When an authority forces charges against persons or property it is a tax. When the federal open market committee expands the money supply it forces a charge against all existing money by devaluing it.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) comprises of 12 members, seven from the Board of Governors (appointed by the president and approved by congress) and five presidents of regional Federal Reserve Banks (private citizens who happen to run a privately held bank and are not approved of by congress or appointed by any elected official). This means that five of the 12 people that makeup this committee are in no way representative of the people.

This is, by definition, taxation by a ruling elite that are neither elected nor appointed and approved of by an elected body: Taxation without representation.

Just because the money doesn't come out of your account or pay check doesn't mean that the purchasing power hasn't come out of your money.

Think about this: the stated goal of the fed is to have 3% inflation; this means that after 10 years the will have cut the value of any money you hold or income you receive by 1/4th.

my solution:
Elect the FOMC and elect the fed.

What is your solution?

 

[brxndxn]

Get rid of the Fed. Use money that has intrinsic value.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Get rid of the Fed. Use money that has intrinsic value.

Gold is just a shiny mettle; The only thing with intrinsic value that won't go bad that I can think of is oil.

 

[Rainsford]

Devaluation of your money might suck, but it's not a "tax". Taxes are money that you pay to the government. You are not paying anyone anything when the dollar ends up being devalued, so it can't be a tax using a normal definition. Otherwise ANYTHING that causes inflation could be considered a tax, right?

Also, if the majority of the FOMC are appointed and approved by elected officials, it sounds like we have plenty of representation.

 

[DaveSimmons]

So deflation is a tax refund? Sweet!

In China they once used pressed blocks of tea as currency. Gold? Pah! You can't drink a cup of molten gold now can you? (At least not without dying in horrible pain.)

 

[LunarRay]

Get rid of the Fed. Use money that has intrinsic value.

Well, let's look at this from the point of view that considers reality.

How long do you think it might take to effect a change in discount rates if Congress had to do it?

How much of the change might be more political than economic considering the time is of the essence need? Guess you'd opt to rid the nation of all of the FED.. including the banking system or is it just the chairman and his board?

Can there be any relation to money supply and the amount of gold sitting in a safe? Does what the gold mining folks produce have any bearing on inflation and would mining folks be wanting to produce gold to increase money supply if they did it at a loss?

Is it better to have a somewhat separate governing body of Economists make economic decisions than a bunch of know nothing politicians hoping to score district points?

 

[sandorski]

So deflation is a tax refund? Sweet!

In China they once used pressed blocks of tea as currency. Gold? Pah! You can't drink a cup of molten gold now can you? (At least not without dying in horrible pain.)

Not more than once anyway.

 

[LunarRay]

Not more than once anyway.

No, but you could make tea the currency based on the gold in the tea jar.... ()

 

[halik]

When an authority forces charges against persons or property it is a tax. When the federal open market committee expands the money supply it forces a charge against all existing money by devaluing it.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) comprises of 12 members, seven from the Board of Governors (appointed by the president and approved by congress) and five presidents of regional Federal Reserve Banks (private citizens who happen to run a privately held bank and are not approved of by congress or appointed by any elected official). This means that five of the 12 people that makeup this committee are in no way representative of the people.

This is, by definition, taxation by a ruling elite that are neither elected nor appointed and approved of by an elected body: Taxation without representation.

Just because the money doesn't come out of your account or pay check doesn't mean that the purchasing power hasn't come out of your money.

Think about this: the stated goal of the fed is to have 3% inflation; this means that after 10 years the will have cut the value of any money you hold or income you receive by 1/4th.

my solution:
Elect the FOMC and elect the fed.

What is your solution?

The head of the fed is nominated by your elected leaders...

 

[halik]

Get rid of the Fed. Use money that has intrinsic value.

So barter? That sounds efficient...

 

[dfuze]

my solution:
Elect the FOMC and elect the fed.

What is your solution?

I would rather keep it as it is with people who understand the industry brought in to do the job, not whoever can run the flashiest ad campaign. And they don't "tax" you, but rather set rates at which money is borrowed.

 

[ccbadd]

I'd prefer that we fix the money supply to a given figure and require states to approve any future changes in that amount, probably by a 2/3rds majority. If we can't see the books and audit the Fed, it should not exist!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I would rather keep it as it is with people who understand the industry brought in to do the job, not whoever can run the flashiest ad campaign. And they don't "tax" you, but rather set rates at which money is borrowed.

They do this by adjusting the money supply; Devaluing our earning power and cash-held is taxing it's worth; When almost half of the people that decide on this taxation are what amount to benevolent dictators, I have a problem.

with people who understand the industry brought in to do the job

so you subscribe to the idea that there is an intellectual elite that should dictate the value of our currency and that the American people, and there by democracy, is unable to handle this choice... So it's good to have dictators of money: people are too stupid?

I do not buy the premise that what's good for the banks is good for the US.

I'd prefer that we fix the money supply to a given figure and require states to approve any future changes in that amount, probably by a 2/3rds majority.

This would allow for much greater volatility in employment and interest rates, but it would be fine by me I believe in entrepreneurship. Keep in mind though: deficit spending is impossible without taxation if we keep the money supply steady.

 

[Anarchist420]

Devaluation of your money might suck, but it's not a "tax". Taxes are money that you pay to the government. You are not paying anyone anything when the dollar ends up being devalued, so it can't be a tax using a normal definition. Otherwise ANYTHING that causes inflation could be considered a tax, right?

Also, if the majority of the FOMC are appointed and approved by elected officials, it sounds like we have plenty of representation.

But see, they print (which causes inflation) to fund government. So it is a tax. It's not collected, but its still a tax.

Anyway, to be more OT, I'd say get rid of the damn fed, or at least keep them audited, and pass a no inflation law that forces them to keep interest rates so that there is a small amount of deflation or no inflation using the old CPI method. That's what they do in Switzerland.

 

[dfuze]

so you subscribe to the idea that there is an intellectual elite that should dictate the value of our currency and that the American people, and there by democracy, is unable to handle this choice... So it's good to have dictators of money: people are too stupid?

No, I subscribe to the idea that there are some things that people don't understand and it would be counterintuitive to have their input. I think the people who are put in place are doing a better job than some person who would "run for the position" and may not be qualified.

Do you honestly think every citizen understands monetary policy and how things work?

 

[MJinZ]

When an authority forces charges against persons or property it is a tax. When the federal open market committee expands the money supply it forces a charge against all existing money by devaluing it.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) comprises of 12 members, seven from the Board of Governors (appointed by the president and approved by congress) and five presidents of regional Federal Reserve Banks (private citizens who happen to run a privately held bank and are not approved of by congress or appointed by any elected official). This means that five of the 12 people that makeup this committee are in no way representative of the people.

This is, by definition, taxation by a ruling elite that are neither elected nor appointed and approved of by an elected body: Taxation without representation.

Just because the money doesn't come out of your account or pay check doesn't mean that the purchasing power hasn't come out of your money.

Think about this: the stated goal of the fed is to have 3% inflation; this means that after 10 years the will have cut the value of any money you hold or income you receive by 1/4th.

my solution:
Elect the FOMC and elect the fed.

What is your solution?

Paper is backed by government.

Solution is to kill your government, overthrow it, take it over, or move to another country.

 

[MJinZ]

They do this by adjusting the money supply; Devaluing our earning power and cash-held is taxing it's worth; When almost half of the people that decide on this taxation are what amount to benevolent dictators, I have a problem.

so you subscribe to the idea that there is an intellectual elite that should dictate the value of our currency and that the American people, and there by democracy, is unable to handle this choice... So it's good to have dictators of money: people are too stupid?

I do not buy the premise that what's good for the banks is good for the US.

This would allow for much greater volatility in employment and interest rates, but it would be fine by me I believe in entrepreneurship. Keep in mind though: deficit spending is impossible without taxation if we keep the money supply steady.

Welcome to your government. Dictated EXACTLY by the REALITY that mass people are too stupid to do anything.

It's why we have courts, and economists, and a democratic republic.

Intellectual elite? Hell fucking yes. That includes me, probably not you. I would be rolling over in my grave when stupid people get to make decisions.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Do you honestly think every citizen understands monetary policy and how things work?

the same arguments can be used against representative democracy over all;

People are not stupid, just ignorant. If we had to elect these people then the issues and ideas would become much more well known. Economics is super-simple hidden behind language that is designed to intimidate or inflate egos.

I believe in a republican form of government; When we tax without representation we violate the basic assumptions on which our government is founded.

The problem is this guy

Intellectual elite? Hell fucking yes. That includes me

some people think because they sat in on an economics class or have a $100k degree/job they are part of the ruling elite, this is a lie sold to people all along the chain so that those with the knowledge don't question the way things work.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

I would be rolling over in my grave when stupid people get to make decisions.

Ever heard of voting? That's the damn problem top to bottom, ignorant people are given the right to vote. If people had to actually think about who was being voted for and why, we wouldn't have the government we do now. It's rather common knowledge that politicians are slimy self representing douchebags yet incumbents continually get reelected. It's time to require a frigging iq/current events/history master test to qualify voters.

 

[Delita]

I'd prefer that we fix the money supply to a given figure and require states to approve any future changes in that amount, probably by a 2/3rds majority. If we can't see the books and audit the Fed, it should not exist!

I hear this argument every time and it really just shows the ignorance of the person. The Federal Reserve publishes its books every week. They are also audited.

You can find them here:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/releases/statisticsdata.htm

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, let's look at this from the point of view that considers reality.

How long do you think it might take to effect a change in discount rates if Congress had to do it?

How much of the change might be more political than economic considering the time is of the essence need? Guess you'd opt to rid the nation of all of the FED.. including the banking system or is it just the chairman and his board?

Can there be any relation to money supply and the amount of gold sitting in a safe? Does what the gold mining folks produce have any bearing on inflation and would mining folks be wanting to produce gold to increase money supply if they did it at a loss?

Is it better to have a somewhat separate governing body of Economists make economic decisions than a bunch of know nothing politicians hoping to score district points?

Shit, you went over everybody's head in the first line.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Is it better to have a somewhat separate governing body of Economists make economic decisions than a bunch of know nothing politicians hoping to score district points?

At very least we could have everyone involved be appointed by our representatives; This would be representation and mean we could, in the long run, change the situation.

Or are you now arguing that the president of a private company will make better decisions than those appointed and approved of by our elected representatives?

 

[LunarRay]

At very least we could have everyone involved be appointed by our representatives; This would be representation and mean we could, in the long run, change the situation.

Or are you now arguing that the president of a private company will make better decisions than those appointed and approved of by our elected representatives?

I don't really care what vehicle puts the best of Economic Brains in the chairs... So long as their decision making is pure Economics I'll go for it!

I don't think the process that involves Political anything can be anything but Political. But, as I said: Best brains is my want for the roles they play in their INDEPENDENT function.
The FED has probably nine major functions it plays... From member bank liquidity to insuring our strength in the world. This is not something I'd trust to just anyone. We often hang blame or accolades on the Chairman but he's just one vote... and at times I'm glad of that!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Best brains is my want for the roles they play in their INDEPENDENT function. I don't think the process that involves Political anything can be anything but Political.

Why don't you hold the same view for the Judiciary? Why not the legislature? Or how about all of the executive branch?

You are making an argument for the 'value' of having philosopher kings that have no governmental approval or oversight. This is contrary to what has brought what wealth, prosperity and liberal-mindedness we have in this country.

When you let a ruling elite control the country you get policies of, by and for the ruling elite because:

So long as their decision making is pure Economics...

Economics is a social science and is not 'pure'; So having money run in part by an unelected cabal of bankers means money will serve one group over all others: the bankers.

 

[LunarRay]

Why don't you hold the same view for the Judiciary? Why not the legislature? Or how about all of the executive branch?

You are making an argument for the 'value' of having philosopher kings that have no governmental approval or oversight. This is contrary to what has brought what wealth, prosperity and liberal-mindedness we have in this country.

When you let a ruling elite control the country you get policies of, by and for the ruling elite because:
Economics is a social science and is not 'pure'; So having money run in part by an unelected cabal of bankers means money will serve one group over all others: the bankers.

I think Economics IS pure or can be... Because it IS social a component of that matrix is the psyche of the folks involved - all the folks... you and me too... Pure encompasses that!

The Judiciary is under the Constitution as is the Executive and it is spelled out how to produce these folks as well as the Congress... We all know this! The FED is mandated by statute. In that is how the folks established how it was to be populated. That decision was and is in practice political for the most part. I don't agree that an informed decision can be made relative to Economics by political folks who don't understand the applied or theoretical models that formulate the policy or policies the FED members will apply. I've not once heard a question asked in Committee regarding that issue and I think it is the most important... Why? Well, let's simply say I do!
Often, I see Congress produce law that they in conjunction with the CBO and so called experts or anyone propounding opinion to them presume will be effective in producing the outcome they will legislate for. And just as often I see conflicts among the experts as to what will occur and even when subsequently what did occur is examined via an applied research on it they can't agree on what they see.
That to me is both the beauty and failure of Economics... We can find any number of holes to cover up what we've said regarding a policy to be enacted...

EDIT: The notion that a policy will benefit the elite is not a bad thing at the end of the day if you think about it. For instance: If you enable appropriate money supply to provide for expansion the Elite benefit and so does the rest of society... Last I heard, the elite were part of society. IF the FED in their capacity to insure our standing among the other nations put more emphasis on inflationary actions and that benefits the elite then it also benefits the rest of society... We are all in the same cup cake!