Math is simple. It's a universal language. Numbers don't change. It amazes me to hear these ''bankers'' side step simple and direct questions with fancy sounding ''terms'' that are meaningless.
A fraction is nothing more than the numerator being divided by the denominator.
Algebra is nothing more than balancing two sides of an equation.
There is ALWAYS a solution to any equation
Q. Where is the money?? It disappeared. Where did it go/?
And the whole issue of defending the institutions they are lending to is ridiculous. Where else do RESPONSIBLE lenders not mandate that they have the right to see that they will have a return on their investment in the world of finance?
What a difference between Grayson, acting like a child, and the Fed lawyer, acting like an adult. Is Grayson going to get a job on MSNBC so he can continue his ignorant rants?
@patbarkley How was Grayson acting like a child? He had to push for answers because the lawyer was doing what a lawyer does and was trying to withhold every amount of information possible. That being said, policy behavior needs to be adjusted. A government agency should have no right to withhold information from other government authorities except for those which are necessary for security. They are not a private institution therefore principles of privacy should not belong to them in the law.
Ask any trader, there is nothing that influences the stock market more than the Federal Reserve. Even hints of raising or lowering of the interest rate can add considerable volatiity in anticipation.
patbarkley is on to something. grayson is on thin ice, along with many other dems. some alot more than others. the dems are going to face a blood bath this year. for myself, i look past the left/right bullshit. i look at the people pulling the strings. there are so very many "puppets" in office, and they have to go, on both sides.
I love the way, these Fed owned puppets try to walk around the questions asked of them. If they have nothing to hide, then why not spread those books wide opened for all to see. Lets start with the transactions involving AIG, then hit JPMorgan ... then watch the fans get dirty real fast ... squim you NeoCon Traitors, you time is coming soon.
The scary statement of the century "No sir not that I am aware of " This entity issues trillions of dollars a year. And he does not know where this taxpayer money is going to. In a business , The accounting and law department know everything going on, EVERYTHING !!
Exquisite Doom, you make some good points, but most of them can be put into two categories as far as monopolies go:
1) Restricitng the marketplace entry of competitors and 2) Going into business with gov.'t directly or indirectly to protect these monopolies. Back to my original comment, these are violations of free-market capitalism, and shouln't be allowed. But a true monopoly based on doing something better than anyone else is not only accpetible, it should be the goal of every business, no?
I agree all businessmen would love a good old monopoly, but it is exactly why it can't happen, as ironically as this sounds! I'm not sure if you agree with me or not, or was just trying to point something out to me, but i agree with you :) I don't want to get annoyingly abstract either :) I see monopolization somewhat as a spectrum that can never reach a 100% mark. Just like we can't possibly reach lightspeed as friction wouldn't allow it; even in the void! Hope that makes sense.
We are a bankrupt Nation & we must get back into solvency. We do that by putting the financial system threw a Glass-Steagall Bankruptcy. We eliminate the FED & adopt a National Credit system call for in our Constitution. We invest in infrastructure, agriculture & industry & create lots & lots of blue collar jobs. We will bring back all our industries that Global Free Trade Capitalism has outsourced. We don't need Wall Street or the FED anymore! Google: LPACTV: Audio Preview, The LaRouche Plan
THIS IS A MUST READ - Exposes the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and the unconstitutional money monopoly held by a cartel of huge banks that control the government
This free essay clearly and concisely explains how centralized banking and fractional reserve banking create economic downturns
what to do as an a person? what is the meaning of life?
forget politics and forget money. Money is a lie, it is a false representation, an idol.
forget about wars and killing.
i could tell you the meaning of life is learning and experience... but that is not the air above the iceberg. the TRUE meaning of life is one you cannot grasp until you have experienced it. The "MEANING" of life... is not about you... its about all others.
death to the central bank just like Andrew jackson killed them in the 1830s which caused a depression because the cry baby European Rothschild couldn't get their way they caused it in retaliation
LaRousche is RIGHT and he paid for being right by doing jail time after JFK got shot...The powers were just starting to flex their new muscles...This is GREAT did you see him squirm...? We MUST AUDIT THE FED!!! The trillions that have already been laundred out of this country is part of CFR and those thugs that are SECRET...Bush/Clinton/Bush and back...
The FED is Bankrupt! They don't want any kind of audit that will expose this fact! However, there is a more effective way to eliminate this criminal origination. Put the financial system under Federal Protection & through a Glass-steagall Bankruptcy Reorganization. The FEDs crimes will be exposed & we can then put back in the American system where Government works & runs for the people & not fu*k*n Wall Street. Google: EIR The LaRouche Show september 26,2009 "The Fuse Is Lit!"
LIAR LIAR )o i cant wait till this all comes out and people are given the electric chair cause this is what donald rumsfeld was brining to our attention 1-3 days befor 911 then all the evidence just went up in smoke , catch these crooks and bring peace to america so when its time for me to die i can rest at piece that my childrens country has been saved )o
Before this video I had no idea who Alan Grayson is, but I do now. And I like the questions he is asking. I don't care to banter over HOW he is asking them, but I think every tax payer should agree that the answers are important and should be pursued.
How sad are all these comments about the Federal Reserve. After years and years of attempts to debunk the conspiracy theories, they're still at it. "If only we could eliminate the Fed, everything would be okay." Actually, if we ever get to the point of eliminating the Fed, we will begin to live like animals in the forest. No thanks.
All you have to do is read the all of one page of HR 1207 to see exactly what it is changing. Very large and very important aspects of the Federal Reserve are exempt from audits, as are the Primary Dealers. HR 1207 removes all audit restrictions and allows the GAO to audit transactions that are mediated by the Primary Dealers.
Your claim that we would live like animals without the Fed is stupid. Do you really believe that?
mykill: There is no aspect of the Federal Reserve that needs additional auditing. There is a reason why the Fed operates in semi-secrecy -- its operations are meant to be private, unknown, not to be seen. It was set up that way to begin with, and we ought to leave it alone. If we were ever to eliminate the Fed, we would be in a chaotic state without an appropriate control of our monetary gyrations. The cost in human misery would be horrifying.
nich- No additional auditing, Really ! Conservatives and face time. Christ ! Over 100 of the C0-sponsors are Democrats. This is not a mean statement------ you honestly don't understand. And the FRB can easily defend themselves. There is absolutely no purpose for their existence and they know it, hence the books will not be forth coming. As they have so boldly stated, if audited the economy will CRASH. They will make it so, it's easy. Fear mongering for self preservation.
seth: Again, you're missing the point entirely. Because you have a desire to get rid of the Fed, you're not getting what is going on. Having the Fed as a sort of semi-private organization has its good points, However, the Fed just spent a bazillion dollars getting us out of that hole. This gives truly worried politicians and various fakers to play a game. The problem is that being auditied will make that "semi-private" job harder to do, and will open up the Fed to more meddling.
NI-Nope .The Gazillion dollars did not get us out of the hole. All Debt incurred by the FRB MUST by law be collateralized by the Government / you & me. This is a term I am sure you are familiar with, Cognitive Dissonance,as in spend more to save more. Just silly nonsense. The FED got us here and will continue to manipulate the economy to their advantage. By nature and design It is a self serving, for profit enterprise. It was a hoot Nic, but my 73yo ass is headed to bed. Maybe I'll get laid 1st.
seth: money paid by the fed in its attempt to solve the crisis is indeed a debt owed by the U.S. government, it becomes part of the "national debt." Please don't use cognitive dissonance incorrectly. The fed has done what other central banks have done, which is to infuse capital into the system. The fed is not for profit, that is a mischaracterization.
You can't create capital simply by printing money. The FED is for profit, they have owners that want something in return for their investment.
When it comes to Flaherty's debunking site... well, that was a good mix of facts and fiction. I could make a page, debunking Flaherty's debunking, but whats the point of arguing with idiots? Just a waste of time.
And gold standard is not so much about the amount of physical gold, as it is about the moral of sound money.
Koskovs - the idea of a gold standard is rather quaint - it doesn't allow the kind of flexibility that fiat currency gives us to regulate monetary policy and address 21st century markets. Sure a gold standard was great back in 1776, but Adam Smith has been dead for a long time and economic theory lives on.
koskovs: Yes, I'm quite sure that you and you alone (well, you've got a few people who believe in what you believe in, but not that many) know what is good for the country. Lol, the "sound money" argument has been going on for a LONGGGG time, but we've seen no change, wonder why that is??!!?? Guess mainstream economists see no reason to get rid of the Fed, right??
Hey Pat, An overtly baited question. "Federal Reserve notes are liabilities ( debt ) of the Reserve Banks and are collateralized at face value." Source- FRB 3/21/08 7:56AM
If you have difficulty with this basic premise pick up the phone and call them ! I don't know what else to tell you.
Pat - understood. Seems as though most of the commenters on this video have little to no understanding of how the Fed actually works. I haven't seen this many conspiracy theorists and nutjobs on a comment thread since I watched Zeitgeist. I'm a centerleft Dem with a libertarian streak myself and I recognize that most concerns with the Fed are misplaced or overblown. Could it use a little reform? Sure, just as most government programs could. Is it unconstitutional? A century of case law says no.
Then you need to look at the amendment that says its legal and study some history. There were not enough state representatives there to ratify the amendment being that it takes 38 states to be in favor to change an amendment and they voted over christmas recession, when most congressman were at home with their families. The income tax which is also unconstitutional as seen by the supreme court in many hearings in the late teens and early 20's. Watch MONEY MASTERS.
insurgent - I'm very familiar with the history and legality of the Fed. There's nearly 200 years of case law that supports the legality of the Fed. Google "McCulloch v Maryland"
You can't win this one because you already lost... almost 100 years ago. You can lobby Congress to change it, but there's nothing illegal about any of this.
Good luck with your lobbying efforts. Don't forget the 5th and 14th Amendments! The concept so nice, it's in there twice.
Haha, so money from the FED in terms of bailout you mean this got us out of the hole? Damn nicholas9999, is it FOX news you have been watching again? What did i say about that darn tv?
koskovs: Huh?? Your comment makes no sense. Here's what happened: Money from the Fed and other places was used as a stimulus for the economy (of the U.S. and the world, in cooperation with other central banks), so as to prevent a major meltdown that would have created an untenable situation. What I mean by untenable is like people starving in the streets, rioting, robbing the contents of stores, etc. Sorry, no thanks.
What did the stimulus do for people losing their homes? Did it stop poverty? Did people that didn't have food the day before the stimulus magically have food the next day? Oh yeah all hail the FED our true saviors they kept it from getting worse. It is easy to stop it from getting worse when you are creating the prob to begin with. DO some homework about the FED. If you spent a million dollars a day for the last 2000 years you wouldn't have spent a trillion yet and they have spent 11t in 30 yrs.
insurg: They're not creating the problem to begin with. The primary problem is the size of major corporations in the country compared to smaller sized businesses on Main St., USA. It has become almost impossible for small and medium size towns to resist the incursions of the large companies. At the same time, these companies are paying off or threatening our elected reps. Blaming the country's central bank is a waste of time.
I find it hilarious how you point the finger past the elephant right to the mice. How can companies be too big? By investing too much when the demand is lower than anticipated. What creates bubbles? The fed. If you invest in something that appears to be cheap and it rises insanely the next day, of course you're going to look like you're too big to handle it. Take your loss, and shrink. But the fed is instead having YOU take the loss. If you don't see this, i suggest to give up on economics.
exquisite: Companies can get too big in all the ways that capitalism offers, none them illegal: They can merge (eliminating jobs), they can expand (with the help of elected officials who may know the bosses/owners of the company), etc. There has been a tremendous influx of lobbyists into Washington over the last 30 years, as companies have grown more sophisticated, national, international, etc. in scope. While you're worried about the Fed, the country is being taken over.
If companies get too big, they shrink. Merges fail more than they succeed, that fact by itself should proove that monopolies are impossible. And i don't care about lobbysts. Illegalize lobbysts, it will all be done in secrecy, well done, you've fixed the economy. Your logic is vapid to me.
History shows us that monopolies (or, if you prefer, oligopolies) are *not* impossible - and continue to this day. See Standard Oil, Microsoft, health insurance, Major League Baseball (the latter two have explicit permission from the gov't to maintain their trusts), etc, etc.
Oil is an energy. Electricity is an energy. They are not from the same source, or resource. thus, they do not have complete and total control of the resource. By definition, it is not a monopoly. Yet, both electricity and oil are a cartel, enforced by government to attempt to create a monopoly, they still have different prices. Both energies can be converted to the same uses. And there are many other alternative energies that can be used. A monopoly, in the abstract is unthinkable. Fear tactic.
How is microsoft a monopoly when it has competitors that do a much better job FOR FREE! And can emulate their OS so that you may run "windows only" applications , and where Sony competes with Xbox? AT&T was a "monopoly" enforced by government, people could have invented other forms of communications, and i'm sure they had, seeing as how the private sector in communications exploded immediately after the copyrights expired. It still wasn't a monopoly, as nobody owns TIME, and time is a resource.
Microsoft is a monopoly because Windows is the OS on 92.77% of the world's computers. That has given them enormous power - like the power to make or break software through bundling. The most recent numbers I can find indicate that Microsoft Office has 95% of its market. Internet Explorer still dominates the web browser market - the current average figure is 58%. (It used to be much higher.) They have a large share in media playback software, but I'm having trouble finding figures.
But microsoft still sucks, i stand in awe at the idiocy of the consumers. Regardless, microsoft is still protected by intellectual property priviledges. I don't know about you, but this sounds like a priviledge to monopolize, by grossly limiting competition. Just the invention should have made Bill rich indeed, but not to the extent he has through government backing. If it wasn't for this, microsoft might be a great OS by now, or would have defaulted on it's obligations.
I'm no more a fan of MS than you are. But intellectual property is not a license to become an abusive monopoly. IBM popularized personal computers, but they didn't engage in monopolistic practices - which is why there are so many companies that make PCs.
The Constitution (Article I Sec 8) provides for copyright and patent protection as a means of encouraging creation and innovation. I'm sure you're not suggesting that we violate the Constitution or throw copyrights and patents out the window.
The people have never voted for the constitution, so i'm not sure how it's relevant`but, nontheless i see where you're getting at and you make a good point i'll have to look into it from an empirical point of view. I do see how the ability to be monopolistic would motivate people to become more creative, but it seems to me like it's another one of these things in which brute force (laws) has other side effects. Oh, and i do see different oppinions about IBM. I might have to look into this too.
The Constitution was ratified by the states according to the law.
As for abusing copyrights and patents - as mosesesom pointed out, they expire & then the intellectual property goes to the public domain to be used by anyone. Big corporate interests (monopolies, oligopolies) have used $ in gov't to modify things in their favor & keep things out of the public domain - but this can be reversed. This is not the fault of gov't as a concept - just recent corruption. It can be fixed.
Oh, i have found this "• IBM uses its patent portfolio as a means of forcing smaller companies that threaten its
mainframe monopoly out of business; larger companies are compelled to pay lucrative settlements
to avoid protracted litigation." comming right from the The Computer & Communications Industry Association. I don't know if they're credible, but it certainly fits the picture i'm proposing. I'll look into it further :)
You have a 7 year limit on your patents. After that, its open to the free market. I'll say it does limit the marketplace for the first seven years, but without patent laws, would it not be better business to merely copy other's ideas ans simpley market them better? It would certainly cut down on R&D budgets.
Oh and about the copying, i'd have to say it's a good idea. The inventors aren't necessarilly the best market timers, or managers. It's not the like inventors end up a useless entity with no revenue, think about it, the guy MADE the product. He can very easilly find a high paying job in those companies, or buy stocks, etc. 7 Years of monopoly gives you quite an edge over other companies; you have the funds to crush them..
Also, again, oil is an energy, and you can't control all energies without boundaries. You can convert any form of energies for any form of applications. As for the railroad, i've gotten no information on that subject. But it couldn't have been anywhere close to being a monopoly without government involvement, and again, if you don't control time, you don't control anything. Exploitations and frauds always dissapear at some point in time. Besides, their prices were always affordable.
I don't understand how you figure that AT&T and railroads couldn't possibly be monopolies without government help. If that were the case, the government wouldn't have had to pass laws (i.e. the Sherman Antitrust Act) and prosecute companies for monopolistic behavior.
Yes, some monopolies are allowed by government - MLB and health insurance are the two in the USA right now, and there have been others historically. But most monopolies (or oligopolies) have not been supported by gov't.
I can tell you AT&T wasn't a monopoly because they weren't forcing your arm with a gun in the other hand to buy their services at 10x the costs of your weekly income. Since it seems to be the average man's idea that "some people" can raise prices indefinately regardless of how many people can afford it and bring economic ruin to all. Just the fact that anyone can afford products from so-called monopolies is proof enough that they do not have complete and utter control over life and death.
Monopolies don't always mean excessive prices. They can mean blocking innovation and competition. AT&T was a monopoly - otherwise the government wouldn't have been able to break it up in the first place.
Patents don't necessarily mean monopolies. Wal-Mart's domination over retail has nothing to do with patents. Nintendo holds lots of patents, but they still have numerous competitors. The same goes for Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Apple, SC Johnson, P&G....
Monopolies generally create lower prices. The problem with monoplolies are: 1) Gov.'t protected monopolies which lead to increased inefficiency in business, and 2) monopolies which restrict access to the marketplace. If these two restrictions are met, then monopolies, believe or not, are not necissarily a bad thing. It just means the X company is doing such a good job at supplying a good product at a good price that no one can do it better.
Wait a minute, are you saying that a "monopoly" restricting the market place AND protected by fiat is GOOD, or even, moral? Two wrongs don't make it right. Now if you were saying the opposite, a "monopoly" that isn't backed by fiat or restricting the market is a good monopoly, i would sink to my knees and praise your name for making this remark in this backwards world.Because, i know that fundamentally, in the abstract, monopolies are impossible in a free market. It would mean this fear is fake
I'm saying if the monopoly is not gov.'t sponsored/protected, and if it isn't restrictive as far as entering the marketplace, then it is not a bad thing. It means a company is making a product at a price that is appealing to consumers. Restricting these types of monopolies are like punishing a company for doing well. Restricting these monopolies are detrimental to a true capitalistic society. Even if these are bad, then the company will get lazy and a competitior will start taking market share.
Then we fundamentally agree , such theories as "natural monopolies" are actually beneficial, somehow the neo liberal left managed to warp that into a complete and total opposite. My mind always gets blown away at how people buy into the fear mongering of either side. People need to be less paranoid and cooperate with each other, just like nature intended. Glad to have met an individual who is not fooled by such a ridiculous concept. *handshake* :D
Monopolies & oligopolies are not punished for doing well. They are punished for throwing their weight around to block legit competition. Let's look @ Microsoft again - when they decided to get into the Internet, they crushed Netscape by making Internet Explorer free & bundling it with Windows. Netscape (arguably the better product) didn't have a prayer. It was acquired by AOL, but AOL let Netscape die in favor of MSIE b/c they wanted MSFT to bundle AOL with Windows.
I don't know why you're giving me these examples, i'm aware of the aberrations, i'm also aware that in a free market these practises would happenl; though never to the extent they are now. People learn from scams and find ways to avoid them in a private way, we don't need the government to enforce anything. We can't just "remove liberty" in order to "protect it". I just don't see how that idea makes sense in any way and everytime i look into such situations; the government involvement is blatant
What makes you think they're aberrations? The history of the market in the USA alone is littered w/ monopolies, oligopolies, trusts, anti-competitive practices, unethical practices, abuse of workers, abuse of consumers, etc, etc. That history stretches all the way back to before government regulation - like when President Coolidge said "the business of America is business."
It's not removing liberty. Iit's about protecting the liberty of the many against the powerful few.
I don't know where you've been hiding but the amount of scams and ponzie schemes increase as time goes on relative to government growth. Government blocks ingenuitive ways for the public to combat every problem individually and privately. I'm not saying scams can't happen in a free market, i'm saying the levels at which they will occur over time would simply alter over time, the same way security at work has increased and decreased in costs until the government decided to hijack it.
There are literally millions of documented situations where security improves within society on it's own accords without government; whenever it isn't involved either directly or indirectly. You can even track the levels of accidents in the construction domain; ever since the government got involved costs skyrocketed and the pace at which the numbers of accidents hit the breaks stopped. And this is also true for healthcare, railroads, highways, or any government program i can think of.
As an old professor of mine used to say constantly - how do you know this? Where are these examples?
I mean, I can cite examples where lack of government is destructive - the recent banking meltdown, Somalia and piracy, weak government in Afghanistan....
I could state the exact same thing, man, it's a matter of perspective. I just think your philosophy isn't exactly consistent, no offense intended. I know i pass off as an extremely biased free market individual, but everytime i look in depth into so called free-market failures they turn out to be government failures. I think you should explain to me how governments can prevent piracy without making things work, or explain to me why in thousands of years PIRACY still exists. They're incompetent.
I thought i've explained this already. Perhaps you can read the documentation provided at mises(dot)com regarding monopolies. They don't exactly have the same stance i do, they even say monopolies exist; but i disagree simply because of my definition of monopolies which is utter and complete control of a ressource or product. My philosophy tells me you can't have complete 100% control over anything as people can find other ways to suit their needs, in very ingenuitive ways.
I would check out that site, but it doesn't seem to be responding. It's throwing an internal server error.
As for your definition of a monopoly...at the risk of sounding disrespectful, your definition doesn't matter. Economists & historians have defined what a monopoly is, what an oligopoly is, etc. I'm not saying you have to have a PhD to make an argument - but you do have to be able to back up your argument with examples, citations, etc. Otherwise your argument has no credibility.
ExquisiteDoom: Your philosophy is wrong! The Federal Reserve System is a complete MONOPOLY of the money supply. They have no competition. JFK tried circulating 4.2 billion in Silver backed U.S. Notes, but he was killed for it, and the notes were destroyed by LBJ.
If they didn't have any competition you wouldn't have ressources, would you? Just the fact you can trade dollars for something else should enforce my point. It is competing against everything that aren't dollars. Sure it's a monopoly in a sense, to a certain level, but it STILL does not have complete control over your life.The neo-liberal monopoly concept is simply inconsistent to my eyes, i simply attempt to demonstrate that it is nothing but nonsensical fear mongering.Just offering a diff view
I would add that everything that aren't dollars includes other currencies. You can't have your countries currency issued by multiple competing sources in any event. Well, you could, but it would be silly and impractical. You already have every other currency in the world to compete with. The FED was not a bad idea, but a super-secret FED that is never scrutinized is a TERRIBLE idea.
The idea that the fed needs government protection to exist shows us that it would not have survived in the market. The ideas of the fed could have been emulated by the private sector ; except without the boom and busts even being a possibility.
What functions of the Fed would you privatize, or would it be all functions? Are you saying you're in favor of the indiscriminate printing of American dollars by private entities? Even less bank regulation? How would that work? The whole scenario seems kind of "Alice in Wonderland" to me.
Remember, countries are but imaginary limits. With that in mind... Banks could supply the currencies. Insurance companies could develop around those systems; provide analysis to prevent fraudulent actions, etc. It's not like we can't come up with an efficient market system to convert the currencies. To my eyes, this prevents one guy from owning the whole market and creating derivatives out of the ass. As if a bank debauches it's currency; another one will outcompete them.
Plus now that i think about it, a monopoly on currency; even if that could happen, from purely private hands couldn't really damage to the same extent the government can; simply because "every other goods you can purchase are actually competition by themselves." Hmmm... I need to ponder this over ^ ^
Yes, i've heard Ron paul is trying to pass a bill for certain states to accept gold and silver as legal tender... I think it is pretty clear that once you remove the legal tender laws you would "unmonopolize" the reserve notes. I think i will stick to my previous assertion. Everything already competes with the dollar for sure; it wouldn't be in anyone's interest to poison the well as money is undeniably necessary for efficient trading, but if someone was tempted to you'd have this security.
By the way, i'm in no way legitimising the federal reserve, i'm just trying to debunk the neo-liberal concepts of monopoly. Nobody should have "legal protection" from a brutal and violent institution such as governments. I don't see how legality has become VIRTUE over time. Anyway, good night :)
It seems to me that when people see they produce for example 10 000$ worth of goods a day, they seem to think that the employer pockets in the difference of their salary and the goods produced. They don't see the costs of the machinery, power, heating/cooling shipments, paperworks. People tend to be dicks and demonize industries they do not understand, and empower the government to create senseless and needless laws, which , ironically, reduce choice, and increase costs.
What sort of "senseless and needless laws" are you talking about? I'll admit that the general public may not understand the intricacies of business - but reasonable regulation is a *good* thing.
No regulation make sense in any way. Those who create them aren't directly accountable, they have no way to gauge the efficacies of their legistlation, without mentionning the very slow process. If a legislation is bad, it is simply increased in size rather than removed. If it is removed however, it usually is nothing but a tactic to convince people to grow government even more (glass steagle). Also, if people do not understand how the mechanics work, they won't know how to vote either.
The list of Primary Dealers mentioned by Counsel Alvarez has been removed from the NY Fed Website. The webpage and related documents were cached by Google on 9-17-2009. Take screenshots before they fall into the memory hole.
welling: The "Federal Rat" lawyer manages to conduct himself with enormous dignity in the face of this asshole's witch-hunt. The question is unanswerable. The Fed does all sorts of things that end up "manipulating" all kinds of markets.
wellingtonian: The fed is audited once each year. Not only that, the congress is able to call forward representatives of the Fed any time it wants to. The Fed is highly overseen. Your second comment is simply foolish IMO. The government has been passing rules and laws for years, some I like, other I don't, but that's the job of government. You , no doubt, would like everything privatized, and blah blah blah. In your world, we would return to medieval times. No thanks.
I'm afraid you're in the minority, an if you think the country will go back to living like animals then move to another country or if you really think the Fed is worth defending then call your congressman an ask him not to sign HR1207, too late 290 + co-sponsors
wellington: If the bill passes, which I doubt, given the ways of Washington it will be a bad thing, as the Fed has no need to be harassed by the dumbasses in the Congress. The whole idea of the fed in the first place was to avoid meddling by the legislature (or maybe you didn't know that). This bill is strictly speaking a harassment bill, so that congressional conservatives can get a lot of media face time criticizing the Fed, which has no way to deflect such criticism. But good luck, lol!
pat: Not only that, the Fed is audited once each year. What this guy wants is some sort of closer control, whereas the entire idea of a central bank in the first place was to AVOID control by this house of fools. It is quite painful to read the idiotic comments in here, though.
NICHOLAS9999- You are painfully ignorant on the workings of the FRB. In addition, the authority to coin money was granted to Congress to keep spending in check ! I'll offer you the details of how that process worked if you like, because you simply have the entire concept ASS BACKWARDS. Your shouting of audit and oversight is moot. The three most important venues are exempt from an audit by the GAO. Your ref is to a private audit. Please try to be a tad informed prior to sounding like an idiot.
sethvanden: Ah yes, there is nothing like a self-confident conspiracy theorist. They always have the answers. The Congress authorized the creation of an organization called the Federal Reserve. The Fed has been operating to use monetary policy to adjust for inflation and times of slow growth since its inception. The Congress appropriately oversees the Fed and can change the rules any time it wants to. Fortunately, it doesn't want to, despite rants from guys like you.
Nicho- Self-confident ? Yes ! It comes from 40 yrs of correspondence ( prior to e-mail ) with the FRB. Congress can change their relationship with them at will , however they have been unmotivated to do so for good reason. ( you should know what that is ) 290 co-sponsors for HR1207 would indicate the people are starting to understand, and are putting pressure on Congress to rectify a BIG MISTAKE called the FRB.
seth: Sorry, charlie, lol. It is strictly politically motivated, giving all sorts of elected officials the opportunity to act as if they are accomplishing something up there in DC. Ah, the pride they must feel as they speak about stuff they know virtually nothing about to their clueless constituents. Hopefully, the Senate will squash this crap like a bug, before it can do anything-- the Fed has acted heroically and ought to be left alone.
The Fed has acted heroically hey? Why dont u explain to all of us the history of the Federal Reserve, the concept and role of a fiat currency in funding domestic and military government agendas, and how the use of that fiat currency relates to inflation?
Ojack: There are various debunking sites, most notably Flaherty's, where you can learn more about the Fed, its role, etc. You're one of those guys who believes that a gold standard will return us to some sort of nirvana. It won't.
N9: Ur answer is vapid and full of logical fallacies. I asked u to explain the history of the Fed, the role of fiat in funding military and domestic programs, and how this relates to inflation..and u refer me to a website. This is called an "argument from authority:" U then falsely claim that I think a gold stand will return us to a "nirvana". Since I never mentioned a gold stand, nor nirvana, this is called a "Strawman". Am I gonna get substance outta u, or b forced to reteach u logic 101?
Ojack: Lol, you live in a world of your own making. You said, "I asked u to explain the history of the Fed . . " Do you really believe that I have some obligation to follow your orders, you ignorant twit, lol??!!! If you want to get educated about the Fed, read Flaherty's debunking site. You say, "Since I never mentioned a gold stand" -- Ojack, you didn't mention it, I mentioned it, because as a rule people who have problems with fiat money desire the backing to a gold standard.
My point is Ed griffin destroys flaherty. Flaherty went around Griffin's arguments for the length of his book. If you read both books you can easilly destroy flaherty's silly arguments.
His own book discredited him and i'm surprised that anyone would support his pathetic attempt at legitimizing the fed. We need the private sector to figure out what to do with our currency, not governments.
exquisite: You're evaluating someone's arguments. Need I say more? I have no idea why I get in these stupid disagreements with Fed-haters. The ideas are all the same, the arguments are all the same, it's a waste of time. The Fed lives, the Fed will always live, even if politicians mistakenly take away some of its autonomy or limit its operations. Bye bye.
It cannot always live. Without even going into the abstract, the economic pressures it is burdenning us with are becomming more and more obvious, the fed WILL dissapear. My problem is the IMF issuing SDR bonds. By that KEY event, i can tell you right now, the Fed isn't the biggest player anymore, it has no value compared to the IMF to the offshore banking cartel. It will go down merely because it has no more inherent value. Just like you get rid of a used condom.
exquisite: Trust me, our problems are not with the Fed, but are with the corporate sector. Over the last 50 years, our marketplace has "gone national." As a result, too few firms basically run the country. There are so few that these companies have an unfair influence over what is going on in Washington. That's the real worry.
No it's not. They went national otherwise they would've been bankrupt here. If it wasn't for the illusion of geographical limits you wouldn't be saying that. The fact is amerca's economy is propped up by unethical means. This is why the market place is moving out, because it's way too expensive and your people whine for every drop of sweat they have and claim "oh capitalists are evil" so yea, they moved to areas where people actually have the balls to work. Roofers have a harder time than china.
exquisite: They would have been bankrupt?? Lol, the Euro cartel lady has no trouble at all preventing enormous companies from acting as they do here. She whacks them whenever it's necessary. We ought to take the hint. Who needs a China comparison or comparison to anyone else, for that matter? The propping up IS unethical, but it is unethical because the corporate sector has too much political influence in our gov't -- see health care for a demo on this !!
So, the euro cartel whacks companies because they are too big wether or not they offer a good service? And then people wonder why there are so many idiots around, when they are simply allowed to make it to the top. My knowledge on the european countries are limited but i'm willing to assume that their situation liberty-wise and financially is equal or worse to the US. It's socialist after all. You need to realize the private sector is responsible for the little liberty and comfort you have.
exquisite: You seem unaware that corporations are variously immoral or engage in practices that verge on the criminal. Not all do, and not all do all the time, but it is there. Corporations need major regulation or to be split up. Any sort of pure capitalism is a good way for ordinary people to end up feeling very sorry.
Bla bla bla, corporations are evil, because they're not me!!! corporations are evil because they're greedy, oh no the evil corporations, they are evil because they are evil. nooooo they scare me, they will raise my prices because they can invent any price they want!! ahhhh pls, goobermint, save me from evil corporations with your big guns and nuclear missiles, i want to be your slave, pls pls, save me, i like to take it up the ass by government officials. pllssss you guys are so good...
exquisite: Okay, let's say the corporations are good guys, yes?? Even if they are good, they utilize the laws of the land in order to exert too much pressure on elected officials. It has little to do with "corporations" per se, as much as it has to do with enormity, bigness, hugeness, the ability to hire practiced, charming people to exert pressure. There have been 10's of thousands of lobbyists who have descended on Washington over the last 30 years. This should tell you something.
All kidding aside, you're grossly exagerating. Anybody will tell you they don't want violence. But they will also tell you they want government to control people. Violence leads to more violence but who cares right, let's just have more of it and hope for different results. Are you immune to cognitive dissonance? :D Violence creates corruption, a hell of a lot more efficiently that money ever does. Corruption is a result of very basic survival instinct ressurfacing.
exquisite: Please don't use the phrase cognitive dissonance without knowing what you're talking about. I knew Brehm, who knew Festinger personally, okay? I don't want government to control anything except some basic functions, otherwise I"m a rough and tumble capitalistic guy.
To further add to this, what is greed? Would you agree that greed is a result of being as far away as possible from the risk of not surviving due to scarcity? Now, what's more threatenning, when we have more than enough ressources to feed everyone... Violence, or money? You can have all the money you want, if guns are pointed at you, your money is worth nothing. Corporations have no natural incentive to be immoral (this is just one reason), unless it has been corrupted by threats.
exquisite: capitalism runs on greed, so i'm for it. But greed is not the problem, the capitalistic venture is always a creature of the state, i.e., made possible by the state, and therefore must operate under some rules. It is only when corporations reach enormous size, as they've done over the last 40 years, that things become dicey and unmanageable. They become quite naturally immoral, as they are able to control some gov't functions (tax law, regulatory functions, etc).
Math is simple. It's a universal language. Numbers don't change. It amazes me to hear these ''bankers'' side step simple and direct questions with fancy sounding ''terms'' that are meaningless.
A fraction is nothing more than the numerator being divided by the denominator.
Algebra is nothing more than balancing two sides of an equation.
There is ALWAYS a solution to any equation
Q. Where is the money?? It disappeared. Where did it go/?
A. Um well see....that's complicated....
cbasallie 2 months ago
And the whole issue of defending the institutions they are lending to is ridiculous. Where else do RESPONSIBLE lenders not mandate that they have the right to see that they will have a return on their investment in the world of finance?
biglu30 8 months ago
What a difference between Grayson, acting like a child, and the Fed lawyer, acting like an adult. Is Grayson going to get a job on MSNBC so he can continue his ignorant rants?
patbarkley 1 year ago
@patbarkley How was Grayson acting like a child? He had to push for answers because the lawyer was doing what a lawyer does and was trying to withhold every amount of information possible. That being said, policy behavior needs to be adjusted. A government agency should have no right to withhold information from other government authorities except for those which are necessary for security. They are not a private institution therefore principles of privacy should not belong to them in the law.
biglu30 8 months ago
@biglu30 "How was Grayson acting like a child?"
"I think not", "I don't think it's overbroad", "I think you know what I mean"
"Do you mind?" "Dick Cheney S&L"
It was like a pouty little kid badgering an adult.
Which information do you imagine was being withheld?
patbarkley 8 months ago
Alan Grayson is REALLY SMART !
Now compare this really smart and representative Guy with Bush !
It's just a very bad joke that Bush was a US-President ! Obama isn't better.
HousekaterClaudio 1 year ago
We the People for Peace
Want the end of the Federal Reserve banking illegal wars of Aggression.
Americans want Official First Contact to be announced by the government.
OnenessNow 1 year ago
gonna ask tom coburn about the fed today at our own hall meeting in oklahoma. il post a video
coreytn 1 year ago
Wow the FED lawyer must be bleeding from the ass after this.
atchisrj1 1 year ago
What a BADASS! I love watching these Fed Reserve scum SQUIRM!
BigBoiler508 1 year ago 5
Ask any trader, there is nothing that influences the stock market more than the Federal Reserve. Even hints of raising or lowering of the interest rate can add considerable volatiity in anticipation.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
this guy is nailin the fed love it!
mattbaldea 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LMAO, Alan is awesome, this clip kind of seems like a Saturday Night Live clip
Soupaman219 1 year ago
Comment removed
Soupaman219 1 year ago
What does lying and obfuscating the question look like??!
GEEEeeeez!
jjakex3 1 year ago
patbarkley is on to something. grayson is on thin ice, along with many other dems. some alot more than others. the dems are going to face a blood bath this year. for myself, i look past the left/right bullshit. i look at the people pulling the strings. there are so very many "puppets" in office, and they have to go, on both sides.
logictoo 2 years ago
patbarkley is such an asshat. check out the website, patbarkleyisnuts
logictoo 2 years ago
@logictoo
I'm gonna miss Alan after he loses in November.
patbarkley 2 years ago
Grayson is such an asshat.
Check out the website, mycongressmanisnuts
patbarkley 2 years ago
In general Alan Grayson is a giant douchebag piece of shit, but he's going after the FED, so it's okay.
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
I love the way, these Fed owned puppets try to walk around the questions asked of them. If they have nothing to hide, then why not spread those books wide opened for all to see. Lets start with the transactions involving AIG, then hit JPMorgan ... then watch the fans get dirty real fast ... squim you NeoCon Traitors, you time is coming soon.
57girl 2 years ago
The scary statement of the century "No sir not that I am aware of " This entity issues trillions of dollars a year. And he does not know where this taxpayer money is going to. In a business , The accounting and law department know everything going on, EVERYTHING !!
maximouni 2 years ago
what a scumbag
Duffblue 2 years ago
I agree. I think the lawyer is lying.
frio109 2 years ago
Exquisite Doom, you make some good points, but most of them can be put into two categories as far as monopolies go:
1) Restricitng the marketplace entry of competitors and 2) Going into business with gov.'t directly or indirectly to protect these monopolies. Back to my original comment, these are violations of free-market capitalism, and shouln't be allowed. But a true monopoly based on doing something better than anyone else is not only accpetible, it should be the goal of every business, no?
mosesesom 2 years ago
I agree all businessmen would love a good old monopoly, but it is exactly why it can't happen, as ironically as this sounds! I'm not sure if you agree with me or not, or was just trying to point something out to me, but i agree with you :) I don't want to get annoyingly abstract either :) I see monopolization somewhat as a spectrum that can never reach a 100% mark. Just like we can't possibly reach lightspeed as friction wouldn't allow it; even in the void! Hope that makes sense.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Good job Alan Grayson!!! Please help support the Federal Reserve Transparency act!
AProbableAnomaly 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We are a bankrupt Nation & we must get back into solvency. We do that by putting the financial system threw a Glass-Steagall Bankruptcy. We eliminate the FED & adopt a National Credit system call for in our Constitution. We invest in infrastructure, agriculture & industry & create lots & lots of blue collar jobs. We will bring back all our industries that Global Free Trade Capitalism has outsourced. We don't need Wall Street or the FED anymore! Google: LPACTV: Audio Preview, The LaRouche Plan
gkgreger 2 years ago
ghostofspartacus. atspace. com/ wallstreet.html (remove spaces)
THIS IS A MUST READ - Exposes the Fed, fractional reserve banking, and the unconstitutional money monopoly held by a cartel of huge banks that control the government
This free essay clearly and concisely explains how centralized banking and fractional reserve banking create economic downturns
rothbardsrevenge 2 years ago
. The fed is not for profit, that is a mischaracterization.
nicholas9999
A breathtaking statement. FRBNY is just a bunch of civic minded fellas who volunteer their time for the greater good of America.
Is that what you want us to believe?
Get off the kool-aid ,my friend, it may feel good but it has destroyed your mind.
Pauleglide 2 years ago
pause between 3:05 to 3:07
ain't that a face of a lier??
it looks to me as if he is thinking "oh god, when will he stop asking me those horrible questions..."
RCWilliam123 2 years ago
What's the next step in order to pass this bill? Can anyone tell me? I'm really interested in keeping up to date with this issue.
Trojanmagnus 2 years ago
haha grayson's awesome
TheNewMusicNetwork 2 years ago
what to do as an a person? what is the meaning of life?
forget politics and forget money. Money is a lie, it is a false representation, an idol.
forget about wars and killing.
i could tell you the meaning of life is learning and experience... but that is not the air above the iceberg. the TRUE meaning of life is one you cannot grasp until you have experienced it. The "MEANING" of life... is not about you... its about all others.
WPJeremiah 2 years ago
In the end we will all die in our own arms
FrancescaGianna 2 years ago
death to the central bank just like Andrew jackson killed them in the 1830s which caused a depression because the cry baby European Rothschild couldn't get their way they caused it in retaliation
jihadage 2 years ago
Grayson is a hammer! Yeah!
hellomarkrodriguez 2 years ago
Send in Peter Schiff too!
elbuggo 2 years ago
ALAN GREYSON KICKED ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Velasquez almost cried!
Mr Greyson....THANK YOU FOR NOT PLAYING PARTISAN GAMES AND BELIEVING.
You, Sir, have my full respect!!!!
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
LaRousche is RIGHT and he paid for being right by doing jail time after JFK got shot...The powers were just starting to flex their new muscles...This is GREAT did you see him squirm...? We MUST AUDIT THE FED!!! The trillions that have already been laundred out of this country is part of CFR and those thugs that are SECRET...Bush/Clinton/Bush and back...
bigsparky8888 2 years ago
look at how empty the place is. how is it that so many congresspeople are skipping this?
tonylee1973 2 years ago
The FED is Bankrupt! They don't want any kind of audit that will expose this fact! However, there is a more effective way to eliminate this criminal origination. Put the financial system under Federal Protection & through a Glass-steagall Bankruptcy Reorganization. The FEDs crimes will be exposed & we can then put back in the American system where Government works & runs for the people & not fu*k*n Wall Street. Google: EIR The LaRouche Show september 26,2009 "The Fuse Is Lit!"
gkgreger 2 years ago
why why do that XD yai thats rocks.
xmegarockx 2 years ago
LIAR LIAR )o i cant wait till this all comes out and people are given the electric chair cause this is what donald rumsfeld was brining to our attention 1-3 days befor 911 then all the evidence just went up in smoke , catch these crooks and bring peace to america so when its time for me to die i can rest at piece that my childrens country has been saved )o
MrSokitumi 2 years ago
Here this guys voice fluster when the question was answered. He's lying.
willingtorisk 2 years ago 2
This guy has guts.
Not that many people have the courage to question the banksters.
txliberty 2 years ago 2
Before this video I had no idea who Alan Grayson is, but I do now. And I like the questions he is asking. I don't care to banter over HOW he is asking them, but I think every tax payer should agree that the answers are important and should be pursued.
mweber666 2 years ago 3
He lied right off the bat . watch his hands right before he answers the ? it's a defensive reaction.
shortyboy48035 2 years ago 3
How sad are all these comments about the Federal Reserve. After years and years of attempts to debunk the conspiracy theories, they're still at it. "If only we could eliminate the Fed, everything would be okay." Actually, if we ever get to the point of eliminating the Fed, we will begin to live like animals in the forest. No thanks.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
All you have to do is read the all of one page of HR 1207 to see exactly what it is changing. Very large and very important aspects of the Federal Reserve are exempt from audits, as are the Primary Dealers. HR 1207 removes all audit restrictions and allows the GAO to audit transactions that are mediated by the Primary Dealers.
Your claim that we would live like animals without the Fed is stupid. Do you really believe that?
MyKillK 2 years ago
mykill: There is no aspect of the Federal Reserve that needs additional auditing. There is a reason why the Fed operates in semi-secrecy -- its operations are meant to be private, unknown, not to be seen. It was set up that way to begin with, and we ought to leave it alone. If we were ever to eliminate the Fed, we would be in a chaotic state without an appropriate control of our monetary gyrations. The cost in human misery would be horrifying.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
nich- No additional auditing, Really ! Conservatives and face time. Christ ! Over 100 of the C0-sponsors are Democrats. This is not a mean statement------ you honestly don't understand. And the FRB can easily defend themselves. There is absolutely no purpose for their existence and they know it, hence the books will not be forth coming. As they have so boldly stated, if audited the economy will CRASH. They will make it so, it's easy. Fear mongering for self preservation.
SethVandenberg 2 years ago
seth: Again, you're missing the point entirely. Because you have a desire to get rid of the Fed, you're not getting what is going on. Having the Fed as a sort of semi-private organization has its good points, However, the Fed just spent a bazillion dollars getting us out of that hole. This gives truly worried politicians and various fakers to play a game. The problem is that being auditied will make that "semi-private" job harder to do, and will open up the Fed to more meddling.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
NI-Nope .The Gazillion dollars did not get us out of the hole. All Debt incurred by the FRB MUST by law be collateralized by the Government / you & me. This is a term I am sure you are familiar with, Cognitive Dissonance,as in spend more to save more. Just silly nonsense. The FED got us here and will continue to manipulate the economy to their advantage. By nature and design It is a self serving, for profit enterprise. It was a hoot Nic, but my 73yo ass is headed to bed. Maybe I'll get laid 1st.
SethVandenberg 2 years ago
seth: money paid by the fed in its attempt to solve the crisis is indeed a debt owed by the U.S. government, it becomes part of the "national debt." Please don't use cognitive dissonance incorrectly. The fed has done what other central banks have done, which is to infuse capital into the system. The fed is not for profit, that is a mischaracterization.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
You can't create capital simply by printing money. The FED is for profit, they have owners that want something in return for their investment.
When it comes to Flaherty's debunking site... well, that was a good mix of facts and fiction. I could make a page, debunking Flaherty's debunking, but whats the point of arguing with idiots? Just a waste of time.
And gold standard is not so much about the amount of physical gold, as it is about the moral of sound money.
Do your history nicholas999
koskovs 2 years ago
Koskovs - the idea of a gold standard is rather quaint - it doesn't allow the kind of flexibility that fiat currency gives us to regulate monetary policy and address 21st century markets. Sure a gold standard was great back in 1776, but Adam Smith has been dead for a long time and economic theory lives on.
gregkauf1987 2 years ago
koskovs: Yes, I'm quite sure that you and you alone (well, you've got a few people who believe in what you believe in, but not that many) know what is good for the country. Lol, the "sound money" argument has been going on for a LONGGGG time, but we've seen no change, wonder why that is??!!?? Guess mainstream economists see no reason to get rid of the Fed, right??
nicholas9999 2 years ago
"All Debt incurred by the FRB MUST by law be collateralized by the Government"
What debt is incurred by the FRB?
patbarkley 2 years ago
Hey Pat, An overtly baited question. "Federal Reserve notes are liabilities ( debt ) of the Reserve Banks and are collateralized at face value." Source- FRB 3/21/08 7:56AM
If you have difficulty with this basic premise pick up the phone and call them ! I don't know what else to tell you.
SethVandenberg 2 years ago
What sort of interest rate do they pay on those debts?
patbarkley 2 years ago
You mean the Overnight Rate? The one that is announced in every major newspaper every time it changes?
gregkauf1987 2 years ago
The Federal Reserve pays the overnight rate on FRNs?
patbarkley 2 years ago
Pat - what are you talking about? Federal Reserve Notes? As in the bills in my wallet?
gregkauf1987 2 years ago
Some here think the Federal Reserve charges interest on the money they issue.
I always ask them who they send the check to and what rate are they charging?
patbarkley 2 years ago
Pat - understood. Seems as though most of the commenters on this video have little to no understanding of how the Fed actually works. I haven't seen this many conspiracy theorists and nutjobs on a comment thread since I watched Zeitgeist. I'm a centerleft Dem with a libertarian streak myself and I recognize that most concerns with the Fed are misplaced or overblown. Could it use a little reform? Sure, just as most government programs could. Is it unconstitutional? A century of case law says no.
gregkauf1987 2 years ago
It's sad, most here get their info about the Fed from Ron Paul or anti-banking anti-Jewish screeds.
Another example of America's failed education system.
patbarkley 2 years ago
@Pat: Hear, hear!
gregkauf1987 2 years ago
Then you need to look at the amendment that says its legal and study some history. There were not enough state representatives there to ratify the amendment being that it takes 38 states to be in favor to change an amendment and they voted over christmas recession, when most congressman were at home with their families. The income tax which is also unconstitutional as seen by the supreme court in many hearings in the late teens and early 20's. Watch MONEY MASTERS.
insurgent28 2 years ago
insurgent - I'm very familiar with the history and legality of the Fed. There's nearly 200 years of case law that supports the legality of the Fed. Google "McCulloch v Maryland"
You can't win this one because you already lost... almost 100 years ago. You can lobby Congress to change it, but there's nothing illegal about any of this.
Good luck with your lobbying efforts. Don't forget the 5th and 14th Amendments! The concept so nice, it's in there twice.
gregkauf1987 2 years ago
Haha, so money from the FED in terms of bailout you mean this got us out of the hole? Damn nicholas9999, is it FOX news you have been watching again? What did i say about that darn tv?
Nah, N9 is bought and paid for.
koskovs 2 years ago
koskovs: Huh?? Your comment makes no sense. Here's what happened: Money from the Fed and other places was used as a stimulus for the economy (of the U.S. and the world, in cooperation with other central banks), so as to prevent a major meltdown that would have created an untenable situation. What I mean by untenable is like people starving in the streets, rioting, robbing the contents of stores, etc. Sorry, no thanks.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
What did the stimulus do for people losing their homes? Did it stop poverty? Did people that didn't have food the day before the stimulus magically have food the next day? Oh yeah all hail the FED our true saviors they kept it from getting worse. It is easy to stop it from getting worse when you are creating the prob to begin with. DO some homework about the FED. If you spent a million dollars a day for the last 2000 years you wouldn't have spent a trillion yet and they have spent 11t in 30 yrs.
insurgent28 2 years ago
insurg: They're not creating the problem to begin with. The primary problem is the size of major corporations in the country compared to smaller sized businesses on Main St., USA. It has become almost impossible for small and medium size towns to resist the incursions of the large companies. At the same time, these companies are paying off or threatening our elected reps. Blaming the country's central bank is a waste of time.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
I find it hilarious how you point the finger past the elephant right to the mice. How can companies be too big? By investing too much when the demand is lower than anticipated. What creates bubbles? The fed. If you invest in something that appears to be cheap and it rises insanely the next day, of course you're going to look like you're too big to handle it. Take your loss, and shrink. But the fed is instead having YOU take the loss. If you don't see this, i suggest to give up on economics.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
exquisite: Companies can get too big in all the ways that capitalism offers, none them illegal: They can merge (eliminating jobs), they can expand (with the help of elected officials who may know the bosses/owners of the company), etc. There has been a tremendous influx of lobbyists into Washington over the last 30 years, as companies have grown more sophisticated, national, international, etc. in scope. While you're worried about the Fed, the country is being taken over.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
If companies get too big, they shrink. Merges fail more than they succeed, that fact by itself should proove that monopolies are impossible. And i don't care about lobbysts. Illegalize lobbysts, it will all be done in secrecy, well done, you've fixed the economy. Your logic is vapid to me.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
History shows us that monopolies (or, if you prefer, oligopolies) are *not* impossible - and continue to this day. See Standard Oil, Microsoft, health insurance, Major League Baseball (the latter two have explicit permission from the gov't to maintain their trusts), etc, etc.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
Oil is an energy. Electricity is an energy. They are not from the same source, or resource. thus, they do not have complete and total control of the resource. By definition, it is not a monopoly. Yet, both electricity and oil are a cartel, enforced by government to attempt to create a monopoly, they still have different prices. Both energies can be converted to the same uses. And there are many other alternative energies that can be used. A monopoly, in the abstract is unthinkable. Fear tactic.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
First: Standard Oil *was* a monopoly when it was busted up by President Theodore Roosevelt.
Second: You also skipped over my mention of Microsoft.
Here are some others that were busted up: Northern Securities Company (railroad); AT&T; there are many more examples out there.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
How is microsoft a monopoly when it has competitors that do a much better job FOR FREE! And can emulate their OS so that you may run "windows only" applications , and where Sony competes with Xbox? AT&T was a "monopoly" enforced by government, people could have invented other forms of communications, and i'm sure they had, seeing as how the private sector in communications exploded immediately after the copyrights expired. It still wasn't a monopoly, as nobody owns TIME, and time is a resource.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Microsoft is a monopoly because Windows is the OS on 92.77% of the world's computers. That has given them enormous power - like the power to make or break software through bundling. The most recent numbers I can find indicate that Microsoft Office has 95% of its market. Internet Explorer still dominates the web browser market - the current average figure is 58%. (It used to be much higher.) They have a large share in media playback software, but I'm having trouble finding figures.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
But microsoft still sucks, i stand in awe at the idiocy of the consumers. Regardless, microsoft is still protected by intellectual property priviledges. I don't know about you, but this sounds like a priviledge to monopolize, by grossly limiting competition. Just the invention should have made Bill rich indeed, but not to the extent he has through government backing. If it wasn't for this, microsoft might be a great OS by now, or would have defaulted on it's obligations.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Windows*.... Er... Sorry i'm so very tired :)
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
I'm no more a fan of MS than you are. But intellectual property is not a license to become an abusive monopoly. IBM popularized personal computers, but they didn't engage in monopolistic practices - which is why there are so many companies that make PCs.
The Constitution (Article I Sec 8) provides for copyright and patent protection as a means of encouraging creation and innovation. I'm sure you're not suggesting that we violate the Constitution or throw copyrights and patents out the window.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
The people have never voted for the constitution, so i'm not sure how it's relevant`but, nontheless i see where you're getting at and you make a good point i'll have to look into it from an empirical point of view. I do see how the ability to be monopolistic would motivate people to become more creative, but it seems to me like it's another one of these things in which brute force (laws) has other side effects. Oh, and i do see different oppinions about IBM. I might have to look into this too.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
The Constitution was ratified by the states according to the law.
As for abusing copyrights and patents - as mosesesom pointed out, they expire & then the intellectual property goes to the public domain to be used by anyone. Big corporate interests (monopolies, oligopolies) have used $ in gov't to modify things in their favor & keep things out of the public domain - but this can be reversed. This is not the fault of gov't as a concept - just recent corruption. It can be fixed.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
Oh, i have found this "• IBM uses its patent portfolio as a means of forcing smaller companies that threaten its
mainframe monopoly out of business; larger companies are compelled to pay lucrative settlements
to avoid protracted litigation." comming right from the The Computer & Communications Industry Association. I don't know if they're credible, but it certainly fits the picture i'm proposing. I'll look into it further :)
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
You have a 7 year limit on your patents. After that, its open to the free market. I'll say it does limit the marketplace for the first seven years, but without patent laws, would it not be better business to merely copy other's ideas ans simpley market them better? It would certainly cut down on R&D budgets.
mosesesom 2 years ago
Oh and about the copying, i'd have to say it's a good idea. The inventors aren't necessarilly the best market timers, or managers. It's not the like inventors end up a useless entity with no revenue, think about it, the guy MADE the product. He can very easilly find a high paying job in those companies, or buy stocks, etc. 7 Years of monopoly gives you quite an edge over other companies; you have the funds to crush them..
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Also, again, oil is an energy, and you can't control all energies without boundaries. You can convert any form of energies for any form of applications. As for the railroad, i've gotten no information on that subject. But it couldn't have been anywhere close to being a monopoly without government involvement, and again, if you don't control time, you don't control anything. Exploitations and frauds always dissapear at some point in time. Besides, their prices were always affordable.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
I don't understand how you figure that AT&T and railroads couldn't possibly be monopolies without government help. If that were the case, the government wouldn't have had to pass laws (i.e. the Sherman Antitrust Act) and prosecute companies for monopolistic behavior.
Yes, some monopolies are allowed by government - MLB and health insurance are the two in the USA right now, and there have been others historically. But most monopolies (or oligopolies) have not been supported by gov't.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
I can tell you AT&T wasn't a monopoly because they weren't forcing your arm with a gun in the other hand to buy their services at 10x the costs of your weekly income. Since it seems to be the average man's idea that "some people" can raise prices indefinately regardless of how many people can afford it and bring economic ruin to all. Just the fact that anyone can afford products from so-called monopolies is proof enough that they do not have complete and utter control over life and death.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Monopolies don't always mean excessive prices. They can mean blocking innovation and competition. AT&T was a monopoly - otherwise the government wouldn't have been able to break it up in the first place.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
Copyright laws allowed them to grow the way they have.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Sorry, patent laws.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Patents don't necessarily mean monopolies. Wal-Mart's domination over retail has nothing to do with patents. Nintendo holds lots of patents, but they still have numerous competitors. The same goes for Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Apple, SC Johnson, P&G....
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
Monopolies generally create lower prices. The problem with monoplolies are: 1) Gov.'t protected monopolies which lead to increased inefficiency in business, and 2) monopolies which restrict access to the marketplace. If these two restrictions are met, then monopolies, believe or not, are not necissarily a bad thing. It just means the X company is doing such a good job at supplying a good product at a good price that no one can do it better.
mosesesom 2 years ago
Wait a minute, are you saying that a "monopoly" restricting the market place AND protected by fiat is GOOD, or even, moral? Two wrongs don't make it right. Now if you were saying the opposite, a "monopoly" that isn't backed by fiat or restricting the market is a good monopoly, i would sink to my knees and praise your name for making this remark in this backwards world.Because, i know that fundamentally, in the abstract, monopolies are impossible in a free market. It would mean this fear is fake
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
I'm saying if the monopoly is not gov.'t sponsored/protected, and if it isn't restrictive as far as entering the marketplace, then it is not a bad thing. It means a company is making a product at a price that is appealing to consumers. Restricting these types of monopolies are like punishing a company for doing well. Restricting these monopolies are detrimental to a true capitalistic society. Even if these are bad, then the company will get lazy and a competitior will start taking market share.
mosesesom 2 years ago
Then we fundamentally agree , such theories as "natural monopolies" are actually beneficial, somehow the neo liberal left managed to warp that into a complete and total opposite. My mind always gets blown away at how people buy into the fear mongering of either side. People need to be less paranoid and cooperate with each other, just like nature intended. Glad to have met an individual who is not fooled by such a ridiculous concept. *handshake* :D
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Monopolies & oligopolies are not punished for doing well. They are punished for throwing their weight around to block legit competition. Let's look @ Microsoft again - when they decided to get into the Internet, they crushed Netscape by making Internet Explorer free & bundling it with Windows. Netscape (arguably the better product) didn't have a prayer. It was acquired by AOL, but AOL let Netscape die in favor of MSIE b/c they wanted MSFT to bundle AOL with Windows.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
I don't know why you're giving me these examples, i'm aware of the aberrations, i'm also aware that in a free market these practises would happenl; though never to the extent they are now. People learn from scams and find ways to avoid them in a private way, we don't need the government to enforce anything. We can't just "remove liberty" in order to "protect it". I just don't see how that idea makes sense in any way and everytime i look into such situations; the government involvement is blatant
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
What makes you think they're aberrations? The history of the market in the USA alone is littered w/ monopolies, oligopolies, trusts, anti-competitive practices, unethical practices, abuse of workers, abuse of consumers, etc, etc. That history stretches all the way back to before government regulation - like when President Coolidge said "the business of America is business."
It's not removing liberty. Iit's about protecting the liberty of the many against the powerful few.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
I don't know where you've been hiding but the amount of scams and ponzie schemes increase as time goes on relative to government growth. Government blocks ingenuitive ways for the public to combat every problem individually and privately. I'm not saying scams can't happen in a free market, i'm saying the levels at which they will occur over time would simply alter over time, the same way security at work has increased and decreased in costs until the government decided to hijack it.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
There are literally millions of documented situations where security improves within society on it's own accords without government; whenever it isn't involved either directly or indirectly. You can even track the levels of accidents in the construction domain; ever since the government got involved costs skyrocketed and the pace at which the numbers of accidents hit the breaks stopped. And this is also true for healthcare, railroads, highways, or any government program i can think of.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
As an old professor of mine used to say constantly - how do you know this? Where are these examples?
I mean, I can cite examples where lack of government is destructive - the recent banking meltdown, Somalia and piracy, weak government in Afghanistan....
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
I could state the exact same thing, man, it's a matter of perspective. I just think your philosophy isn't exactly consistent, no offense intended. I know i pass off as an extremely biased free market individual, but everytime i look in depth into so called free-market failures they turn out to be government failures. I think you should explain to me how governments can prevent piracy without making things work, or explain to me why in thousands of years PIRACY still exists. They're incompetent.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Why are monopolies impossible in a free market?
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
I thought i've explained this already. Perhaps you can read the documentation provided at mises(dot)com regarding monopolies. They don't exactly have the same stance i do, they even say monopolies exist; but i disagree simply because of my definition of monopolies which is utter and complete control of a ressource or product. My philosophy tells me you can't have complete 100% control over anything as people can find other ways to suit their needs, in very ingenuitive ways.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
I would check out that site, but it doesn't seem to be responding. It's throwing an internal server error.
As for your definition of a monopoly...at the risk of sounding disrespectful, your definition doesn't matter. Economists & historians have defined what a monopoly is, what an oligopoly is, etc. I'm not saying you have to have a PhD to make an argument - but you do have to be able to back up your argument with examples, citations, etc. Otherwise your argument has no credibility.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
ExquisiteDoom: Your philosophy is wrong! The Federal Reserve System is a complete MONOPOLY of the money supply. They have no competition. JFK tried circulating 4.2 billion in Silver backed U.S. Notes, but he was killed for it, and the notes were destroyed by LBJ.
grm246 2 years ago
If they didn't have any competition you wouldn't have ressources, would you? Just the fact you can trade dollars for something else should enforce my point. It is competing against everything that aren't dollars. Sure it's a monopoly in a sense, to a certain level, but it STILL does not have complete control over your life.The neo-liberal monopoly concept is simply inconsistent to my eyes, i simply attempt to demonstrate that it is nothing but nonsensical fear mongering.Just offering a diff view
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
I would add that everything that aren't dollars includes other currencies. You can't have your countries currency issued by multiple competing sources in any event. Well, you could, but it would be silly and impractical. You already have every other currency in the world to compete with. The FED was not a bad idea, but a super-secret FED that is never scrutinized is a TERRIBLE idea.
DojoNDude 2 years ago
The idea that the fed needs government protection to exist shows us that it would not have survived in the market. The ideas of the fed could have been emulated by the private sector ; except without the boom and busts even being a possibility.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
What functions of the Fed would you privatize, or would it be all functions? Are you saying you're in favor of the indiscriminate printing of American dollars by private entities? Even less bank regulation? How would that work? The whole scenario seems kind of "Alice in Wonderland" to me.
DojoNDude 2 years ago
Remember, countries are but imaginary limits. With that in mind... Banks could supply the currencies. Insurance companies could develop around those systems; provide analysis to prevent fraudulent actions, etc. It's not like we can't come up with an efficient market system to convert the currencies. To my eyes, this prevents one guy from owning the whole market and creating derivatives out of the ass. As if a bank debauches it's currency; another one will outcompete them.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Plus now that i think about it, a monopoly on currency; even if that could happen, from purely private hands couldn't really damage to the same extent the government can; simply because "every other goods you can purchase are actually competition by themselves." Hmmm... I need to ponder this over ^ ^
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
It is interesting. Get back to me when you get any ideas. I'd be grateful for your opinion.
DojoNDude 2 years ago
Yes, i've heard Ron paul is trying to pass a bill for certain states to accept gold and silver as legal tender... I think it is pretty clear that once you remove the legal tender laws you would "unmonopolize" the reserve notes. I think i will stick to my previous assertion. Everything already competes with the dollar for sure; it wouldn't be in anyone's interest to poison the well as money is undeniably necessary for efficient trading, but if someone was tempted to you'd have this security.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Agreed. At least, making it the only legal tender couldn't possibly be the best idea.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
By the way, i'm in no way legitimising the federal reserve, i'm just trying to debunk the neo-liberal concepts of monopoly. Nobody should have "legal protection" from a brutal and violent institution such as governments. I don't see how legality has become VIRTUE over time. Anyway, good night :)
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
It seems to me that when people see they produce for example 10 000$ worth of goods a day, they seem to think that the employer pockets in the difference of their salary and the goods produced. They don't see the costs of the machinery, power, heating/cooling shipments, paperworks. People tend to be dicks and demonize industries they do not understand, and empower the government to create senseless and needless laws, which , ironically, reduce choice, and increase costs.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
What sort of "senseless and needless laws" are you talking about? I'll admit that the general public may not understand the intricacies of business - but reasonable regulation is a *good* thing.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
No regulation make sense in any way. Those who create them aren't directly accountable, they have no way to gauge the efficacies of their legistlation, without mentionning the very slow process. If a legislation is bad, it is simply increased in size rather than removed. If it is removed however, it usually is nothing but a tactic to convince people to grow government even more (glass steagle). Also, if people do not understand how the mechanics work, they won't know how to vote either.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
By definition, regulations are enforced by regulators, who are able to gauge how effective those regulations are.
And really, we have seen how well things work without regulation...the recent banking meltdown, for example.
SpekkioMofW 2 years ago
The $787 billion Obama stimulus didn't do much of anything. Except raise the deficit and pay off liberal special interest groups.
You're right, Congress spends too much.
Wastes too much.
patbarkley 2 years ago
sounds like a witch hunt
EdyKelDev 2 years ago
The list of Primary Dealers mentioned by Counsel Alvarez has been removed from the NY Fed Website. The webpage and related documents were cached by Google on 9-17-2009. Take screenshots before they fall into the memory hole.
soarss 2 years ago 2
LOL!
Google "fed primary dealer list"
Not hidden. No conspiracy.
patbarkley 2 years ago
Comment removed
MyKillK 2 years ago
Comment removed
MyKillK 2 years ago
Comment removed
MyKillK 2 years ago
he's a pitbull
steveinamerica 2 years ago
notice how the eyes of this Federal Rat lawyer is looking everywhere except at Mr Grayson.
The other congressman ( excluding Ron Paul & Grayson ) need to question with more aggression.
wellingtonian 2 years ago
welling: The "Federal Rat" lawyer manages to conduct himself with enormous dignity in the face of this asshole's witch-hunt. The question is unanswerable. The Fed does all sorts of things that end up "manipulating" all kinds of markets.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
Well please try to convince me and 75%
of the Americans that auditing is a bad thing, or point out where the Constitution allows a central bank.
wellingtonian 2 years ago
wellingtonian: The fed is audited once each year. Not only that, the congress is able to call forward representatives of the Fed any time it wants to. The Fed is highly overseen. Your second comment is simply foolish IMO. The government has been passing rules and laws for years, some I like, other I don't, but that's the job of government. You , no doubt, would like everything privatized, and blah blah blah. In your world, we would return to medieval times. No thanks.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
I'm afraid you're in the minority, an if you think the country will go back to living like animals then move to another country or if you really think the Fed is worth defending then call your congressman an ask him not to sign HR1207, too late 290 + co-sponsors
75% of the American people are on my side.
wellingtonian 2 years ago
wellington: If the bill passes, which I doubt, given the ways of Washington it will be a bad thing, as the Fed has no need to be harassed by the dumbasses in the Congress. The whole idea of the fed in the first place was to avoid meddling by the legislature (or maybe you didn't know that). This bill is strictly speaking a harassment bill, so that congressional conservatives can get a lot of media face time criticizing the Fed, which has no way to deflect such criticism. But good luck, lol!
nicholas9999 2 years ago
I loved Alan's childish reactions.
"I think you know what I mean"
"I don't think it's overbroad"
He sounds like a 7 year old.
I know you are but what am I?
And then he wants the GAO to audit a private sector firm? This guy is a star idiot in a chamber known for its idiots.
patbarkley 2 years ago
pat: Not only that, the Fed is audited once each year. What this guy wants is some sort of closer control, whereas the entire idea of a central bank in the first place was to AVOID control by this house of fools. It is quite painful to read the idiotic comments in here, though.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
Yeah, the idiots who think the Fed controls the world would be funny, if there weren't so many of them.
patbarkley 2 years ago
NICHOLAS9999- You are painfully ignorant on the workings of the FRB. In addition, the authority to coin money was granted to Congress to keep spending in check ! I'll offer you the details of how that process worked if you like, because you simply have the entire concept ASS BACKWARDS. Your shouting of audit and oversight is moot. The three most important venues are exempt from an audit by the GAO. Your ref is to a private audit. Please try to be a tad informed prior to sounding like an idiot.
SethVandenberg 2 years ago
here here...
wellingtonian 2 years ago
sethvanden: Ah yes, there is nothing like a self-confident conspiracy theorist. They always have the answers. The Congress authorized the creation of an organization called the Federal Reserve. The Fed has been operating to use monetary policy to adjust for inflation and times of slow growth since its inception. The Congress appropriately oversees the Fed and can change the rules any time it wants to. Fortunately, it doesn't want to, despite rants from guys like you.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
Nicho- Self-confident ? Yes ! It comes from 40 yrs of correspondence ( prior to e-mail ) with the FRB. Congress can change their relationship with them at will , however they have been unmotivated to do so for good reason. ( you should know what that is ) 290 co-sponsors for HR1207 would indicate the people are starting to understand, and are putting pressure on Congress to rectify a BIG MISTAKE called the FRB.
SethVandenberg 2 years ago
seth: Sorry, charlie, lol. It is strictly politically motivated, giving all sorts of elected officials the opportunity to act as if they are accomplishing something up there in DC. Ah, the pride they must feel as they speak about stuff they know virtually nothing about to their clueless constituents. Hopefully, the Senate will squash this crap like a bug, before it can do anything-- the Fed has acted heroically and ought to be left alone.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
The Fed has acted heroically hey? Why dont u explain to all of us the history of the Federal Reserve, the concept and role of a fiat currency in funding domestic and military government agendas, and how the use of that fiat currency relates to inflation?
Ojack33 2 years ago
Ojack: There are various debunking sites, most notably Flaherty's, where you can learn more about the Fed, its role, etc. You're one of those guys who believes that a gold standard will return us to some sort of nirvana. It won't.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
N9: Ur answer is vapid and full of logical fallacies. I asked u to explain the history of the Fed, the role of fiat in funding military and domestic programs, and how this relates to inflation..and u refer me to a website. This is called an "argument from authority:" U then falsely claim that I think a gold stand will return us to a "nirvana". Since I never mentioned a gold stand, nor nirvana, this is called a "Strawman". Am I gonna get substance outta u, or b forced to reteach u logic 101?
Ojack33 2 years ago
Ojack: Lol, you live in a world of your own making. You said, "I asked u to explain the history of the Fed . . " Do you really believe that I have some obligation to follow your orders, you ignorant twit, lol??!!! If you want to get educated about the Fed, read Flaherty's debunking site. You say, "Since I never mentioned a gold stand" -- Ojack, you didn't mention it, I mentioned it, because as a rule people who have problems with fiat money desire the backing to a gold standard.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
Try to debunk creature of Jekkil's island.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
exquisite: What's to debunk? The history of the Fed is open and available to anyone. Do you have a point?
nicholas9999 2 years ago
My point is Ed griffin destroys flaherty. Flaherty went around Griffin's arguments for the length of his book. If you read both books you can easilly destroy flaherty's silly arguments.
His own book discredited him and i'm surprised that anyone would support his pathetic attempt at legitimizing the fed. We need the private sector to figure out what to do with our currency, not governments.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
exquisite: You're evaluating someone's arguments. Need I say more? I have no idea why I get in these stupid disagreements with Fed-haters. The ideas are all the same, the arguments are all the same, it's a waste of time. The Fed lives, the Fed will always live, even if politicians mistakenly take away some of its autonomy or limit its operations. Bye bye.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
It cannot always live. Without even going into the abstract, the economic pressures it is burdenning us with are becomming more and more obvious, the fed WILL dissapear. My problem is the IMF issuing SDR bonds. By that KEY event, i can tell you right now, the Fed isn't the biggest player anymore, it has no value compared to the IMF to the offshore banking cartel. It will go down merely because it has no more inherent value. Just like you get rid of a used condom.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
exquisite: Trust me, our problems are not with the Fed, but are with the corporate sector. Over the last 50 years, our marketplace has "gone national." As a result, too few firms basically run the country. There are so few that these companies have an unfair influence over what is going on in Washington. That's the real worry.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
No it's not. They went national otherwise they would've been bankrupt here. If it wasn't for the illusion of geographical limits you wouldn't be saying that. The fact is amerca's economy is propped up by unethical means. This is why the market place is moving out, because it's way too expensive and your people whine for every drop of sweat they have and claim "oh capitalists are evil" so yea, they moved to areas where people actually have the balls to work. Roofers have a harder time than china.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
exquisite: They would have been bankrupt?? Lol, the Euro cartel lady has no trouble at all preventing enormous companies from acting as they do here. She whacks them whenever it's necessary. We ought to take the hint. Who needs a China comparison or comparison to anyone else, for that matter? The propping up IS unethical, but it is unethical because the corporate sector has too much political influence in our gov't -- see health care for a demo on this !!
nicholas9999 2 years ago
So, the euro cartel whacks companies because they are too big wether or not they offer a good service? And then people wonder why there are so many idiots around, when they are simply allowed to make it to the top. My knowledge on the european countries are limited but i'm willing to assume that their situation liberty-wise and financially is equal or worse to the US. It's socialist after all. You need to realize the private sector is responsible for the little liberty and comfort you have.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
exquisite: You seem unaware that corporations are variously immoral or engage in practices that verge on the criminal. Not all do, and not all do all the time, but it is there. Corporations need major regulation or to be split up. Any sort of pure capitalism is a good way for ordinary people to end up feeling very sorry.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
Bla bla bla, corporations are evil, because they're not me!!! corporations are evil because they're greedy, oh no the evil corporations, they are evil because they are evil. nooooo they scare me, they will raise my prices because they can invent any price they want!! ahhhh pls, goobermint, save me from evil corporations with your big guns and nuclear missiles, i want to be your slave, pls pls, save me, i like to take it up the ass by government officials. pllssss you guys are so good...
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
exquisite: Okay, let's say the corporations are good guys, yes?? Even if they are good, they utilize the laws of the land in order to exert too much pressure on elected officials. It has little to do with "corporations" per se, as much as it has to do with enormity, bigness, hugeness, the ability to hire practiced, charming people to exert pressure. There have been 10's of thousands of lobbyists who have descended on Washington over the last 30 years. This should tell you something.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
It should tell you that you can't see past your nose.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
All kidding aside, you're grossly exagerating. Anybody will tell you they don't want violence. But they will also tell you they want government to control people. Violence leads to more violence but who cares right, let's just have more of it and hope for different results. Are you immune to cognitive dissonance? :D Violence creates corruption, a hell of a lot more efficiently that money ever does. Corruption is a result of very basic survival instinct ressurfacing.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
exquisite: Please don't use the phrase cognitive dissonance without knowing what you're talking about. I knew Brehm, who knew Festinger personally, okay? I don't want government to control anything except some basic functions, otherwise I"m a rough and tumble capitalistic guy.
nicholas9999 2 years ago
I'm afraid you've never experienced cognitive dissonance. It's why you're mislead.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
To further add to this, what is greed? Would you agree that greed is a result of being as far away as possible from the risk of not surviving due to scarcity? Now, what's more threatenning, when we have more than enough ressources to feed everyone... Violence, or money? You can have all the money you want, if guns are pointed at you, your money is worth nothing. Corporations have no natural incentive to be immoral (this is just one reason), unless it has been corrupted by threats.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
exquisite: capitalism runs on greed, so i'm for it. But greed is not the problem, the capitalistic venture is always a creature of the state, i.e., made possible by the state, and therefore must operate under some rules. It is only when corporations reach enormous size, as they've done over the last 40 years, that things become dicey and unmanageable. They become quite naturally immoral, as they are able to control some gov't functions (tax law, regulatory functions, etc).
nicholas9999 2 years ago
Capitalism has nothing to do with state. Try again.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago