Monetary Reform Talk, 4.09, Part 5: Federal Reserve Act

Excerpt of Joe Bongiovanni's talk on "America's Debt Crisis and the Need for Monetary Reform", April 8, 2009, Montpelier VT. Part 5 discusses US monetary history from the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 through the Crash of 1929.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Joe Bongiovanni
• debt-free money
• debt crisis
• Federal Reserve Act

[Xasew]

Central banks are really private:

-Created by government

-Given monopoly powers by government

-People who make decisions at the Fed are appointed by... the government

Could Zarlenga be more misleading?

[EconomicStability]

Due to monetary sovereignty, all central banks must be created by the government, and can either be PART of the government, such as we and the chartalists propose, or it can be private.

The central banks of the industrial democracies have varying levels of government representation on policy matters.

Ours has none.

It is a private corporation and it operates independently of the Treasury.

Its monopoly powers come from the government. That is the problem.

What decisions are you talking about?

[joebhed]

@DCUPtoejuice

Senf's work should be available in 3 Vimeo vids, not 17.

I believe the basic vimeo is free to download, I will check that link.

OK. But you need to be more specific in this criticism.

What analysis exactly is missing?

Just came from a conference where two German economists had highest possible regard for Senf's work.

Why not go to our website economicstability dottt org for bigger discussion, or do a vid reply, please.

I would like to discuss.

Thanks.

[DCUPtoejuice]

@joebhed oh brother. the Senf video doesn't do a great job of analysis. I know the argument, just want to see some more detailed analysis other than just throwing around terms like exponential. It is a good hypothesis, but I need to find someone who really nails down the argument, hopefully in less than 17 videos :)

[DCUPtoejuice]

@joebhed I'm on it. thanks.

[joebhed]

@DCUPtoejuice

Absolutely -- THAT is the problem.We will soon post a recent talk in Montpelier, Vermont on this.

But if you google:

Dr. Bernd Senf and The Deeper Roots of the World Financial Crisis, and PLEASE watch the entire talk, it will all become very clear.

Thanks.

It's also at blip dot tv slash file slash 4111596

[DCUPtoejuice]

over time, does the amount of debt as a percentage of the total money supply continually increase???

[DCUPtoejuice]

PRIVATE MONOPOLY MONEY FRANCHISE deceitfully named the FEDERAL (it is not federal) RESERVE (it has no reserves). Can you say sham?

[joebhed]

@X

Given that there is no national bread, nor bread system, and given that historically money has been manipulated to the benefit of the private OWNERS of money, against the betterment of the people, it is your argument that I think quite silly. Sorry to say.

How do you know there would be a "few" commodity monies in the world?

The Constitution says it is for Congress to regulate the supply of money.

True, I have no faith in money competition.

What do you have?

Let's just agree to disagree.

[Xasew]

@joebhed

Market forces would basically result in a few different moneys in the entire world, so to say national currencies are for convenience is silly.

I don't see how regulating the supply of money by congress is any more natural than regulating the supply of bread. The argument basically assumes that competition doesn't work with money.

[joebhed]

@X

In the very real world, there are national currencies, a convenience for trade and commerce that most folks do not want to give up.

Me included.

National.

Currency.

A sovereign nation of sovereign peoples that govern themselves collectively by laws, rules and agreements.

It is therefore natural that these sovereign peoples - again in support of general prosperity - would deign to control the medium of commercial exchange that we all call money.

Constitutionally - a natural monopoly, thus.

[Xasew]

@joebhed

"Because we are a nation.

And it's OUR money system."

This wasn't an explanation. You might as well argue that there's a "natural monopoly right" in delivering mail, because after all we are a nation and it's OUR post office.