Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2017, 02:24:45 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Is it true that the Fed is privately owned  (Read 9184 times)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
May 17, 2013, 10:42:57 PM
 #81

So in conclusion I would define property as that which is created, without infringing on individual rights and can [be] exchanged in a free market.
That causes quite a few problems, the most obvious of which is IP.
I won't argue the definition is half baked, and I won't disagree the idea is radical, but then so was abolishing slavery. Hell even a fixed money supply will "causes quite a few problems" to our current system.

While I make a living creating IP, it is only the laws that make ideas as property possible, if the laws didn't exist I would still do what I do, only I would just employ a new business model and partners to monetise my IP (ideas).    

The meme of property is as damaged as current monetary system; I was just making the point that we are moving in the right direction, fixing the medium of exchange fixes half the problem.  

Creation alone is not enough to make a thing property.
Agreed, although I was referring to the act of creation in reference to property as a right

Have you read Stephan Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property"? He goes rather in-depth into what property is, why it is, and why IP isn't property, but land is.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 12:58:04 AM
 #82

So in conclusion I would define property as that which is created, without infringing on individual rights and can [be] exchanged in a free market.
That causes quite a few problems, the most obvious of which is IP.
I won't argue the definition is half baked, and I won't disagree the idea is radical, but then so was abolishing slavery. Hell even a fixed money supply will "causes quite a few problems" to our current system.

While I make a living creating IP, it is only the laws that make ideas as property possible, if the laws didn't exist I would still do what I do, only I would just employ a new business model and partners to monetise my IP (ideas).    

The meme of property is as damaged as current monetary system; I was just making the point that we are moving in the right direction, fixing the medium of exchange fixes half the problem.  

Creation alone is not enough to make a thing property.
Agreed, although I was referring to the act of creation in reference to property as a right

Have you read Stephan Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property"? He goes rather in-depth into what property is, why it is, and why IP isn't property, but land is.

I'd agree IP isn't property, not that I would admit it publically for fear my licensees will stop paying me royalty's. But I'd go one further and say land ownership is not a property right either, and will not admit it publically for fear my tenants will stop paying rent.

Have you read Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's book What Is Property? 

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
May 18, 2013, 01:18:36 AM
 #83

So in conclusion I would define property as that which is created, without infringing on individual rights and can [be] exchanged in a free market.
That causes quite a few problems, the most obvious of which is IP.
I won't argue the definition is half baked, and I won't disagree the idea is radical, but then so was abolishing slavery. Hell even a fixed money supply will "causes quite a few problems" to our current system.

While I make a living creating IP, it is only the laws that make ideas as property possible, if the laws didn't exist I would still do what I do, only I would just employ a new business model and partners to monetise my IP (ideas).    

The meme of property is as damaged as current monetary system; I was just making the point that we are moving in the right direction, fixing the medium of exchange fixes half the problem.  

Creation alone is not enough to make a thing property.
Agreed, although I was referring to the act of creation in reference to property as a right

Have you read Stephan Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property"? He goes rather in-depth into what property is, why it is, and why IP isn't property, but land is.

I'd agree IP isn't property, not that I would admit it publically for fear my licensees will stop paying me royalty's. But I'd go one further and say land ownership is not a property right either, and will not admit it publically for fear my tenants will stop paying rent.

Have you read Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's book What Is Property?
I have. In comedy value, I'd rank it right up there with Marx (either one).

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Alpaca John
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 09:09:14 AM
 #84


To get to the point, if one can create a monopoly on something, one destroys the free market, usually the free market finds an alternate and monopoly dies out. Today monopolies only exist because we create them with law, they cannot exist in a free system.

I have trouble agreeing with this statement. What about the network effect (ie. google, ebay, and yes, bitcoin)? What about the self-reïnforcing mechanism of surplus value and scaling?

I don't know, you might be right, but I'll have to think about this one a little bit. Any reads you can recommend?

Quote
So in conclusion I would define property as that which is created, without infringing on individual rights and can be exchanged in a free market.


Ah, so you're actually saying land should NOT be defined as property then? It seemed like you argued the exact opposite in the initial (misspelled) post. In this case I absolutely agree!

Although, I would actually like to propose an alternative. (I think.)

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.

By having the government manage it, we could have the good aspects of the market (incentive to contribute to society in exchange for a nice place to live) without the bad (the posed problem of surplus value of land a.k.a. neo-feudalism).

For this to work we obviously need to get money out of politics first, since governments are privately owned at the moment, which would therefore completely defeat the purpose of making land 'public' property.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
May 18, 2013, 02:57:28 PM
 #85

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
agentbluescreen
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


Philosopher - Negotiator


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 03:27:04 PM
 #86


Ah, so you're actually saying land should NOT be defined as property then? It seemed like you argued the exact opposite in the initial (misspelled) post. In this case I absolutely agree!

Although, I would actually like to propose an alternative. (I think.)

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.

By having the government manage it, we could have the good aspects of the market (incentive to contribute to society in exchange for a nice place to live) without the bad (the posed problem of surplus value of land a.k.a. neo-feudalism).

For this to work we obviously need to get money out of politics first, since governments are privately owned at the moment, which would therefore completely defeat the purpose of making land 'public' property.

In the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite thermonuclear Pentagon-Communist's  Federal Reserve Printing Company empire of the Union of ZioNazi Socialist Republics all land ALREADY IS "public" (FedResCo) property, this is why you must pay tax-rent to the imperial Federal Reserve Printing Company to hold onto it.  Otherwise one of their state or city corporations must evict you and repossesses it for them.

Not only that there is now the precedent of "Eminent Domain" which permits local corporate-soviets to appropriate land not only for "community" Trotskyite FedResCo projects but the fancy private projects of their elite-Menshevik minions as well.

Permanent war is the old fashioned term for "communism", that's why they used to call normal, temporary wars "acting in the common defence". Of course none of the preemptive permanent offensive wars of the ZioNazi Communists are "defensive" any more. This is why once-heroic warriors have now become commodity "war fighters" since that mundane job is now a permanent standing commodity export.

For eons Gold Pharaohs enslaved us and our nations through their monopoly. Free us all from them forevermore with:
Bitcoin, the Goldslayer! - Welcome to the digitally portable, untraceable, perfectly lawful "BTC securitized OTC Credit Swap derivative" money that is OURS, ALONE! So you got your TARP, eh? Guess what?
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


Goal Bonanza - Football Betting Revolution


View Profile WWW
May 18, 2013, 03:42:27 PM
 #87

...snip...

In the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite thermonuclear Pentagon-Communist's  Federal Reserve Printing Company empire of the Union of ZioNazi Socialist Republics ...snip...

You fool.  You utter fool.  You left out the Freemason-Jihadis and the Kalahari Vikings  Angry  Get your act together!

.
▄▄▄▄▄
GOAL BONANZA
.
▄▄▄
...FOOTBALL BETTING REVOLUTION...
▄▄▄  WHITEPΛPER  ▄  FΛCEBOOK  ▄  TELEGRΛM  ▄  SLACK  ▄  TWITTER  ▄▄▄
.
▄▄▄
.
▄▄▄▄▄
Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


amarha


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 04:16:13 PM
 #88

No.

This is a silly thread.
Alpaca John
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 05:46:10 PM
 #89

No.

This is a silly thread.

Actually, this is a brilliant thread. Thanks to this thread I have come to realise what I think is the error in the thinking of a lot of AnCap's and Libertarians.

Those guys seem to think that the Fed is owned by the government, hence the government is fucking us over.

The reality however, much like I have stated on the first page of this thread, is that it's more like the other way around. The government does not *really* own the Fed, because the government is itself owned by private banks.

It's the private banks that own the fed directly.
It's the private banks that own the fed indirectly through regional fed's.
And it's the private banks that own the fed indirectly through the government.

It might be the government that is the wizard of oz, but it's the private banks that are behind the curtain.

It's the private banks they should really be after.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
May 18, 2013, 06:02:01 PM
 #90

It's the private banks they should really be after.
No....

The government is owned by the private banks, and they're using it to fuck us all over.

Since private banks do provide a useful service, it would be silly to get rid of them. Instead, we should make them unable to fuck us over with the government by removing the government. The natural result of a central locus of control is a battle for domain over that central locus. Decentralize the control, and nobody can gain the central locus and use it to benefit himself.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


Goal Bonanza - Football Betting Revolution


View Profile WWW
May 18, 2013, 07:11:51 PM
 #91

It's the private banks they should really be after.
No....

The government is owned by the private banks,

...snip...

You know better than to say something that silly.


.
▄▄▄▄▄
GOAL BONANZA
.
▄▄▄
...FOOTBALL BETTING REVOLUTION...
▄▄▄  WHITEPΛPER  ▄  FΛCEBOOK  ▄  TELEGRΛM  ▄  SLACK  ▄  TWITTER  ▄▄▄
.
▄▄▄
.
▄▄▄▄▄
townf
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 07:18:25 PM
 #92

Not really that silly. "Pwned" is about right
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
May 18, 2013, 07:29:38 PM
 #93

You know better than to say something that silly.
Well, it's more like an unholy marriage, but the governments are definitely not the "man" in the relationship.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
BitcoinAshley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 07:42:49 PM
 #94

The Federal Reserve Bank is a quasi-private institution that is given monopoly powers by the U.S. Federal Government.

The Fed, in attempts to smooth out short-term economic fluctuations per keynesian economic theory, loans money to large private banks at close to 0% interest rates in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

Much of this "free money" goes to risky mortgages to people who would not otherwise qualify, but the vast majority of it goes into the stock market and the massively risky derivatives market. The risk is on the taxpayers but most of the profit goes to the banking executives. A tiny (insignificant) amount trickles down into the hands of the working class and lower.

Obviously, this system is a massive failure.

With Neo-Keynesian economics, the housing bubble popping is a REALLY BAD thing and the response is to re-inflate it so that home prices go back up, home builders get their jobs back, etc., which is "Good." This makes sense to your Average Joe watching the Evening News. 

With Austrian economics, the housing bubble popping is neither good nor bad; it is a reflection of an overbought situation in the housing market. It means that sectors which produce goods which are less desirable to the public at that point in time (housing and fraudulent mortgages) will be downsized and other sectors in higher demand will pick up the slack. This is an understanding of an economy as a living, breathing organism with complex interrelated parts and systems.
Unfortunately, with organizations like the Fed which have far too much power, and banks which have been propped up "TBTF" by the government time and time again, bubbles grow FAR bigger than they ever would in an economy which is permitted organic sector realignments as necessary. So this bubble popping has disastrous results and the knee-jerk reaction is to instantly attempt to re-inflate it again, partially via Fed monetary policies, and partially via irresponsible government fiscal policy.

CurbsideProphet
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
May 18, 2013, 07:43:11 PM
 #95

The Fed is quasi-government at best.  The most accurate identification is the Fed is a cartel of banks.  The Fed does not fall under any of the 3 branches of government: judicial, legislative, or executive.  They do not receive funding appropriated by Congress but are subject to Congressional oversight (lol).  Federal Reserve Employees are not part of the US Civil Service System and are not covered by government employees’ health insurance or pension programs.

So to the OP, yes, you could very well view the Fed as being privately owned.

1ProphetnvP8ju2SxxRvVvyzCtTXDgLPJV
BitcoinAshley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
May 18, 2013, 07:47:02 PM
 #96

Actually, this is a brilliant thread. Thanks to this thread I have come to realise what I think is the error in the thinking of a lot of AnCap's and Libertarians.

Those guys seem to think that the Fed is owned by the government, hence the government is fucking us over.

The reality however, much like I have stated on the first page of this thread, is that it's more like the other way around. The government does not *really* own the Fed, because the government is itself owned by private banks.

It's the private banks that own the fed directly.
It's the private banks that own the fed indirectly through regional fed's.
And it's the private banks that own the fed indirectly through the government.

It might be the government that is the wizard of oz, but it's the private banks that are behind the curtain.

It's the private banks they should really be after.

You have misunderstood the situation.
The Fed is a "private organization" that is given powers above and beyond those that are available in the private sector. So the fed is a "quasi-private" organization. It is neither private nor public, it is in the gray area.
Sure, some "libertarians" might mistakenly think that it is directly owned by the gov't, but that's no better than mistakenly thinking "Oh, it's owned by private banks, so the "an-caps" should be going after the banks." The Fed does what it does on the authority of the federal government. It has the power to control how much legal tender is printed; legal tender that is recognized by the federal government as legal tender. It also controls interest rates. If I started a business tomorrow I couldn't just decide to do these things, any more than you can just decide how the "an-caps" classify the Fed.
The Government started the Fed, it is a quasi-private institution, the government can end it or audit it, but it's not going to, because the Fed is the only reason that the government can continue spending as much as it does.
You can blame the banks but half of them would have failed years ago without the fed, and the other half would be a hundredth of the size because they wouldn't have gotten the easy money/capital to gamble billions on derivatives and HFT schemes. There would be big banks without the Fed, sure, but the Fed completely redefined the meaning of "big."

Sometimes people say "Lol I just entirely disproved all the libertarians/anarchists, because they say that there would be absolutely no such thing as fractional reserve banking without the Fed, and that's not true!" (Ignore for a second that no one actually makes that argument; the argument being referred to is completely mischaracterized.)
I can do stuff like that too. "I just entirely disproved all black people, because I just heard this one black person mispronounce 'fifty' as 'fitty," and that's incorrect!"
townf
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
May 19, 2013, 12:06:52 AM
 #97

...snip...

In the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite thermonuclear Pentagon-Communist's  Federal Reserve Printing Company empire of the Union of ZioNazi Socialist Republics ...snip...

You fool.  You utter fool.  You left out the Freemason-Jihadis and the Kalahari Vikings  Angry  Get your act together!

The lexicon he uses seems odd and outlandish to many because it is orders of magnitude superior to the Orwellian one consumed by the masses when defining the terms used to accurately describe the current global economic and political situation we are in. The Orwellian masses are utterly confounded when they encounter it.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


Goal Bonanza - Football Betting Revolution


View Profile WWW
May 19, 2013, 08:10:30 AM
 #98

...snip...

In the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite thermonuclear Pentagon-Communist's  Federal Reserve Printing Company empire of the Union of ZioNazi Socialist Republics ...snip...

You fool.  You utter fool.  You left out the Freemason-Jihadis and the Kalahari Vikings  Angry  Get your act together!

The lexicon he uses seems odd and outlandish to many because it is orders of magnitude superior to the Orwellian one consumed by the masses when defining the terms used to accurately describe the current global economic and political situation we are in. The Orwellian masses are utterly confounded when they encounter it.

If he condemns the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite thermonuclear Pentagon-Communist's  Federal Reserve Printing Company empire of the Union of ZioNazi Socialist Republics, there is no valid reason for not condemning the Freemason-Jihadis and the Kalahari Vikings.  Each is a real as the other. 

We have to be alert...perhaps he is a sock puppet?

.
▄▄▄▄▄
GOAL BONANZA
.
▄▄▄
...FOOTBALL BETTING REVOLUTION...
▄▄▄  WHITEPΛPER  ▄  FΛCEBOOK  ▄  TELEGRΛM  ▄  SLACK  ▄  TWITTER  ▄▄▄
.
▄▄▄
.
▄▄▄▄▄
Alpaca John
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42



View Profile
May 19, 2013, 11:21:52 AM
 #99

It's the private banks they should really be after.
No....

The government is owned by the private banks,

...snip...

You know better than to say something that silly.



Quote from: BitcoinAshley

You have misunderstood the situation.
The Fed is a "private organization" that is given powers above and beyond those that are available in the private sector. So the fed is a "quasi-private" organization. It is neither private nor public, it is in the gray area.

Quote from: myrkul
Since private banks do provide a useful service, it would be silly to get rid of them. Instead, we should make them unable to fuck us over with the government by removing the government. The natural result of a central locus of control is a battle for domain over that central locus. Decentralize the control, and nobody can gain the central locus and use it to benefit himself.

You're all right. I was painting a too simplistic picture myself.

My point, however, is that the (American) government is at the moment not functioning like it should be. It's not a government by the people for the people. It's a government of the banking cartel for the banking cartel.

Thís is what needs to be fixed. We need to get money out of politics, I think. Abolishing government althogether is too radical, since we do need government for a lot of reasons, just like we (might) need private banks.

(I'm northern European and I think my own government has been doing a pretty decent job. So that's probably why I feel this way.)

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/
http://no-consent.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/crony-capitalism-obama-300x225.jpg

How about defining land as public property, as opposed to not defining land as no property at all? 'Cause the latter seems rather unfeasable; we might all want to live in the heart of London or Paris or whatever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Sorry, I think I'm missing your point?

How are we gonna decide who gets to live on the Champs-Élysées? What has the Tradegy of the Commons got to do with this?
agentbluescreen
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56


Philosopher - Negotiator


View Profile
May 19, 2013, 02:15:39 PM
 #100

No.

This is a silly thread.

Actually, this is a brilliant thread. Thanks to this thread I have come to realise what I think is the error in the thinking of a lot of AnCap's and Libertarians.

Those guys seem to think that the Fed is owned by the government, hence the government is fucking us over.

The reality however, much like I have stated on the first page of this thread, is that it's more like the other way around. The government does not *really* own the Fed, because the government is itself owned by private banks.

It's the private banks that own the fed directly.
It's the private banks that own the fed indirectly through regional fed's.
And it's the private banks that own the fed indirectly through the government.

It might be the government that is the wizard of oz, but it's the private banks that are behind the curtain.

It's the private banks they should really be after.

There is an awful lot of history behind how the Tory-Bilderberg Trotskyite-communist Rothschild-surrogate ex-gold Pharaohs ended up reconquering America in  1913 after it's failed Revolution and Civil War but it all goes back to the mistake of putting the stupid words gold and silver into the Constitution (even though they are irrelevant there) and the common misperception of idiots who confuse a "wealth" of some sort of a silly metal commodity with a "money" that is an economies' token of it's people's Prime Resource. After their black slaves were freed

According to the Constitution however, it is mandatory that the US Congress and it's Treasury ALONE be the sole owners, profiters from and operators of it's money and borrowers of it's debts.

Quote
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ....;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
....
To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Thus (above) the US Mint alone under the supervision of the Congress's Treasurer/Treasury must be the sole issuer and renter of it's money and the sole lawful authority as to the setting of the value of whatever it is that they decide to "coin".


The criminally private, for private profit Federal Reserve Printing Company is totally and completely corrupt and illegal.


One might see some sort of a chicken and an egg problem, and they would be totally correct, as the power to print money from nothing is the power to buy politicians to let you get away with doing so, and also to force them to do everything and anything else you wish them to. Only a public organization like the US Treasury should be doing this, and profiting from the lending of new money for the taxpayers.

Even though reconstruction was ended Ford was booming and the country was prosperous, the criminal Tory-traitor Wilson put the US into receivership to the Tory-Bilderberg Rothschild Surrogates in 1913 making all Americans white and black, bond slaves to the slave traders of Jekyll Island once again.

For eons Gold Pharaohs enslaved us and our nations through their monopoly. Free us all from them forevermore with:
Bitcoin, the Goldslayer! - Welcome to the digitally portable, untraceable, perfectly lawful "BTC securitized OTC Credit Swap derivative" money that is OURS, ALONE! So you got your TARP, eh? Guess what?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!