Is it true that the Fed is privately owned

[myrkul]

Mine came over with men with pointy sticks on horses, killed anyone who disagreed and the 1% still has the families who took the land in 1066.  They didn't leave a mission statement.

Maybe you could learn a lesson from mine, then?

[Adrian-x]

Mine came over with men with pointy sticks on horses, killed anyone who disagreed and the 1% still has the families who took the land in 1066.  They didn't leave a mission statement.

Maybe you could learn a lesson from mine, then?

They did, that's why the French revolution didn't spared to Brittan, and that is why we have pseudo democratic governments controlled by Oligarchs today.   

Like they kept the monarchy, they will keep a token parliamentary democracy for tourists to visit after things change.

[townf]

Here's a pretty good explanation of the whole matter of the FED, its origins, etc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF0-Pm1Q-nM

[Anon136]

Its a very difficult question to answer. The true answer is that almost no companies are really privately owned in the united states. Basically only drug dealers  .

what we are really dealing with here is a sliding scale between more government influence is less government influence. The federal reserve is about as far along this scale as you can travel without being considered a fully governmental agency.

[myrkul]

Its a very difficult question to answer. The true answer is that almost no companies are really privately owned in the united states. Basically only drug dealers  .

what we are really dealing with here is a sliding scale between more government influence is less government influence. The federal reserve is about as far along this scale as you can travel without being considered a fully governmental agency.

I'd actually argue that drug dealers have a higher chance of being "controlled" by the government than the Fed does. Mostly because the drug dealers (usually) can't afford to buy politicians.

[townf]

It's a hybrid setup. It is a cartel of private banks in partnership with the gov so that it has the force of law protecting their monopoly to create the base money for the nation's money supply. Ben Bernanke is its mouthpiece. The government hangs off its jocksack. The US military is one arm, DOH the other. It's asshole is where the money gushes out on top of us. It's dick is in our ass. Its eardrums were designed by the NSA. Its toes are testing the waters of world domination. It has horns coming out of its head. A cavity search might reveal a giant gold nugget. It smells like 3 day old pee. Its brain is composed of unknown material. Certain very few members of congress try to beat it down, but their blows just glance harmlessly, frustrating them. Its a one trick pony. It smokes a cigar every month lit with an 84 billion dollar bill. This cigar smoke causes much pollution and harm. It speaks gibberish. It does NOT have have tofu the size of texas.

[Hawker]

It's a hybrid setup. It is a cartel of private banks in partnership with the gov so that it has the force of law protecting their monopoly to create the base money for the nation's money supply. Ben Bernanke is its mouthpiece. The government hangs off its jocksack. The US military is one arm, DOH the other. It's asshole is where the money gushes out on top of us. It's dick is in our ass. Its eardrums were designed by the NSA. Its toes are testing the waters of world domination. It has horns coming out of its head. A cavity search might reveal a giant gold nugget. It smells like 3 day old pee. Its brain is composed of unknown material. Certain very few members of congress try to beat it down, but their blows just glance harmlessly, frustrating them. Its a one trick pony. It smokes a cigar every month lit with an 84 billion dollar bill. This cigar smoke causes much pollution and harm. It speaks gibberish. It does NOT have have tofu the size of texas.

But apart from that, you love it, right?

[townf]

omg totally

[johnyj]

In china, the central bank is totally controlled by the government, that is for sure 

[Alpaca John]

3) If you think of the New World in Historical terms, the world that materialised out of the monarchies and dynasties of Europe and Asia, then America and Australia are classic examples of the New World.  The reins of powered are very much rooted in the central banks of the world.  We are living in the New World now it isn't a conspiracy, the next world order "the conspiracy theories hype" won't be calling it the new world order, it'll have a new name. We are in the New World now, and it has an Order to it that isn't working to the benefit of the people, and can't be changed through democratic processes, so no need to call it conspiracy, it is fact. 

Not to feed into conspiracies but it is not (new world) order but rather new (world order). A change in the way the world is run.

The point is the same. It's not a conspiracy, it's just plain facts. The world is being run by an international oligarchy.

I know what you mean.  I spent time in Singapore and London - the class of people who live at the top there have no country or race.  They have billions in capital and are free to live off their investments close to tax free while their maids pay taxes.

Question is; isn't that how capitalism is meant to work?  People who inherit capital live tax free off investments.  Their investments create jobs for the peons.  The peon's salaries create demand for products which leads to economic growth.  All seems to be working as planned.

Yes. it's exactly what Marx predicted would happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Economy.2C_history_and_society

Marx got a lot right in terms of analysis.  Its the politics he got wrong - he didn't expect the middle class to split and the working class to join in the split endlessly voting in alternative middle class parties.

Yeah, contrary to popular belief (especially within the US) it's pretty much accepted within the academic world that Marx' theory on economics and scarsity was right. Just like those of Adam Smith and Malthus were probably right. Three models, moreover, that are in fact not contradictory, but can supplement each other. Again, contrary to popular belief.

I don't think Marx mentioned a middle class at all though, did he? (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

You could of course argue that this makes him wrong on the politics, which might indeed be the case.

Alternatively however, you could argue that his original theory is simply still in the works. The middle class seems to be disappearing if we carry on like we are doing right now. And when I hear about the envisioned ideals of a lot of AnCaps within the bitcoin community, what I hear is exactly what Marx described as the 'capitalist phase'. Although a lot of AnCaps don't seem to realise this, of course...

[myrkul]

And when I hear about the envisioned ideals of a lot of AnCaps within the bitcoin community, what I hear is exactly what Marx described as the 'capitalist phase'. Although a lot of AnCaps don't seem to realise this, of course...

So, in a pure capitalist society, who would be exploited, and how?

[Alpaca John]

And when I hear about the envisioned ideals of a lot of AnCaps within the bitcoin community, what I hear is exactly what Marx described as the 'capitalist phase'. Although a lot of AnCaps don't seem to realise this, of course...

So, in a pure capitalist society, who would be exploited, and how?

The working class. As to how, I suggest you read it yourself.

This is a fairly accurat abstract, I guess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Economy.2C_history_and_society

[Adrian-x]

And when I hear about the envisioned ideals of a lot of AnCaps within the bitcoin community, what I hear is exactly what Marx described as the 'capitalist phase'. Although a lot of AnCaps don't seem to realise this, of course...

So, in a pure capitalist society, who would be exploited, and how?

People with access to capital would exploit those in need of it; until an equilibrium had been reached (this equilibrium could be in the form of unions, or mechanisation and the resulting balance would be one between cost of production and consumption of production.)

At some point the relationship would change from parasitic to co dependant (same as biological evolution), this is the shift Marx predicted would happen in the most industrialise and civilised states. 

Ironically now we are being exploited through the likes of the capital behind the central banks, not the entrepreneurs or the typical capitalist Marx envisioned.

Marx thought through the free market a little further than Adam Smith, where Adam Smith saw the result of land lords exploiting there tenants as the mechanism to fuel homesteaders he stopped. I suspect he never questions humanity developing the whole world (or the possibility of continued exponential growth of the humans.) Marx on the other hand saw a point where access to land was one mechanism where the capitalists could keep the parasitic relationship between capital and labour alive.

Ironically Marx advocated the Central Bank model now being used to perpetuate the parasitic imbalance he sorts to expose and overcome.     

[myrkul]

And when I hear about the envisioned ideals of a lot of AnCaps within the bitcoin community, what I hear is exactly what Marx described as the 'capitalist phase'. Although a lot of AnCaps don't seem to realise this, of course...

So, in a pure capitalist society, who would be exploited, and how?

The working class.

Wouldn't they more accurately be described as exploiting the entrepreneurs? After all, the workers don't have to buy the equipment they use, or pay for the space in which they work, or take the risk that all the money they spent in developing the product would be for nothing, if the public doesn't want it. If the company they work for goes bust, they can just get a new job. The entrepreneur is out a lot of money.

[Adrian-x]

Wouldn't they more accurately be described as exploiting the entrepreneurs? After all, the workers don't have to buy the equipment they use, or pay for the space in which they work, or take the risk that all the money they spent in developing the product would be for nothing, if the public doesn't want it. If the company they work for goes bust, they can just get a new job. The entrepreneur is out a lot of money.

Rightly so there is a balance there and a reward for risk undertaken by the entrepreneur. Marx didn't disagree with that, he just expressed labour should be valued at a fair market price not an artificially low manipulated price.

Capitalism exploits the labour vs Communism exploits the entrepreneurs.   

[myrkul]

Wouldn't they more accurately be described as exploiting the entrepreneurs? After all, the workers don't have to buy the equipment they use, or pay for the space in which they work, or take the risk that all the money they spent in developing the product would be for nothing, if the public doesn't want it. If the company they work for goes bust, they can just get a new job. The entrepreneur is out a lot of money.

Rightly so there is a balance there and a reward for risk undertaken by the entrepreneur. Marx didn't disagree with that, he just expressed labour should be valued at a fair market price not an artificially low manipulated price.

Indeed, and in a pure capitalist society, where everything is decided on the market, the price of a person's labor would necessarily be valued at a fair market price.

[Adrian-x]

Wouldn't they more accurately be described as exploiting the entrepreneurs? After all, the workers don't have to buy the equipment they use, or pay for the space in which they work, or take the risk that all the money they spent in developing the product would be for nothing, if the public doesn't want it. If the company they work for goes bust, they can just get a new job. The entrepreneur is out a lot of money.

Rightly so there is a balance there and a reward for risk undertaken by the entrepreneur. Marx didn't disagree with that, he just expressed labour should be valued at a fair market price not an artificially low manipulated price.

Indeed, and in a pure Free Market Economy capitalist society. , where everything is decided on the market, the price of a person's labor would necessarily be valued at a fair market price.

Yes.
I don't like the term Capitalist any more it implies Capital as Money controlled by authority as opposed to the free market, I prefer Free Market Economics or Laissez-faire
The only capitalists around today are the oligarchs behind the central banks, they control capital, the rest of us just respond to the manipulation thinking it is a free market.

After Bitcoin I see only 1 hurdle to overcome in achieving the pure Free Market Economy. And that is redefining land as property, and solving Marx's dilemma.

[ninjarobot]

It's a hybrid setup. It is a cartel of private banks in partnership with the gov so that it has the force of law protecting their monopoly to create the base money for the nation's money supply.

G. Edward Griffin agrees. http://youtu.be/lu_VqX6J93k?t=26m45s

[cbeast]

It's a hybrid setup. It is a cartel of private banks in partnership with ownership of the gov

tl;dr

[Blueberry408]

No.

Its not a Jewish conspiracy either just in case that's your follow up. 

Same answer for New World Order, Trilateral Commission, Communist Party, Bilderbergs and umpteen other people who do not own the Fed.

I know. Everyone knows the Illuminati owns the Fed, and guess who's just made chairman of the board.