NYC has Alternate Banking Committee

[hclasalle]

While the federal reserve is touted as "private", and it is, it is still run by the government.

It is vital to learn that the federal reserve could be the tool to supply full employment, and higher wages through monetary and fiscal policy.

I guess I would be curious to "learn that the federal reserve could be the tool to supply full employment, and higher wages through monetary and fiscal policy". But! On the Board of the Fed, there are representatives of the big banking cartel. THEIR private, for-profit interests have always pulled strings with regards to where our prime rate goes, when to print money, etc.

And even IF the gov't owned the Fed, who owns the govt? Well, the banks. The corporations. The big oil interests. We go to war because rich oil investors put money on military and oil investments and wants to see a return, so they purchase our political system. They're the **only** ones who benefit from war. The Cheneys and the Halliburtons of the world.

For-profit banking is like for-profit health care. As long as we're sick and in debt, the GDP will show positive returns and make the country look like a rich country. And Wall-Street owned media is happy to show us the graphs. This is how capitalism distorts our human values in favor of the 1%. This is why we have an Occupy Wall Street Movement. We live in a parasitic economical system.

The Fed might be useful in some distant future to strengthen a people's economy, but for now I have no faith in it. WE should not be naive and expect that the banking interests will take care of solving our debt and wage-slavery paradigm. There are hordes of lobbyists for these bloodsucking banks at DC making sure that never happens. And they're VERY wealthy.

(Jamie Diamond just got a 16 mill bonus in the midst of this economic crisis! I doubt he's gonna want to suddenly stop drawing money from the poor and working class with these returns ...)

And so even if we have a reformed FED that exhibits some semblance of ethics and neutralizes the conflicts of interest that plague it today, the monopoly of power to print debt-based money should not be centralized. This is profoundly dangerous. Already our civil liberties are suffering only because we're expressing dissent against the banking elite at the Occupy movement: imagine the militarization that would take place in the U.S. if JP Morgan would give 4.6 million not just to the city of New York's police dept but also to Oakland, LA, Chicago and all the other cities. How much power is too much power?

It's too much power intent on perpetuating our wage slavery and our enslavement via debt. We'll never be able to diminish our need for cash and abolish wage slavery with a central bank monopoly. We need multiple non-profit, debt-free currencies and banks that respond to human needs. And a people's solution has to come from the people, we really do not need the for-profit banks.

[JP Hochbaum]

Who do you think orders the reserve to print money for wars, which are off budget?

The government "purchases" Federal Reserve Notes by issuing Treasury Bonds.

The government does not "order" the Fed to do anything, they engage in a business transaction which provides the Fed with a return on their investment.

Money IS debt.

"If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money."
-Marriner Eccles (Governor of the Federal Reserve)

Money is debt for the federal reserve, but a financial asset to us.

And the practice of issuing bonds from printing doesn't need to occur.

[CYoung]

Money is debt for the federal reserve, but a financial asset to us.

And the practice of issuing bonds from printing doesn't need to occur.

I don't think you understand. The government goes INTO debt (on our behalf, we taxpayers have to pay them back) in order to get more dollars from the Fed. That makes it an investment expected to generate a return from the Fed's perspective. To you and I, it is nothing but a medium of exchange.

The 2nd sentence is correct, but won't happen as long as the very interests we are in debt to also control the decision-making.

[JP Hochbaum]

Money is debt for the federal reserve, but a financial asset to us.

And the practice of issuing bonds from printing doesn't need to occur.

I don't think you understand. The government goes INTO debt (on our behalf, we taxpayers have to pay them back) in order to get more dollars from the Fed. That makes it an investment expected to generate a return from the Fed's perspective. To you and I, it is nothing but a medium of exchange.

The 2nd sentence is correct, but won't happen as long as the very interests we are in debt to also control the decision-making.

Oh I understand it, I actually am very familiar with government accounting and how things are set up. A lot of government practices are simply done because of tradition, and there is failure of previous generations to change how it operates to benefit us and the prvaite sector to its full potential.

I guess i should aslo mention that it shouldn't be a debt to us either. Since the government is monetarily sovereign they don't HAVE to collect taxes in order to spend. I will throw up a few lonks on what I am tlaking about so you guys could get a general idea and so I also explain it ocrrectly:

This is the view of a monetary soveriegnist who believes taxes aren't needed at all and that inflation could be controlled through interest rates

http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/20 ... economics/

And this is a primer on sectoral balances of the US, these guys are economic professors of Modern Monetary Theory:

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot ... nting.html

They are longer reads but if you have the time please read them, they are vital to understanding economics, and will remove the power from banks and back to us.