Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 In a message dated 1/17/04 2:08:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@... writes: > Anyway, Union Carbide, delcared bankruptcy, changed their name and > now refuses to pay. Perhap the new UC will never be able to do business in > India but that isn't much comfort the the maimed and families of the dead. Irene, This is at least the third time I've written this in tha last two days: this scenario is impossible under capitalism, and under libertarianism. The idea that a corporation is a " person " is an absolutely disgusting, immoral, absurd distortion of capitalism, and anyone who supports it has questionable sanity. As Bob points out in the following article, if you run over someone with a truck and and the person sues, no sane judge would fine the *truck* with your medical bills and pain and suffering payment, because the truck is a piece of property, not a person, and has no assets to seize. A corporation is a piece of property, not a person, and in a real capitalist system someone, at minimum the founder(s) of the corporation would be liable for their personal assets. http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=415 & PHPSESSID=b9082dbc2da8e28135f216b82e14ee98 If that doesn't link correctly or copy and paste as a full unit, go to www.anti-state.com and select the third article down. Granted, argues from an anarcho-capitalist perspective, but the basic philosophy is fully applicable to a libertarian minarchist society with a court system designed as ours is. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 In a message dated 1/17/04 2:29:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > >For that reason, > >capitalism is selective in rewarding the type of people who will think of > >long-term > >interests with the role of capitalist. > > I don't understand what you're saying here. You said that human nature has been selected to support folks who by nature choose short-term interests over long-term interests. Certainly if their are advantages to that, there are also advantages to pursuing long-term interests over short-term interests (for example, consider the advantages a leader has in avoiding wars with neighboring groups, or ruling his tribe in a way that prevents revolt, etc). So, if both are " niches " of human nature to be filled, there will be both people who pursue short-term interests, and people who pursue long-term interests. (Although all will pursue both to some extent, obviously). To be a capitalist requires a certain degree of long-term thinking as a pre-requisite. People who spend their resources on their immediate desires cannot become capitalists, because they will not afford themselves the opportunity to accumulate capital. Thus, there is a certain degree of selectivity that insures that long-term thinkers are disproportioantely represented among the " capitalist " niche of our society. That said, there are plenty of capitalists who make short-term decisions at the expense of long-term, so this selectivity is not a full safeguard *in itself*. > > >Your argument is comparable to saying that legislating certain prohibitive > >laws > >relies on the false assumption that people will consider their long-term > >interest (staying out of jail) over their short-term interest (engaging in > >the > >prohibited activity), and therefore is unworkable. > > Actually, I would and do say that. Jail terms are clearly not enough by > themselves to build a just and crime-free society. This is demonstrated > every day. (And law-and-order types (by which I mean single-factor types) > insist all we need to do is arrest more people, put them in jail for longer > and execute more of them, and eliminate more civil liberty > protections.) Well, we agree on that. Other factors like education and living wages are very, very > important. I'd also speculate that some degree of nutrition plays a > role. The problem with eliminating building codes and relying entirely on > future lawsuits as a deterrent is that it's like relying only on jail terms > and nothing else. Building codes have the potential to eliminate the > problem before it occurs. But I don't rely on future lawsuits entirely, and you continually seem to be ignoring parts of my solutions in order to fixate on the insufficiency of one of them, as if each element of the society worked by itself, rather than in conjunction with the other elements. Furthermore, you are making a qualitative distinction that doesn't exist. Building codes are NOT a peremptive strike. They are a law which has no power except the prospect of punishment after the fact. A builder doesn't give a crap what a building code says except to the extent the government will *enforce* the building code after the fact. In this way, codes are comparable to both contracts and prohibitive laws. > > >but the same could be > >said for a builder who violates a building code, pursuing his short-term > >interest, forgetting his long-term interest, which is avoiding the > >punishment for > >violation of a building code. > > Sure, and unfortunately enforcement is never perfect, but the difference is > that someone who ignores the possibility of a future lawsuit might not be > caught for years or even decades -- and he'll probably only be caught after > a lot of people are hurt and property damaged -- whereas someone who > ignores a building code will probably be caught immediately upon > inspection, before the building is ever used. That's an enormous advantage. That's not true, because there isn't any reason whatsoever that inspections wouldn't occur simply based on the contract. If you make a contract with someone, unless you are competent to read it, understand it, and negotiate it yourself, you will hire help. For example, many people hire lawyers in our society when they deal with contracts. There's no reason someone wouldn't also hire an inspector were it necessary to insure the contract was fulfilled at the time of sale. > > >And, frankly, in the few examples we have, NGO-certification has proven > >better than gov't certification. > > There are a couple problems with this. First, NGOs are easier for vested > interests to take over than government institutions. Second, the research > budget is going to be broken up and diluted. That isn't justified by our empirical experience. Case in point: Organic Certification. Ask anyone who cares about organic food-- the USDA has diluted most local, private certification programs. Furthermore, had the private, third-party organic associations not generated the massive volume of mail to the USDA after its initial certification program, " Organic " would have been so vastly hijacked by " vested interests " that it would have allowed GMOs, sewer sludge fertilization, irradiated food and large amounts of herbicide and pesticide use. That seems to indicate that the government is vastly, vastly easier for vested interests to hijack than NGO certification programs. > > >Yes, it does. " Pure " capitalism does not contain fictional entities with > >special priviliges granted by government to absolve responsibility for the > >actions of real humans. > > OK, fair enough, but how would this work? First, corporations *could* be formed. There is nothing wrong with joint property. For the same reasons, collectives, cooperatives, and communes could exist within a libertarian capitalist society. However, it would be recognized that a corporation is a piece of property, not a person. At least the founder(s) of the corporation would be liable for personal assets, and other participants liability would be dependent on the clauses in the contracts with which they bought their shares. See Bob 's article, third one down, on www.anti-state.com. He argues from an anarcho-capitalist perspective, but his principles are otherwise applicable to a court system such as ours. Whether jobs are hurt or not is irrelevant. You are responsible for your actions, period. " Hurting jobs " is a cop-out that corporations constantly use to escape responsiblity, and is a violation of capitalist principles based on the concept of the " public good. " > To put this in perspective, take Bill Gates, the richest man on > earth. He's worth something on the order of 50 BILLION dollars. Do you > know how quickly it's possible to rack up $50B in damages? If instead of a > software developer he'd been a real estate developer and he'd done an > appreciable amount of the building in, say, Cleveland, which isn't exactly > a humungous city, and Cleveland got hit by an earthquake (maybe Cleveland > never will, but it's just an arbitrary example) damages could vastly exceed > his net worth in an instant -- especially because, as a real estate > developer, he wouldn't have been worth anything close to $50B. But personal liability doesn't negate the existence of the corporation. If the joint owners of a corporation are responsible, assets are seized first from the corporation, and only from personal assets when the corporation's are insufficient. > > Building codes protect us by doing a very good job of preventing the > problem in the first place. No, they don't. Their dependent on the prospect of punishment after-the-fact. They are equivalent to contracts in that sense. They're not magically perfect -- there will > always be some builders fighting to undermine and water down the codes, > there will always be people insisting on more codes than are necessary, and > there will always be too much bureaucratese, not to mention that > enforcement will always be an entire fight of its own -- but history shows > they work, and they work very, very well. And there will always be people who bribe inspectors. In either case, you have inspections, and in either case, you have standards, and in either case you have a means of enforcing the standards, so there is no basis to claim one is considerably more or less effective than another. The libertarian model allows greater flexibility according to the desires of the customer, and avoids any possible negative effects from instability in pending legislation, etc. > But second, what happens when > liability doesn't matter because there's not enough money? If you're going > to suggest insurance, insurance would be bankrupted by disasters of the > magnitude I'm talking about. You're assuming there's no mechanism to enforce a contract until damage is done, but there's no reason whatsoever the fulfillment of the contract can't be inspected at the time of sale. > > >Furthermore, you do this all the time. For example, your vague claims > about > >human nature in your discussion with , none of which you bothered to > >define, let alone offer any evidence for. > > Vague claims? Yes-- you defined some of them, didn't others, and didn't offer " evidence. " In fact I made a > few very limited claims and nobody disputed any of those specific > claims. Exactly my point! You didn't *need* to offer any evidence-- neither did I. I'm not required to show evidence unless you ask for it, so you have no grounds to condemn me for not offering the evidence in the same exact post you request the evidence, as if I'd had any sort of chance to respond. > >Again, what IS a fiscal libertarian? > > Someone who believes the government has no right to be in your bank account. So how is that relevant to building codes? Since building codes involve restrictions on behavior rather than budgetary considerations, it seems if I had to pick one of the two it would fall under the subject of civil liberties rather than fiscal liberties. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 Yes of course. But say they did not declare bankruptcy. If they still refuse to pay who will make them? Irene At 12:34 PM 1/17/04, you wrote: >Irene Musiol wrote: > > No the lack of government oversight did. > > " Anyway, Union Carbide, delcared bankruptcy, changed their name and now >refuses to pay. " > >You understand how bankruptcy laws work, don't you? > > > At 12:05 PM 1/17/04, you wrote: > >> Irene Musiol wrote: > >>> You can look at what happened in Bohpal, India with Union Carbide. I > >>> assume Union Carbide went to India in the first place because there > >>> was less regulation. After the accidient Union Carbide was taken to > >>> court and found negligent. The victims won a settlement although I > >>> don't know if the settlement could really compensate for the loss of > >>> loved one or the ability to work. Anyway, Union Carbide, delcared > >>> bankruptcy, changed their name and now refuses to pay. > >> > >> In other words, the government helped them to avoid the financial > >> consequences of their actions. > >> > >> > >> > >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 This is true, but if the person held liable refuses to pay, then what? Especially if they leave the country? Irene At 12:38 PM 1/17/04, you wrote: >A corporation is a >piece of property, not a person, and in a real capitalist system someone, at >minimum the founder(s) of the corporation would be liable for their personal >assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 In a message dated 1/19/04 3:31:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, christiekeith@... writes: > >>I haven't, Christie. So, perhaps you could help me understand the > situation > there. << > > You have now asked a lot of qualifying questions, but you didn't make any > qualifications on the statement to which I responded. You said " anyone who can > afford to work a full-time job can afford to rent. " > There are plenty of people in San Francisco working full time who cannot > afford to rent somewhere to live in San Francisco. You're qualifying my statement with a qualifier I didn't use. First, like I said, I suspect this isn't true if the person works enough hours. But more importantly, there's no reason the choice should be between living in San Francisco and homelessness. No doubt housing is considerably cheaper just outside the city. > > Now that you bring these issues up, though, I will certainly agree that some > of the factors you asked about are in play in SF. Thank you for your insight on the situation. Everything you say indicates the problem is a housing shortage. The question comes down to, 'why aren't suppliers supplying more housing, or why aren't people looking for housing elsewhere?' The answer, I believe is disturbances in the market. That could mean false increases in the money supply that distort the market, or it could mean price caps, or it could mean subsidizing homelessness, as has pointed out. > You can ask about rent control and tax policies and how people don't have > to live in those areas and all kinds of qualifications, and all that is, or > may be, true in any given example. But since you didn't qualify your statement, > as it stands it wasn't correct. There really ARE places that you can work > fulltime and still not be able to afford to rent a home. I believe that's true in a housing shortage, but at the time I'd said what I'd said, I was under the impression that the problem was unaffordability. So, I concede, yes, you can work full-time and not live in certain areas of SF. But, Gene had been saying that the problem is that people aren't making enough money. You have clarified that that obviously is not the problem. The problem is a severe housing shortage that is driving up costs. That should be a signal to build more housing and for people to go elsewhere looking for housing. > If you want to see some relatively unbiased information about the housing > situation in San Francisco, the National Association of Realtors has this to > say: > > http://www.realtor.org/PublicAffairsWeb.nsf/Pages/SanFranAffordability?OpenDocum\ ent They don't have anything to say. They note that housing is unaffordable because demand is exceeding supply. Well, duh. But why? Giving folks $400 a month to stick around the city and look for housing sure isn't helping anything. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 In a message dated 1/19/04 7:19:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > --------->no, actually, i understood your point. i had a feeling you'd > respond the way you did, so let me rescind what i said because it was a > passing thought, not something i'm interesting in spending time debating :-) I assumed you understood; I was using " missing the point " as a rhetorical mechanism of disagreement. ;-) > ------->true, but *my* computer is my livelihood. yours is so you can chat > on nn all day. LOL ;-) Sure, but your tv isn't. Nor are all your clothes-- multiple sets of clothing is a modern luxury. > >>>>So you might say we are fundamentally socially demented, since we > >consider the luxury of communicating to people we've never met on a > computer > >screen more important than life-or-death situations of others. > > ----->totally. i realized that about myself long ago. Yet you realize that you are a fundamentally compassionate, caring human being, so clearly it isn't true. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 >> I haven't, Christie. So, perhaps you could help me understand the situation there. << You have now asked a lot of qualifying questions, but you didn't make any qualifications on the statement to which I responded. You said " anyone who can afford to work a full-time job can afford to rent. " There are plenty of people in San Francisco working full time who cannot afford to rent somewhere to live in San Francisco. Now that you bring these issues up, though, I will certainly agree that some of the factors you asked about are in play in SF. In addition, the situation is not static. But the long and the short of it is that there have been extended periods (years) where some people who could afford to work a full time job, and DID work a full time job, literally couldn't find anywhere to live at a rate that they could afford to pay. The shortage of cheap to moderate housing - and at many times of EXPENSIVE housing - has made the Bay Area the most expensive housing market in the country, bar none - the median housing price in the city of San Francisco last year was over half a million dollars; in some nearby communities it's over a million - and NOT for a mansion on four acres with a pool, either. I live two hours from San Francisco and the median cost of a home here is just under $400,000. And that will get you a fixer-upper on a small lot. And by " small " I mean 25 feet wide by 75 feet long. And by " fixer upper " I don't mean " needs paint touched up to be featured on HGTV, " I mean a two bedroom, one bathroom house with dry rot, mildew, and no foundation. There are virtually no rentals at all in my area, but to rent one of these moldy old houses here will set you back well over a thousand a month, if you can find one at all, which you usually cannot. Rents of over $2000 on houses are common here. You can ask about rent control and tax policies and how people don't have to live in those areas and all kinds of qualifications, and all that is, or may be, true in any given example. But since you didn't qualify your statement, as it stands it wasn't correct. There really ARE places that you can work fulltime and still not be able to afford to rent a home. If you want to see some relatively unbiased information about the housing situation in San Francisco, the National Association of Realtors has this to say: http://www.realtor.org/PublicAffairsWeb.nsf/Pages/SanFranAffordability?OpenDocum\ ent Christie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 > >>>>That said, just because he indulged doesn't mean he wasn't socially > sensitive. > > ---->this is true, although neither of us has the means to indulge to such > an extreme as he allegedly did. >>>>That's missing the point. --------->no, actually, i understood your point. i had a feeling you'd respond the way you did, so let me rescind what i said because it was a passing thought, not something i'm interesting in spending time debating :-) > >>>You indulge, and I indulge. Each of us have computers, the cost of > which > could probably save hundreds of people in the third world from starvation or > diseases. ------->true, but *my* computer is my livelihood. yours is so you can chat on nn all day. LOL ;-) >>>> So you might say we are fundamentally socially demented, since we > consider the luxury of communicating to people we've never met on a computer > screen more important than life-or-death situations of others. ----->totally. i realized that about myself long ago. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 In a message dated 1/19/04 8:53:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, mhysmith@... writes: > As far as inflation before the Federal Reserve, in 1919, post WWI America > experienced a 77% increase in prices. I do believe this is called > inflation. This resulted from the lack of spending during the war and all > those paychecks soldiers had not been able to spend. Demand way exceeded > existing production. , You've got your history a bit off. The Fed was formed in 1913. Furthermore, the Fed was not the first opportunity for the government to flood the monetary supply. And any partial-reserve banking system is flat-out fraud and one of government's few jobs should be to punish it as such. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 03:07:30 -0500 Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > >>Chris: Sure they would. Like I said, the AMA wields no power whatsoever except the >>power to use government to punish dissenters. > >: Nonsense. Do you think a trade association needs the power of government >to strip members of their licenses if they step out of line? No. But without the threat of the gun/gov't they couldn't keep said member from practicing, even without their licensing. >>Chris: , what right do you have to decide whether it is in someone else's >>interest to do these things? > >: This is a straw man bordering on personal attack. How so? It seems to me is asking a perfectly legitimate question, one desperately in need of an answer. You seem to be acquiring >a pseudo-religious anti-government fervor, so I don't think I'm going to >bother arguing against a ceaseless barrage of irrational positions when I >also have to contend with misleading personal rhetoric. That's about as >politely as I find myself able to put it at the moment. Hmmm...I seem to recall you saying something similar to me. Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2004 Report Share Posted January 19, 2004 - > You seem to be acquiring > >a pseudo-religious anti-government fervor, so I don't think I'm going to > >bother arguing against a ceaseless barrage of irrational positions when I > >also have to contend with misleading personal rhetoric. That's about as > >politely as I find myself able to put it at the moment. > >Hmmm...I seem to recall you saying something similar to me. Not at all. I never accused you of personal rhetoric, let alone ad hominem attack. To my offhand recollection, you've been unfailingly polite. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 , > The date is according to a history textbook. It is not likely to be off. I > will check it further later. It may be in definition of the Fed versus > Federal Reserve Board. Certainly the government printed money and had a > system from its inception. Unfortunately it _is_ wrong, and very misleading in the context of our discussion. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1914 " to furnish an elastic currency. " " Federal Reserve money was designed to differ from other forms of money by being 'elastic,' that is, subject to substantial change in quantity over short periods for reasons other than immediate profit to either the issuer, or, in th ecase of specie, the importer or exporter or producer. " --Friedman and Shwarts, _Monetary_History_of_the_United_States_, 190. The Federal Reserve Board was established then, not later: " The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks were the bodies established to exercise jointoly the functions both of controlling creation and retirement of Federal Reserve money and of handling the mechanical details. " -- _ibid_, 190. Most importantly, the Federal Reserve was directly responsible for the inflationary pressures after WWI that you spoke of: " These changes [The Federal Reserve Act] in the monetary and banking structure, sketched in section 1, contributed mildly to the more than 45 percent increase in the US stock of money which accompanied the price inflation during the period of US neutrality, and played a major role in the further increase by nearly a half in the stock of money which accompanied the inflation during the war and after the Armistice (section 2). " -- _ibid_, 189 But ultimately, when the Fed was established is entirely irrelevant-- you seem to be implying that the government had no influence over the stock of money until the Federal Reserve was established, when in fact there had been some sort of national bank since Hamilton. And the Fed simply replaced the Civil-War-produced National Banking System: " The period from the end of the Civil War to the resumption of gold payments in 1879 . . . were the formative years of the National Banking System, and, more generally, of a banking structure that was to remain largely unchanged until the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. " -- _ibid_, 15. I didn't read the articles that posted, but I'm familiar with the Austrian theory of business cycles from Chapter 1 of Rothbard's _America's_Great_Depression_ which is online at Click here: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf . It is abundantly clear from Mises' theory that not only inflation, but business cycles, are generated by the government's control of the monetary supply, and no other theory has been able to explain business cycles without dissociating them from general economic theory, which just proves their bankruptcy. Furthermore, it is consistent with history, and for basically the entire history of the United States the government has exercised some form of control over the money supply. More importantly, it has legalized a partial-reserve banking system, which is, simply, fraud. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 Chris The date is according to a history textbook. It is not likely to be off. I will check it further later. It may be in definition of the Fed versus Federal Reserve Board. Certainly the government printed money and had a system from its inception. , You've got your history a bit off. The Fed was formed in 1913. Furthermore, the Fed was not the first opportunity for the government to flood the monetary supply. And any partial-reserve banking system is flat-out fraud and one of government's few jobs should be to punish it as such. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 In a message dated 1/20/04 2:37:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, bberg@... writes: > >More importantly, it has legalized a partial-reserve banking system, > >which is, simply, fraud. > > I disagree. It's only fraud if the bankers don't tell the depositors > about it. Gene Callahan's essay on ASC echoes my thoughts on the > subject: Fair enough. But by " legalized " I didn't mean the absence of prohibition, I meant the existence of a legal fixed partial gold standard. I think in the absence of a national banking system and such a standard that the market would tend to curb most of the effect of, and incentive to maintain, such a loose metal backbone to the money supply. Do you agree? Because I haven't given it much time or thought. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 In a message dated 1/20/04 3:37:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, mhysmith@... writes: > Well you seem to have a point and this textbook I have here is > obviously WRONG!! What I have found from skimming the web, Federal Reserve > Notes were made legal in 1933. Since it claims Hoover was an advocate of laissez-faire, I'd say chuck it and buy a different book. Even what you found on the net is somewhat inaccurate though. Treasury notes were available before Federal Reserve Notes, and FR notes were available with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Just to clarify here, since I used two different years, the Act was *passed* in 1913, and *instituted* in 1914. So the Act enabled the Notes in 1913, but they didn't actually circulate until the Fed began its operations in the following year. I think 1933 might have been when we went off the gold standard, but don't remember for sure. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > , > >> The date is according to a history textbook. It is not likely to be >> off. I will check it further later. It may be in definition of the >> Fed versus Federal Reserve Board. Certainly the government printed >> money and had a system from its inception. > > Unfortunately it _is_ wrong, and very misleading in the context of our > discussion. > > The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1914 " to furnish an elastic > currency. " " Federal Reserve money was designed to differ from other > forms of money by > being 'elastic,' that is, subject to substantial change in quantity > over short > periods for reasons other than immediate profit to either the issuer, > or, in th > ecase of specie, the importer or exporter or producer. " --Friedman and > Shwarts, _Monetary_History_of_the_United_States_, 190. That said, there were price fluctuations prior to the 20th century. Even in a completely free economy with a stable money supply, there are going to be minor fluctuations for various reasons. What we did not see was a general downward trend in the value of the dollar. Note also that WWI was in and of itself a major governmental intervention in the economy. > More importantly, it has legalized a partial-reserve banking system, > which is, simply, fraud. I disagree. It's only fraud if the bankers don't tell the depositors about it. Gene Callahan's essay on ASC echoes my thoughts on the subject: http://tinyurl.com/yuo2v http://anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=416 & PHPSESSID=bf6f050dbe329f4e28656\ 5b1ab7bd35b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 Well you seem to have a point and this textbook I have here is obviously WRONG!! What I have found from skimming the web, Federal Reserve Notes were made legal in 1933. Re: Re: money and health , > The date is according to a history textbook. It is not likely to be off. I > will check it further later. It may be in definition of the Fed versus > Federal Reserve Board. Certainly the government printed money and had a > system from its inception. Unfortunately it _is_ wrong, and very misleading in the context of our discussion. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1914 " to furnish an elastic currency. " " Federal Reserve money was designed to differ from other forms of money by being 'elastic,' that is, subject to substantial change in quantity over short periods for reasons other than immediate profit to either the issuer, or, in th ecase of specie, the importer or exporter or producer. " --Friedman and Shwarts, _Monetary_History_of_the_United_States_, 190. The Federal Reserve Board was established then, not later: " The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks were the bodies established to exercise jointoly the functions both of controlling creation and retirement of Federal Reserve money and of handling the mechanical details. " -- _ibid_, 190. Most importantly, the Federal Reserve was directly responsible for the inflationary pressures after WWI that you spoke of: " These changes [The Federal Reserve Act] in the monetary and banking structure, sketched in section 1, contributed mildly to the more than 45 percent increase in the US stock of money which accompanied the price inflation during the period of US neutrality, and played a major role in the further increase by nearly a half in the stock of money which accompanied the inflation during the war and after the Armistice (section 2). " -- _ibid_, 189 But ultimately, when the Fed was established is entirely irrelevant-- you seem to be implying that the government had no influence over the stock of money until the Federal Reserve was established, when in fact there had been some sort of national bank since Hamilton. And the Fed simply replaced the Civil-War-produced National Banking System: " The period from the end of the Civil War to the resumption of gold payments in 1879 . . . were the formative years of the National Banking System, and, more generally, of a banking structure that was to remain largely unchanged until the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. " -- _ibid_, 15. I didn't read the articles that posted, but I'm familiar with the Austrian theory of business cycles from Chapter 1 of Rothbard's _America's_Great_Depression_ which is online at Click here: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf . It is abundantly clear from Mises' theory that not only inflation, but business cycles, are generated by the government's control of the monetary supply, and no other theory has been able to explain business cycles without dissociating them from general economic theory, which just proves their bankruptcy. Furthermore, it is consistent with history, and for basically the entire history of the United States the government has exercised some form of control over the money supply. More importantly, it has legalized a partial-reserve banking system, which is, simply, fraud. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 In a message dated 1/20/04 10:25:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, mhysmith@... writes: > I found the following petition wherein they state that the > Federal Reserve Bank is not really a government agency but instead a private > group That's not really true in any real sense. Technically the Fed is " owned " by its member banks, but that's essentially meaningless, because they " own " it by virtue of deposits they are forced to take by the Fed, the head of which is appointed by the President. So that's really a silly argument. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 In a message dated 1/20/04 10:52:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, blaidd2@... writes: > The federal reserve IS owned by private interests and NOT by the > government, but it does control our government. Dawn, In what way does the Fed control the government? The ultimate authority behind the Fed is the Federal Government, not the reverse. The Fed exercises authority over its member banks, and the Fed holds its authority by virtue of Presidential appointment. So the authority flows downward from the Federal Government, to the Fed, to the Fed's member banks. The idea that the Fed's member banks who " own " the Fed which " controls " the government seems backwards to me, and only the former part of it is true, and that only in a very convoluted, technical sense. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 Heidi, Or as it's said, can't know until you've walked in their mocassins or been in someone else's shoes. Can then be appreciative and thankful of the choices you don't have to make. > As far as, is a society justified for cruel treatment of individuals > if it survives ... it's a good question. One question is, COULD it > have survived otherwise? We have unprecedented luxury in our > society, to put up with wayward and crippled individuals ... but the > fact the Inuit seemed (at least in some tribes) willing to abandon > the weak, or kick the evildoers out of the igloo (as per Fast > Runner) is a sign of a society living " on the edge " in harsh, > life or death conditions. Here in my warm house with plenty of > food socked away, I'm in no position to call such a society " good " > or " bad " . Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 What I found on line in several places was the notes. Roosevelt went into office in 33, one of his first actions was closing the doors of banks because such a rush was on withdrawing money. They stayed closed almost a week. Going off the gold standard shortly followed. When I was checking into it though, I found the following petition wherein they state that the Federal Reserve Bank is not really a government agency but instead a private group. It would be interesting to learn more of what's behind this. http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/SignPetitions.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 You have opened Pandora's box. I know a great deal about this subject but you need a good foundation to believe it because it will blow your mind. =( The federal reserve IS owned by private interests and NOT by the government, but it does control our government. I recommend you all reading _The Unseen Hand_ by Ralph Epperson available on Amazon.com He also has a book on the federal reserve but I'd read that one second. The Unseen Hand is a history book from a different perspective. There is also a book I was told to read called _The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve_ by G. (Preface) also found at amazon.com Which talks about the people who wrote the Federal Reserve Bill. I'd give you more but I get violent reactions. But, keep this in mind if nothing else. People are out for CONTROL and to make more MONEY. They don't care about our health, or the general public's welfare, we are just a bunch of eating cash cows that can be trained, coerced, and fooled into eating their most profitable products. Corn syrup, aspartame, hydrogenated oils, soy etc. Dawn > > > What I found on line in several places was the notes. Roosevelt went > into office in 33, one of his first actions was closing the doors of > banks because such a rush was on withdrawing money. They stayed closed > almost a week. Going off the gold standard shortly followed. When I > was checking into it though, I found the following petition wherein > they state that the Federal Reserve Bank is not really a government > agency but instead a private group. It would be interesting to learn > more of what's behind this. > > http://www.givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/SignPetitions.htm > Weston A. Price Austin Chapter Leader WAPAustin@... ------------------------------------------------------------- Join us on the web at: - http://www.BreninDraig.com/WAPAustin/ Join our email list: - WAP_Austin/ or send an email to WAP_Austin-subscribe Copyright © 2004 Dawn Luttrall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 In a message dated 1/21/04 12:58:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, blaidd2@... writes: > It is important to get all the background information on this to truly > understand it which is why I recommend you read for yourself and come to > your own conclusions. I do understand it Dawn, but there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning. This isn't a conspiracy theory-- everyone who knows anything about the Federal Reserve *knows* that the Fed is " owned " by its member banks. The point is that calling that " ownership " in any real sense is a fallacy, because the Federal Reserve Board has authority over the member banks, and the shares that they " own " are issued by the Fed, over which they have no control. The Fed Chairman is in turn appointed by the President. So, while the member banks do profit from the shares, they exercise no authority over the Federal Reserve Board, who in turn exercises no authority over the Federal Government. On the contrary, the President can choose to continue the current Chairman or kick him out once his term is up, giving the President the ultimate authority over the entire system. Can the Fed engineer a depression? Surely, as it is an inevitable result of the inflationary " boom " that the Fed has as its goal. But I think the author seems to be misunderstanding economics to a degree as well-- inflation doesn't cause a depression, a depression is the market's attempt to correct an inflationary boom. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2004 Report Share Posted January 20, 2004 This is terribly offtopic and I feel bad replying so this will be all I say onlist. get the book I recommended _The Unseen Hand_ by Ralph Epperson. He has TONS of resources quoted throughout the book and a hefty list in the back of books I need to buy or check out. I will quote from it here: pg 171, Federal Reserve Chapter 'The conspiracy also had one additional problem. They had " to avoid the name Central Bank, and for that reason (they) had come upon the designation of Federal Reserve System. It would be owned by private individuals who would draw profit from ownership of shares and who would control the nation's issue of money; it would have at its command the nation's entire financial resources; and it would be able to mobilize and mortgage the United States by involving (the United States) in major foreign wars " '. He quotes from H.S. Kennan, The Federal Reserve p 100 Pg, 173 - 174, Federal Reserve Chapter 'There were those who opposed the creation of the System at the time and made that opposition public. One such individual was Congressman Lindbergh, Sr. Congressman Lindbergh warned the American people that the Federal Reserve Act " ...established the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this act, the invisible government by the money-power...will be legitimatized. The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created. " The Congressman put his finger on the pulse of the problem: the Federal Reserve System was created to foster economic emergencies. This instrument of economic destruction was now in place. The staffing of the System's key positions with those who created and supported it followed. The first governor of the New York Federal Reserve branch was Strong of 's Bankers Trust Company, a participant in the Jekyll Island writing of the bill. The first Governor of the Board of Directors was Warburg, a partner in the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, also a participant in the Jekyll Island Meeting. What had those who called the system " Federal " created? Was it really a " Federal " Reserve System? It is " a private organization, since the member banks own all of the stock, on which they receive tax-free dividends; it must pay postage, like any other private corporation; its employees are not on civil service; it may spend whatever it wishes;...and its physical property, held under private deeds, is subject to local taxation. In fact, America's elected officials know the " Federal " Reserve System isn't federal. In speeches to the American people, recent Presidents Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy have joined Dr. Arthur Burns, former head of the System, the Associated Press, the House of Representatives in a primer on the System, and others in stating that the System is " independent, " (or words to that effect.)' he quotes from , " The Bankers, Conspiratorial Origins of the Federal Reserve, " p. 27 and Larson, The Federal Reserve p 63. It is important to get all the background information on this to truly understand it which is why I recommend you read for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Mr Epperson is also more than willing to answer questions, I have emailed him a few times. He wrote this particular book, well it was published in 1985. Next on my book list is the book about Excitoxins and the Creature from Jekyll Island! =) Dawn > Dawn, > > In what way does the Fed control the government? The ultimate > authority behind the Fed is the Federal Government, not the reverse. > The Fed exercises authority over its member banks, and the Fed holds > its authority by virtue of Presidential appointment. So the authority > flows downward from the Federal Government, to the Fed, to the Fed's > member banks. > > The idea that the Fed's member banks who " own " the Fed which > " controls " the government seems backwards to me, and only the former > part of it is true, and that only in a very convoluted, technical > sense. > > Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.