Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

The Federal Reserve


Brentastic
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, I already know weige supports it and probably deems it necessary for economic survival/growth. I'm just curious if the 'masses' think the Federal Reserve is necessary and why. Also, in your own words, what do you think is the Fed's primary function? In other words, no wikipedia or article links allowed - I want real opinions from huddlers.

 

I'm only working a 1/2 day tomorrow then off to the Cubs game, so I may not be back in this thread until Friday evening - but I will be back to respond. So please, let's discuss this Entity known as the Fed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay.

 

That means that...our whole solar system...could be, like...one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being.

 

This is too much!

 

That means...-one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--

 

 

-Could be one little...tiny universe.

 

 

Could l buy some pot from you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay.

 

That means that...our whole solar system...could be, like...one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being.

 

This is too much!

 

That means...-one tiny atom in my fingernail could be--

 

 

-Could be one little...tiny universe.

 

 

Could l buy some pot from you?

There are only a select few huddlers that are actually funny. Let's leave the funny to them, mmmmmkay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that the Fed monitors and controls the money supply in this country. Since our money is not backed by a hard currency such as gold, there has to be some type of regulation on money otherwise there would be no way to actually assign any type of value to it. It is the Fed's job to try and maintain the greatest possible value for our money while at the same time being mindful of the effects of their actions on the overall economy of this country. I believe that without the oversight provided by the Fed, we would have a runaway economy that would react more like the stock market in that it would run hot and cold at the whims of the people with the most money.

 

How'd I do? Do I get a cookie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like searching for it, but I heard the Federal Reserve was enacted on shadier grounds than the recent Healthcare Bill. It was some late night, last-minute, under-the-table, right-before-Christmas-break legislation back in the day. You know when you have to pass it like that, you aren't getting anything good out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fed's primary job is to serve as a "lender of last resort" for the financial system so as to help avert and mitigate financial panics.

 

Another key job of the Fed is to conduct monetary policy with the intent to:

--Promote price stability

--Promote high employment

--Promote economic growth

--Foster interest rate stability

--Foster foreign-exchange market stability

 

The Fed also helps to maintain financial market and institution stability via regulation and oversight.

 

(I do not feel that the Fed is "necessary" for economic survival and growth, but I do believe that it is very very helpful in doing so and the economy would be significantly worse off without the Fed.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fed's primary job is to serve as a "lender of last resort" for the financial system so as to help avert and mitigate financial panics.

 

Another key job of the Fed is to conduct monetary policy with the intent to:

--Promote price stability

--Promote high employment

--Promote economic growth

--Foster interest rate stability

--Foster foreign-exchange market stability

 

The Fed also helps to maintain financial market and institution stability via regulation and oversight.

 

(I do not feel that the Fed is "necessary" for economic survival and growth, but I do believe that it is very very helpful in doing so and the economy would be significantly worse off without the Fed.)

 

So what you're saying is that it's the job of the FED to manipulate a system (the capitalist economy of the US) that no one truly understands or comprehends all of the complexities involved? Sounds 'bout right for fedgov. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is that it's the job of the FED to manipulate a system (the capitalist economy of the US) that no one truly understands or comprehends all of the complexities involved? Sounds 'bout right for fedgov. :wacko:

uh, the Fed is not part of the federal government

 

And, believe it or not, economists do generally have a pretty good idea about how monetary policy works (edit to add: which is one of the reasons we aren't in a second Great Depression right now)

Edited by wiegie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

uh, the Fed is not part of the federal government

 

And, believe it or not, economists do generally have a pretty good idea about how monetary policy works (edit to add: which is one of the reasons we aren't in a second Great Depression right now)

 

??? Please elucidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lincoln's desire for a central bank is another of the lessor known reasons for the South wanting to secede. Lincoln was a acolyte of Clay. The South and it's representatives were generally against a central bank since the beginning of the union, while the North typically supported it. Southerners Jefferson and Madison strongly opposed the formation of central bank while northerner Hamilton was the central figure it the formation of the First Bank of the United States. The 24 years preceding the civil war were known as the free banking period.

Edited by Perchoutofwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty cetain that Andrew Jackson shut down the Fed in the 1832 range, caused a major econmic calamity, once it was reinstated the economy began to recover... I'm all for the fed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lincoln's desire for a central bank is another of the lessor known reasons for the South wanting to secede. Lincoln was a acolyte of Clay. The South and it's representatives were generally against a central bank since the beginning of the union, while the North typically supported it. Jefferson and Madison strongly opposed the formation of central bank.

 

Interestingly enough, in the articles of secession put forth by most of the states of the confederacy, the reason they say they are secceding is due exclusively to the fear of the ending of slavery and how that infringes upon their sovreignity and their constituionally guaranteed rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough, in the articles of secession put forth by most of the states of the confederacy, the reason they say they are secceding is due exclusively to the fear of the ending of slavery and how that infringes upon their sovreignity and their constituionally guaranteed rights.

 

Slaver is definitely a central part to secession, but it is generally mentioned in the lawlessness of the North, and it's unwillingness to uphold the law of the law of the land, specifically the fugitive slave act. It was over the federal government not doing what it was supposed to do, and not upholding the law. It was over the northern states using nullification (which I believe was their right) and Southern states adopting secession as a result of the Northern states refusal to acknowledge the law. You will also not in many of the states articles of secession it also mentions the Federal governments failure to protect their property. Radical abolitionist were setting fire to entire southern cities, and the federal government essentially did nothing. The federal government at the time was picking and choosing which laws it was enforcing. The federal government was also spending 6 times as much on Northern fortifications than on southern fortifications even thought the majority of the tax (tariff) dollars at the time were generated in the South.

 

From the Texas article of secession:

 

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

 

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

 

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.......

 

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

 

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

 

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

 

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

 

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

 

Yes the civil war was about slave states and non slave states, but this issue was all of the slave states had similar economies based on exporting goods, and the tariff policies that helped the north did so at the expense of the South. It wasn't about slaver but about economy it is just that the so-called slave state had very similar economies negatively effected by the northern protectionist policies. Heck there were three slave states that stayed in the union. Slavery was not outlawed in those state until well after the civil war was over. There was actually a constitutional amendment passed just prior to the civil war that would have protected the South's right to slavery, and Lincoln supported it. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states that were attempting to secede, it did not apply to the slave states that stayed in the union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slaver is definitely a central part to secession, but it is generally mentioned in the lawlessness of the North, and it's unwillingness to uphold the law of the law of the land, specifically the fugitive slave act. It was over the federal government not doing what it was supposed to do, and not upholding the law. It was over the northern states using nullification (which I believe was their right) and Southern states adopting secession as a result of the Northern states refusal to acknowledge the law. You will also not in many of the states articles of secession it also mentions the Federal governments failure to protect their property. Radical abolitionist were setting fire to entire southern cities, and the federal government essentially did nothing. The federal government at the time was picking and choosing which laws it was enforcing. The federal government was also spending 6 times as much on Northern fortifications than on southern fortifications even thought the majority of the tax (tariff) dollars at the time were generated in the South.

 

From the Texas article of secession:

 

 

 

Yes the civil war was about slave states and non slave states, but this issue was all of the slave states had similar economies based on exporting goods, and the tariff policies that helped the north did so at the expense of the South. It wasn't about slaver but about economy it is just that the so-called slave state had very similar economies negatively effected by the northern protectionist policies. Heck there were three slave states that stayed in the union. Slavery was not outlawed in those state until well after the civil war was over. There was actually a constitutional amendment passed just prior to the civil war that would have protected the South's right to slavery, and Lincoln supported it. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states that were attempting to secede, it did not apply to the slave states that stayed in the union.

 

 

Clearly the purpose of the federal reserve was to make the South a victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think the Japs and Germans will be whining about being victims of the US in the year 2100 as much as Southerners do today?

 

Well, I take solace in the fact that the Jews will outwhine us all. By far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slaver is definitely a central part to secession, but it is generally mentioned in the lawlessness of the North, and it's unwillingness to uphold the law of the law of the land, specifically the fugitive slave act. It was over the federal government not doing what it was supposed to do, and not upholding the law. It was over the northern states using nullification (which I believe was their right) and Southern states adopting secession as a result of the Northern states refusal to acknowledge the law. You will also not in many of the states articles of secession it also mentions the Federal governments failure to protect their property. Radical abolitionist were setting fire to entire southern cities, and the federal government essentially did nothing. The federal government at the time was picking and choosing which laws it was enforcing. The federal government was also spending 6 times as much on Northern fortifications than on southern fortifications even thought the majority of the tax (tariff) dollars at the time were generated in the South.

 

From the Texas article of secession:

 

 

 

Yes the civil war was about slave states and non slave states, but this issue was all of the slave states had similar economies based on exporting goods, and the tariff policies that helped the north did so at the expense of the South. It wasn't about slaver but about economy it is just that the so-called slave state had very similar economies negatively effected by the northern protectionist policies. Heck there were three slave states that stayed in the union. Slavery was not outlawed in those state until well after the civil war was over. There was actually a constitutional amendment passed just prior to the civil war that would have protected the South's right to slavery, and Lincoln supported it. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states that were attempting to secede, it did not apply to the slave states that stayed in the union.

 

To an extent, you are correct, as South Carolina, I believe also during Jackson's term in office, was contemplating seceeding due to the tariff issue which you have alluded to. However, the property of which many of the states were speaking was in the context of the slave being the property.

 

As outlined in the articles of secession from Mississippi:

 

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun."

 

In the GA Decalration of secession the overiding factor for secession is linked to slavery and the fear of aboliton of it:

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic... A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia."

 

The SC Declaration of Secession is even more pointed in its reasons for secession and excerpts portions of the Constitution that deal directly with slavery as the reasons for it's secessionist ambitions. Stating emphatically that had these articles in support of slavery not been included that the United States, as it was at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, would not have ever existed as the slaveholding states would not have joined the Union.

 

Along with these Decalrations is the Constitution of The Confederate States of America. The US Constitution was used for the Confed COnstitution. The parts that were changed/dropped were predominantly those that dealt with slavery. Some sections were reinforced t provide for a stronger position on the rights of these states to hold slaves. Other parts were edited in order to provide for less punitive tariffs or the absolute abolition thereof. Other sections provided for taxation of those who use waterways, etc...

 

What we fail to understand, in my opinion, or choose to overlook, is how interwoven the economy and slavery were, especially to those who were in power of the Southern States. While it may be acccurate that the average farmer in SC or GA did not hold a large number of, if any, slaves, we need to recognize that the largest revenue producing farms were extremeley dependent upon this labor and to have it taken away from them would effectively render them penniless, or comparitively so. And much like today, it was the wealthy at the time that had the most to lose from these policies and the wealthy that wielded the majority of the power in the state houses, they were not about to walk silently from this issue.

 

So, yes, there were other reasons, as you state above, but the overriding factor is the threatened, or percevied threat, of the aboliton of slavery and the removal of constitutional rights that allowed the slave owner to have a valid claim to his property, the slave, should it escape from his posession. Without the slaves the economy of the south was largely without an engine.

Edited by SEC=UGA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SEC,

 

The slave states were not concerned with the abolition of slavery at all, the US congress passed a constitutional amendment that would protect their right to slaver, and it was sent to the sates for ratification. Had the states stayed in the union, there would have been enough states supporting it that slavery would still be legal today.

 

The reason it is spoken about so much in the articles of secession is that the North was not abiding by federal law concerning slaves. The north was also harboring what amounted to terrorists against the South. The abolition movement of the day was a fringe group of terrorists, that is why slavery mentioned so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more for SEC

 

If it was all about slavery, explain Lincoln's first inaugural address? If it was all about slavery how do you explain the Corwin Amendment, which passed both the house and senate, and would have been ratified had the South wanted to stay in the union? If the civil war was about slavery, how come the North started invading the South in 1861 but the Emancipation Proclamation didn't come until 1863, and then it only effected the slave states that had left the union. The slave states that stayed were allowed to keep their slaves. Why did the District of Colombia allow slavery for a full year after the start of the civil war? All of the above is direct verifiable history that seems to be forgot by the revisionist North that makes sure that information isn't portrayed in the history books we were given to read. Nope, the revisionist wanted everyone to believe it was all about slavery (Lincoln actually wanted to send all freed slaves back to Africa and in most Northern states people of African decent were not allowed to reside), that it had nothing to do with Lincoln's desire for a central bank like his mentor Clay, it had nothing to do with the way the the protectionist tariffs helped the North to the detriment to the South. It had nothing to do with the fact that the South actually paid more in federal taxes than the North, but received fewer fortifications, subsidies for rail roads, and light houses.

 

Weigie, if it was about slavery and not economics why did the South need to secede when the Corwin Amendment was sent to the states for ratification and had the South not left the union there were enough states to ratify it?

 

Southerners felt the federal government was playing cronyism, and no longer adhering to the Constitution. Lincoln was tied to the railroad and northern factories. He was a dictator, and the South saw him for what he was. Lincoln jailed members of congress that disagreed with him. He had a warrant issued for the arrest of a supreme court justice, because the justice had the nerve to tell him he didn't have the constitutional authority to do what he was doing. Lincoln shut down 1/3 of the newspapers in the North and had their owners and editors jailed for writing articles against his agenda. There is no contradiction with the South wanting to secede from the Union run by a tyrant like that and having patriotism. The South held the Constitution dear and when they saw their government was staring to ignore it, they did what many Northern states threatened to do during the war of 1812, they seceded.

 

Some more interesting facts about Dishonest Abe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information