The Federal Reserve

[SEC=UGA]

out of curiosity, what do you do? its rare to find someone so knowlegable about the Civil War that doesn't have a Rebel Flag hanging in the garage. that is to say - you don't seem like you'd have a rebel flag in your garage.

 

It's hanging on my front porch, we don't have to keep 'em in our garages down here

 

TY. There is a lot of revisionist history out there on both sides of the war, the north included (redundant, I know.) I just try to be pragmatic about this issue and until a couple of years ago would have been in absolute agreement with Perch. I've just read too many correspondences and too many documents lately that speak at length on the topic of abolition of slavery as the "cardinal" reason for secession.

[Perchoutofwater]

It's hanging on my front porch, we don't have to keep 'em in our garages down here

 

TY. There is a lot of revisionist history out there on both sides of the war, the north included (redundant, I know.) I just try to be pragmatic about this issue and until a couple of years ago would have been in absolute agreement with Perch. I've just read too many correspondences and too many documents lately that speak at length on the topic of abolition of slavery as the "cardinal" reason for secession.

 

I wouldn't disagree that abolition movement was a major cause, though I would say it wasn't fear of abolition itself. The reason I say that is based on What Lincoln has said, the Corwin Amendment, and the timing of actually freeing slaves by Lincoln in both the South and then later in the North I don't think actual abolition was a real concern. I think the abolition movement and the North's unwillingness to recognize federal law regarding the movement, not only the actual taking of slaves put also the destruction of property, the burning of entire towns by zealots from the movement raised the ire of the South more than anything.

 

BTW, I've never owned a confederate flag of any kind. I've never watched a Civil War reenactment, though I don't think they are any sillier than renaissance fairs. I do have an "adopted" son that has much darker pigmentation than I do.

[Brentastic]

Bump.

 

Here's a good article on how fractional-reserve banking is bad. Wiegie will disagree since he's a keynesian and a robot of the system. For any of the free-thinkers out there, you might enjoy this article.

 

http://mises.org/daily/4880

 

The Faults of Fractional-Reserve Banking

Mises Daily: Thursday, December 23, 2010 by Thorsten Polleit

 

In a November 1, 2010, blog post titled "Could the World Go Back to the Gold Standard?," Martin Wolf, the Financial Times chief economics commentator, comes to the conclusion that "we cannot and will not go back to the gold standard."

 

Among a number of mainstream-economics arguments leveled against the desirability and feasibility of the gold standard, Mr. Wolf puts forth a line of reasoning that can serve particularly well as a starting point for debating his position. Mr. Wolf writes,

 

Economists of the Austrian school wish to abolish fractional reserve banking. But we know that this is a natural consequence of market forces. It is wasteful to hold a 100 per cent reserve in a bank, if depositors do not need their money almost all of the time. Banks have a strong incentive to lend some of the money deposited with them, so expanding the aggregate supply of money and credit.

 

Austrians Do Not Call for Establishing a Gold Standard by Decree

To get the ball rolling, Austrian economists (in particular those in the Misesian-Rothbardian tradition) uncompromisingly call for replacing fiat money with free-market money — money that is produced by the free interplay of the supply of and demand for money.

 

Such a recommendation has a firm economical-ethical footing: free-market money is the only monetary order that is compatible with private-property rights, the governing principle of the free-market society.

 

The focus on private-property rights does not only follow from natural-rights theory (in the Lockean tradition), but it can be ultimately justified on the basis of the self-evident, irrefutable axiom of human action, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has shown.[1]

 

Austrians therefore argue for privatizing money production, shutting down central banks, and letting the market decide what kind of money people want to use. Government wouldn't have to play any active role in the workings of a free-market monetary system.

 

One may hold the view that precious metals — in particular gold and silver, and to some extent copper — would be the freely chosen, universally accepted means of exchange. In other words, they could become money once people have a free choice in monetary matters.

 

However, Austrian economists wouldn't call for establishing a gold standard, let alone a gold standard with (government-sponsored) central banking: they would argue for free-market money, under which, presumably, gold would become the freely chosen money.[2]

 

Fractional-Reserve Banking Violates Property Rights

Now let us turn to fractional-reserve banking. It means that a bank lends out money that clients have deposited with it. Fractional-reserve banking thus leads to a situation in which two individuals are made owners of the same thing.[3]

 

Fractional-reserve banking thus creates a legal impossibility: through bank lending, the borrower and the depositor become owners of the same money. Fractional-reserve banking leads to contractual obligations that cannot be fulfilled from the outset.

 

As Hoppe, Block, and Hülsmann note, "any contractual agreement that involves presenting two different individuals as simultaneous owners of the same thing (or alternatively, the same thing as simultaneously owned by more than one person) is objectively false and thus fraudulent."[4] A "fractional reserve banking agreement implies no lesser an impossibility and fraud than that involved in the trade of flying elephants or squared circles."[5]

 

The truth is that fractional-reserve banking amounts to violating the nature of the law of property rights. And so the argument that fractional-reserve banking represents sensible money economizing — an argument that Mr. Wolf brings up against a gold standard — doesn't hold water.

 

"Fractional-reserve banking thus creates a legal impossibility: through bank lending, the borrower and the depositor become owners of the same money." Arguing in favor of fractional-reserve banking would in fact be tantamount to saying that it is legal (or rightful or even lawful) that Mr. A does whatever he wishes with Mr. B's property — without requiring Mr. B's consent.

 

What, however, if the bank and the depositor both agree voluntarily that money deposits should be used for credit transactions via the issuance of fiduciary media? Even such a voluntary agreement would be in violation of the law of property rights.

 

While bank and depositor benefit from such a trade (or expect to), what about those who receive fiduciary media? They would be falsely lured into exchanging goods and service against an item (fiduciary media) that is already claimed as property by others — something the seller presumably wouldn't agree to if he had only known the very nature of the trade.

 

What if all market agents voluntarily agreed to engage in fractional-reserve banking? The conclusion above wouldn't change: voluntarily accepted fractional-reserve banking would represent a monetary system that is, by its very nature, in violation of the nature of the law of private-property rights. It would produce economic chaos on the grandest scale.

 

Fractional-Reserve Banking Has Not Emerged "Naturally"

To be sure, fractional-reserve banking is not, as Mr. Wolf notes, "a natural consequence of market forces." It is a result of, and has been upheld by, government law.

 

In a free-market system, the practice of fractional-reserve banking would be illegal by its very nature. And so fractional-reserve banking would be ended (sooner rather than later) under the auspices of a functioning law of private-property rights.

 

The reason that fractional-reserve banking has been around for quite some time is due to government law — which, of course, must be distinguished from the natural law of property rights. Of course, government can make fractional-reserve banking legal in a formal sense. However, even government law does not change the nature of things. As Murray N. Rothbard puts it succinctly,

 

fractional reserve banks … create money out of thin air. Essentially they do it in the same way as counterfeiters. Counterfeiters, too, create money out of thin air by printing something masquerading as money or as a warehouse receipt for money. In this way, they fraudulently extract resources from the public, from the people who have genuinely earned their money. In the same way, fractional reserve banks counterfeit warehouse receipts for money, which then circulate as equivalent to money among the public. There is one exception to the equivalence: The law fails to treat the receipts as counterfeit.[6]

 

Fractional-Reserve Banking under Commodity Money versus Fiat Money

In a commodity-money regime — such as the gold standard — fractional-reserve banking is, as Austrian economists show, in effect a form of counterfeiting. However, what about fractional-reserve banking under a system of fiat money?

 

Under fiat money, banks' liabilities vis-à-vis clients (as far as demand deposits are concerned) are payable in the form of base money, or central-bank money — a type of money that can only be produced by (government-sponsored) central banks.

 

Central banks hold the monopoly over the production of base money. They can increase the base-money supply at any one time at any amount deemed politically desirable. It is the central bank that eventually determines whether or not banks can meet their payment obligations.

 

It may well be that the central bank decides, once a bank is called upon by its clients to pay out demand deposits in cash, to provide sufficient amounts of notes — by loaning them to the bank and/or by purchasing part of the bank's assets.

 

The essential point is, however, that banks that engage in fractional-reserve banking in a fiat-money regime create contractual obligations they cannot fulfill from the outset. Rothbard notes that

 

it doesn't make any difference what is considered money or cash in the society, whether it be gold, tobacco, or even government fiat paper money. The technique of pyramiding by the banks remains the same.[7]

 

The Uncomfortable Truth about Fractional-Reserve Banking

Austrian economists, and Ludwig von Mises in particular, have shown that fractional-reserve banking under commodity money necessarily causes economic problems on a grand scale. This is because banks then engage in circulation-credit expansion — that is, they issue money through lending that is not backed by real savings.[8]

 

Circulation bank credit is inflationary, and it causes economic disequilibria and overindebtedness of the private sector — in particular on the part of governments. It is also the very cause of the "boom-and-bust" cycle.

 

The latter, in turn, opens the door for ever-greater doses of government interventionism — regulations, nationalizations, price controls, etc. — that, over time, erodes and even destroys the very principles on which the free-market society rests.

 

This conclusion doesn't change when there is fractional-reserve banking under fiat money. Fiat money — or, to be more precise, its production — is already a violation of the free-market principle; and fractional-reserve banking amounts to leveraging the economic consequences of fiat money.

 

For the sake of preserving prosperous and peaceful societal cooperation, the very opposite of Mr. Wolf's conclusion must hold true: namely that we can and will return to sound money, and the gold standard is one particular form that is fully acceptable from an economical-ethical perspective — if and when it is freely chosen by the people.

[Pope Flick]

Bump.

 

Here's a good article on how fractional-reserve banking is bad. Wiegie will disagree since he's a keynesian and a robot of the system. For any of the free-thinkers out there, you might enjoy this article.

 

http://mises.org/daily/4880

 

 

If 'free-thinking' means you are wrong time after time with your apocolyptic predictions, well then keep free thinking away you quack.

[Brentastic]

If 'free-thinking' means you are wrong time after time with your apocolyptic predictions, well then keep free thinking away you quack.

It shouldn't be a mystery that our country is in this terrible state since the majority think, act and believe all the b.s. like you. Can you seriously not see where we are headed? Not only as a nation but as a human race. If you can't see that the whole financial system of the westernized world is a gigantic scam and that the people running the scam are making slaves of us all, then I truly feel sorry for you. The system is cracking at the seams and my doomsday predictions will come true much sooner than you want. Don't discount me just because it's not obvious to the sheep yet. To anyone paying attention, it's very obvious and there are people much smarter than me writing and talking about it. But don't take my word for it - keep following the news and major media outlets to gain your 'knowledge'.

 

+1 for you for being a typical condescending ingratiating sychophant. Bravo dickhead

[Pope Flick]

It shouldn't be a mystery that our country is in this terrible state since the majority think, act and believe all the b.s. like you. Can you seriously not see where we are headed? Not only as a nation but as a human race. If you can't see that the whole financial system of the westernized world is a gigantic scam and that the people running the scam are making slaves of us all, then I truly feel sorry for you. The system is cracking at the seams and my doomsday predictions will come true much sooner than you want. Don't discount me just because it's not obvious to the sheep yet. To anyone paying attention, it's very obvious and there are people much smarter than me writing and talking about it. But don't take my word for it - keep following the news and major media outlets to gain your 'knowledge'.

 

+1 for you for being a typical condescending ingratiating sychophant. Bravo dickhead

 

 

You know, somewhere in one of your ealier threads you were spouting off your decrees and I asked you several questioins regarding what you were saying in a respectful manner. But you in your paranoia went off the deep end over a simple, uncondescending question and got on your huffy bike and began accusing me of being snarky, etc when in fact I was trying to get you to clarifiy a few of your statments that seemed to contradict each other.

 

No, you're the one who's the dickhead. From that point forward it became clear that despite your self-pimping at your self education that you are in fact woefully misinformed - and that was before you began the thread that was railing on banking rules you just found out about but had in fact been in the books since the great depression.

 

So to those of you coming in mid-stream: brent here makes Jesse Ventura look well adjusted. He doesn't really know what he's talking about, just what he cuts and pastes at the moment. And yeah, the guy who mocks a trained economist, and who's made some pretty solid predictions unlike breant her, isn't the condescedning dickhead. He's the guy who goes to name calling and shuts up when you catch him in a contradiction and you ask for an explanation. That's brent.

[Brentastic]

You know, somewhere in one of your ealier threads you were spouting off your decrees and I asked you several questioins regarding what you were saying in a respectful manner. But you in your paranoia went off the deep end over a simple, uncondescending question and got on your huffy bike and began accusing me of being snarky, etc when in fact I was trying to get you to clarifiy a few of your statments that seemed to contradict each other.

 

No, you're the one who's the dickhead. From that point forward it became clear that despite your self-pimping at your self education that you are in fact woefully misinformed - and that was before you began the thread that was railing on banking rules you just found out about but had in fact been in the books since the great depression.

 

So to those of you coming in mid-stream: brent here makes Jesse Ventura look well adjusted. He doesn't really know what he's talking about, just what he cuts and pastes at the moment. And yeah, the guy who mocks a trained economist, and who's made some pretty solid predictions unlike breant her, isn't the condescedning dickhead. He's the guy who goes to name calling and shuts up when you catch him in a contradiction and you ask for an explanation. That's brent.

Dude, I rarely cut and paste anything. I know this because my biggest pet peeve is when people on here argue and to back their arguments with an article which is just another man's opinion and doesn't prove anything. I purposely avoid that. You're completely off-base in your entire assesment but you will have plenty of supporters because unfortunately, unusual thinkers such as myself, are not well received here. I couldn't care less because I'm not trying to make friends here unlike many. I don't need to be popular. I don't need people to agree with me to make me feel good about myself. I'm comfortable in my skin which is why I keep taking the abuse from most of you followers.

 

The fact that you refer to wiegie as a trained economists proves your narrow-mindedness and your lack of knowledge regarding anything financial. He's a trained keynesian economist which only matters to those who believe in that philosophy. It doesn't mean anything to me. I don't have the answers to everything and don't claim to.

 

Please point me in the direction of your non-condescending questions that I did not answer. Most likely I didn't see your questions or they were rudely asked. The only intention I have for posting this stuff is to spread what I believe is truth and a major problem for the human race. Anything outside of that is taken out of context because people in the tailgate love to argue and prove how knowledgeable they are.

[wiegie]

Here is the thing, Brent... you seem to think that I have never even considered the views that you are raising. But in fact, over the course of the last two decades or so, I actually have considered many of the ideas you are now promoting...

 

It's not so much that I have been brainwashed into thinking the things that I do, it's that I have actually researched the issues and have concluded that the things I believe are much more likely to be correct than much of the things you are talking about. If new evidence comes up that shows that my current thinking is wrong, I will change my beliefs... but as it is right now, I have not seen evidence that your beliefs are correct.

 

(And one more thing, I consider myself a fairly Neo-Classical economist (perhaps with an institutionalist bent), but I would not really call myself a Keynesian. (In fact, I don't even teach the standard Keynesian models in any of my classes).)

from earlier in this thread

[Brentastic]

from earlier in this thread

I know you say that but do you or don't you believe that the Federal Reserve is necessary for monetary stability in our country? At the end of the day, that's all I'm trying to get at. The Fed is not only unnecessary, it's illegal and unconstitutional.

[evil_gop_liars]

Not only as a nation but as a human race. If you can't see that the whole financial system of the westernized world is a gigantic scam and that the people running the scam are making slaves of us all, then I truly feel sorry for you.

 

Isn't this what that crazy guy said before he spray painted a circle with a V in it and some lady hit him with her purse?

 

Wealthy manipulate, use, abuse, and economically enslave 95% of the population.

[Seahawk37]

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" — Sen. Barry Goldwater

 

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.

There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the

International bankers — Congressman Louis T. McFadden

 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The

issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to

whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson

 

"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against

the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks

discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow

private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and

then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will

deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up

homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." -Thomas jefferson

 

"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country." -Andrew Jackson

[wiegie]

"Firstly, the current government officials are in power for their currency, but I'm informing you for your new currency! If you're treasurer of a new money system, then you're responsible for the distributing of a currency. We now know - the treasurer for a new money system, is the distributor of the new currency. As a result, the people approve a new money system which is promising new information that's accurate, and we truly believe in a new currency. Above all, you have your new currency, listener?"-Jared Loughner

 

"No! I won't pay debt with a currency that's not backed by gold and silver!"-Jared Loughner

[Seahawk37]

Quoting a Lunatic mentally degranged Liberal Communist pot smoking loner and murderer of a 9 year old girl....It has no bearing to what we are discussing. It's not relevant, and it's not funny. He was a psycho. Maybe he said something in his many ramblings on youtube that relate but why even bring it up?

 

Bring up an opinion of substance.

 

Read Article 1 Section 10 first paragraph of the constitution of the United States! You are either for the Constitution or you're against it. It's time we American's, as they did at the Alamo "Draw a Line in the sand"! you're either with us or not. You're either an American or you're a globalist. and I'm an American!

Edited January 10, 2011 by Seahawk37

[Seahawk37]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL3FT0O4kYg Milton Friedman on the federal reserve

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76frHHpoNFs Also for you socialists anti capitalists

Edited January 10, 2011 by Seahawk37

[Seahawk37]

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.

The federal reserve was inacted in 1913 by the WORST president in the history of our country Racist globalist Woodrow Wilson.

 

Andrew Jackson Disbanded what was called The Second Bank of the United States for principled and great reasons! Jackson withdrew United States money and as a result banks that issued paper bank notes that were not backed by gold or silver saw rapid inflation. Banks did not have enough silver or gold in exchange for paper and it caused many banks bankruptcy. That is what caused the panic of 1837 that led to a depression. We got into a depression because our money is not backed by gold or silver.

[yo mama]

Quoting a Lunatic mentally degranged Liberal Communist pot smoking loner and murderer of a 9 year old girl....It has no bearing to what we are discussing. It's not relevant, and it's not funny. He was a psycho. Maybe he said something in his many ramblings on youtube that relate but why even bring it up?

 

Bring up an opinion of substance.

 

Read Article 1 Section 10 first paragraph of the constitution of the United States! You are either for the Constitution or you're against it. It's time we American's, as they did at the Alamo "Draw a Line in the sand"! you're either with us or not. You're either an American or you're a globalist. and I'm an American!

Exactly! States cannot grant title of nobility. Wait, what?

 

ETA: I've read Art I, Section 10 once or twice. It prohibits the STATES from doing certain things. More specifically, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." Section 10 does not pertain to Congress... but Section 8 does.

 

The Congress, pursuant to Art I Section 8, is given the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." No mention is made of gold or silver. In fact, the restriction placed on the states in Section 10 is the only place in the Constitution that gold or silver are mentioned. The myth that the fed is unconstitutional, or that the gold standard is constitutionally required, is easily debunked.

 

Now that you know what those sections of the Constitution actually say, are you for it? Or against it? TIA

Edited January 11, 2011 by yo mama

[Ursa Majoris]

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" — Sen. Barry Goldwater

 

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.

There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the

International bankers — Congressman Louis T. McFadden

 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The

issuing power of money should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to

whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson

 

"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against

the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks

discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow

private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and

then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will

deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up

homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." -Thomas jefferson

 

"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country." -Andrew Jackson

 

 

Bring up an opinion of substance.

Oh, irony!

[cliaz]

This is an interesting thread that revealed something to me. For all of my blathering about Constitutional Rights and all of that, I know very little about central banks and the Federal Reserve. I did know, however, that it was not regulated by the federal government.

 

Wiegie - you may get a flurry of PM messages from me with tons of questions - sorry in advance

[Seahawk37]

The founding fathers and other Americans of influence opinions arent of substance??? What?

 

 

Also, Nothing but gold and silver can be legal tender. Coin money doesnt mean print money, And its congress's Job

[yo mama]

The founding fathers and other Americans of influence opinions arent of substance??? What?

 

 

Also, Nothing but gold and silver can be legal tender. Coin money doesnt mean print money, And its congress's Job

What box of fruit loops did you pour that gibberish from? I'm pretty sure Article I Sections 8 and 10 don't say what you think they say. Have you actually, you know, read them? Seriously. I'll wait. :jeapordythemesonginbackground:

Edited January 11, 2011 by yo mama

[Seahawk37]

As long as a piece of paper is backed by gold...Either way the gold standard is innevitable. All empires fail. The dollar has lost 98% of its value since 1913, The federal reserve act. The Dollar will collapse just a matter of when.

[cliaz]

I have a rather large collection of silver certificates. I have a $5 SC from 1935 (I believe that is the date) that my grandfather was given as a little boy. He stuck it in his bible and forgot about it for decades. It's practically in almost mint condition.

 

I also have (last time I weighed it) 13lbs in silver coins that are too banged up to keep in a private coin collection. And if you were to break in to my safe you would be able to steal 1/2 an oz of gold coins.

[Brentastic]

Exactly! States cannot grant title of nobility. Wait, what?

 

ETA: I've read Art I, Section 10 once or twice. It prohibits the STATES from doing certain things. More specifically, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." Section 10 does not pertain to Congress... but Section 8 does.

 

The Congress, pursuant to Art I Section 8, is given the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." No mention is made of gold or silver. In fact, the restriction placed on the states in Section 10 is the only place in the Constitution that gold or silver are mentioned. The myth that the fed is unconstitutional, or that the gold standard is constitutionally required, is easily debunked.

 

Now that you know what those sections of the Constitution actually say, are you for it? Or against it? TIA

So what is your stance on the Federal Reserve? It sounds like you're a fan, which is surprising.

[Brentastic]

This is an interesting thread that revealed something to me. For all of my blathering about Constitutional Rights and all of that, I know very little about central banks and the Federal Reserve. I did know, however, that it was not regulated by the federal government.

 

Wiegie - you may get a flurry of PM messages from me with tons of questions - sorry in advance

If you're looking for an unbiased opinion, I suggest looking elsewhere for advice. Practically all economists in the US (wiegie included) follow on philosophy and IMO that philosophy is severely flawed. Ask whatever questions you want of wiegie and then visit www.mises.org to get another angle (and a more correct angle IMO).

[sundaynfl]

It's an old book; but a good read on this subject. Secrets of the Temple- How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country- William Greider.