You said you'd need over 500 characters to explain what you meant:
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=ATsbbIJD3ew
Your part: "(uploader) The Federal Reserve is "owned" by 12 district banks, which in turn are "owned" by the member banks in their district.
Now, if you want me to explain why I put the word "owned" in quotes, I'm gonna need more than 500 characters..."
I WAS going to post a bit you put in another video about ownership and why the Fed is publicly owned based on profits, liabilities, etc; but I can't find it...
I remember you noted that the profits the fed makes goes to the Treasury (a public institution).
Control is via Congress...and I can't remember your comment beyond that...
Some argue that, "Well, they answer to no one; they've put themselves above the law" but how is this ANY different from how the rest of the government operates?
I mean, if the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, while the government constantly violates it, is it not true that they are also above the law in the sense mentioned here?
Also, consider this mises.org Forum thread: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8197.aspx
"The very fact that people can call a government central bank, created by Congress, with 7 board members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, operating under the decree of government creating legal tender, and being exempt from taxes, and free from any competition 'de jure private' is just completely laughable in itself."
The Fed is indeed "owned" by the district banks, which respectively are owned by the banks in their district, in a federated system, but:
1. Profits, except for a tiny amount that goes back into the operating budget, go to the Treasury (shouldn't the owners get the profits?)
2. Decisions are made by the Board of Governors and a chairman, who are appointed by Congress (shouldn't the owners elect the board?)
3. Congress can, at any time it wants, issue orders to the Fed without restriction (shouldn't owners have the right to due process?)
4. One cannot sell or trade their stock (then in what sense do you own it?)
5. They can't give up ownership
So, they own the Fed, except that they have no control over it, make none of the profits, can't trade their stock, and can't even get out of the system. They "own" the Fed in every way other than all of the ways that constitute ownership in the real world.
In short, the district banks only have, at best, the title part component of ownership and nothing else.
Hardly enough to quality as full ownership, or even quasi-private ownership.
As LibertyStudent once said: "When... Alex Jones talk[s] about private bankers, he is letting all of the government crooks off the hook[.]"
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 24, 2010, 08:55:30 PM
The Fed is indeed "owned" by the district banks, which respectively are owned by the banks in their district, in a federated system, but:
1. Profits, except for a tiny amount that goes back into the operating budget, go to the Treasury (shouldn't the owners get the profits?)
don't you think that most member banks make enough profit from their own banks?
The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5)
Quote from: sfiorare on November 28, 2010, 05:10:47 PMdon't you think that most member banks make enough profit from their own banks?
Irrelevant. We're talking about who owns the Federal Reserve. One aspect of ownership is profit; if they DID make a profit then you could at least make the argument that they're owners in some respects. But they don't.
Quoteownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.
Which I covered in my comment. If you can't sell something, then that's another aspect of ownership that you don't possess.
So we're still left with: there is not one single aspect of ownership that anyone other than the Federal government could be said to have of the Federal Reserve.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 05:16:55 PM
So we're still left with: there is not one single aspect of ownership that anyone other than the Federal government could be said to have of the Federal Reserve.
i agree, for the most part
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.
source: the fed
but, the member banks most likely make quite a handsome profit from the loans they make re-lending fed credit and etc
Quote from: sfiorare on November 28, 2010, 05:36:59 PMThe Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone
It's owned by the Federal government, in every way that matters.
Quoteand is not a private, profit-making institution.
Yet, it still makes LOTS of profits for the US Treasury...
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 28, 2010, 05:44:07 PM
It's owned by the Federal government, in every way that matters.
Yet, it still makes LOTS of profits for the US Treasury...
you make it sound like all the people in the treasury and government get to divvy up the money and take it home
The politicians get to spend that money however they see fit, yes. Don't think that most of it isn't in their pet pork-barrel programs.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 29, 2010, 06:12:29 AM
The politicians get to spend that money however they see fit, yes. Don't think that most of it isn't in their pet pork-barrel programs.
do i detect a bit of envy there?
Quote from: sfiorare on November 29, 2010, 08:54:13 AM
do i detect a bit of envy there?
No, just perfectly-justified indignation at having some of my wealth stolen from me to use in this manner.
You really are king of the rhetorical cheap shots, aren't you?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 29, 2010, 04:22:37 PM
No, just perfectly-justified indignation at having some of my wealth stolen from me to use in this manner.
You really are king of the rhetorical cheap shots, aren't you?
without taxation paying for infrastructure and credit for development, i doubt you'd have nearly the income you have, now
Broken Window Fallacy.
Quote from: sfiorare on November 29, 2010, 08:03:58 PM
that's a funny one
Yeah, its' really funny to claim that braking a store owners window DOESN'T do good to the economy. Hilarious!
Quote from: VectorM on November 29, 2010, 10:40:58 PM
Yeah, its' really funny to claim that braking a store owners window DOESN'T do good to the economy. Hilarious!
there's no broken window
Broken Window Fallacy isn't just about broken windows ::)
Quote from: VectorM on November 30, 2010, 01:08:39 AM
Broken Window Fallacy isn't just about broken windows ::)
what grade are you in?
Your problem is that you're not funny anymore, Charlie Brown.
Quote from: sfiorare on November 30, 2010, 08:16:32 AM
what grade are you in?
Are you confusing "broken window fallacy" with "broken window effect", or are you plain "silly" ?
Quote from: Gumba Masta on November 30, 2010, 08:26:58 AM
Your problem is that you're not funny anymore, Charlie Brown.
you're misreading, i'm not trying to be funny
Quote from: VectorM on November 30, 2010, 08:41:49 AM
Are you confusing "broken window fallacy" with "broken window effect", or are you plain "silly" ?
neither
The Broken Windows Theory, then? You think that what I said somehow had something to do with preventing criminal behavior?
OK, sfiorare, you desperately need to read this: http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf
The Broken Window Fallacy is covered in Chapter 2.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 30, 2010, 09:35:04 AM
You think that what I said somehow had something to do with preventing criminal behavior?
i don't see any connection
The Broken Window Theory (as opposed to the Broken Window Fallacy) says that repairing broken windows in a neighborhood will reduce crime. You said you weren't talking about the Broken Window Fallacy (elucidated in the link I gave you) or the Broken Window Effect (a concept in IT where downtime becomes tolerated and workarounds become the norm). That's the only other Broken Window thing I know of.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 30, 2010, 11:17:57 AM
The Broken Window Theory (as opposed to the Broken Window Fallacy) says that repairing broken windows in a neighborhood will reduce crime. You said you weren't talking about the Broken Window Fallacy (elucidated in the link I gave you) or the Broken Window Effect (a concept in IT where downtime becomes tolerated and workarounds become the norm). That's the only other Broken Window thing I know of.
nothing i posted has any logical connection to broken windows
You do know that when Shane talks about a broken window fallacy he does'nt mean a actual window that's broken, right?
Quote from: Gumba Masta on November 30, 2010, 12:46:04 PM
You do know that when Shane talks about a broken window fallacy he does'nt mean a actual window that's broken, right?
right
I honestly don't know what you're looking for here, sfiorare, but you're not behaving in the manner of someone who wants a rational discussion, or someone who wants to learn.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 30, 2010, 03:32:31 PM
I honestly don't know what you're looking for here, sfiorare, but you're not behaving in the manner of someone who wants a rational discussion, or someone who wants to learn.
you're projecting
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 30, 2010, 03:32:31 PM
I honestly don't know what you're looking for here, sfiorare, but you're not behaving in the manner of someone who wants a rational discussion, or someone who wants to learn.
Aww, can we still keep him, he's so adorable.
I'll hug him and feed him and groom him and call him Joe.
He's not as annoying as RCO was, I'll give you that.
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 30, 2010, 05:35:37 PM
He's not as annoying as RCO was, I'll give you that.
Eh, I must have been the only one who liked RCO, huh?
Quote from: MrBogosity on November 30, 2010, 05:35:37 PM
He's not as annoying as RCO was, I'll give you that.
*horrifying flashback*
I keep trying to ignore him, yet he keeps coming back... coming back... coming back...
I'll take that as a yes...
Quote from: sfiorare on November 30, 2010, 08:43:59 AM
you're misreading, i'm not trying to be funny
You are unintentionally hilarious, actually.
Quotenothing i posted has any logical connection to broken windows
Wait, are you taking that LITERALLY?!
(http://www.picvalley.net/u/2964/13740290476654694661291175024eXV5bA01snnFpcbkfJcW.JPG) (http://www.picvalley.net/v.php?p=u/2964/13740290476654694661291175024eXV5bA01snnFpcbkfJcW.JPG)
Quote from: sfiorare on November 30, 2010, 11:54:50 PM
can you read?
Can you comprehend anything at all?
Or at least try to shed some light in to what the hell your point is? Your latest comments border on the nonsensical. Not to mention unapologetic trolling.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on November 30, 2010, 05:53:10 PM
Eh, I must have been the only one who liked RCO, huh?
I liked him too, he was an inspiration to all of us. @_@
Who the hell is RCO?
Real Captain Olimar. Look at some of his posts from days of yore.
Ahh Real Captain Olimar. I remember him well.
He was a man in full control of his faculties as he hung them out to dry in the rain.
Quote from: VectorM on December 01, 2010, 12:26:13 AM
Can you comprehend anything at all?
Or at least try to shed some light in to what the hell your point is? Your latest comments border on the nonsensical. Not to mention unapologetic trolling.
the nonsense is coming from you
Quote from: sfiorare on December 01, 2010, 09:41:35 AM
the nonsense is coming from you
Thank you for the logical reasoning, sir. Your nonsensical one sentence claims have added a great deal of intellectual diversity to this fine forum!
Quote from: VectorM on December 01, 2010, 09:46:02 AM
Thank you for the logical reasoning, sir. Your nonsensical one sentence claims have added a great deal of intellectual diversity to this fine forum!
do you think this added a great deal of intellectual diversity?
"Yeah, its' really funny to claim that braking a store owners window DOESN'T do good to the economy. Hilarious!"
the fact is that it has no valid relationship to anything i wrote
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 01, 2010, 08:01:36 AM
Ahh Real Captain Olimar. I remember him well.
He was a man in full control of his faculties as he hung them out to dry in the rain.
Huh. You're on a roll this week, Gumba.
Quote from: sfiorare on December 01, 2010, 11:41:13 AM
do you think this added a great deal of intellectual diversity?
"Yeah, its' really funny to claim that braking a store owners window DOESN'T do good to the economy. Hilarious!"
the fact is that it has no valid relationship to anything i wrote
Play him off, Keyboard cat!
[yt]J---aiyznGQ[/yt]
it stinks around here anyway
Quote from: sfiorare on December 01, 2010, 11:41:13 AM
do you think this added a great deal of intellectual diversity?
"Yeah, its' really funny to claim that braking a store owners window DOESN'T do good to the economy. Hilarious!"
the fact is that it has no valid relationship to anything i wrote
It only has no valid relationship, because you have no concept of what Broken Window Fallacy is, on top of your poor comprehension skills.
And people also gave you an explanation of every possible "Broken Window" thing out there and you still acted like a dumbwit.
You've shown to be the type of guy that asks "Do you want the right one or the left one" when asked to "Give a hand".
Quote from: VectorM on December 01, 2010, 10:43:56 PM
It only has no valid relationship, because you have no concept of what Broken Window Fallacy is, on top of your poor comprehension skills.
And people also gave you an explanation of every possible "Broken Window" thing out there and you still acted like a dumbwit.
You've shown to be the type of guy that asks "Do you want the right one or the left one" when asked to "Give a hand".
i guess you think everyone is as stupid as you apparently are
Quote from: sfiorare on December 01, 2010, 10:57:01 PM
i guess you think everyone is as stupid as you apparently are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp
Quote from: Virgil0211 on December 01, 2010, 11:33:03 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
http://freedomkeys.com/window.htm
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp
stupid and desperate
Quote from: sfiorare on December 02, 2010, 12:05:54 AM
think
You don't get to slack off. Support your assertions with reasoning and evidence.
Quote from: sfiorare on December 02, 2010, 12:05:54 AMthink
Oh, no, PLEASE don't tell me you're one of those Desteni Cult wankers...
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on December 02, 2010, 12:09:50 AM
Oh, no, PLEASE don't tell me you're one of those Destini cult wankers...
I'm going to brace my mind against the sheer stupidity of what that could refer to, and simply assume 'Destini Cult' is some female pop idol wannabe to whom sfiorare regularly 'wanks', in addition to Rage Against the Machine.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on December 02, 2010, 12:12:24 AM
I'm going to brace my mind against the sheer stupidity of what that could refer to, and simply assume 'Desteni Cult' is some female pop idol wannabe to whom sfiorare regularly 'wanks', in addition to Rage Against the Machine.
No, unfortunately, this is something much worse:
[yt]tnOwLjg8EYU[/yt]
[yt]Bjco91DLHLk[/yt]
Basically, it's the bastard child of Scientology and The Venus Project.
Shouldn't sfiorare be banned at this point? He is just flaming people right now.
Quote from: VectorM on December 02, 2010, 12:28:48 AM
Shouldn't sfiorare be banned at this point? He is just flaming people right now.
Nah. What better way to demonstrate the idiocy of his position than by having him play the village idiot, writing down his babbling for all to see.
On a related note, just checked the who's online list, and there are apparently three people registering for accounts on this site. Any guesses as to what would cause such a thing? :-P
Also one guest who's apparently performing an 'unknown action'. Not familiar enough with discussion board coding to guess what that might be. Maybe someone's attempting to hack the site?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on December 02, 2010, 12:17:04 AM
No, unfortunately, this is something much worse:
[yt]tnOwLjg8EYU[/yt]
[yt]Bjco91DLHLk[/yt]
Basically, it's the bastard child of Scientology and The Venus Project.
[yt]VHsKEIEXH7c&feature=related[/yt]
THEY ARE EATING HER!!!
AND THEN THEY ARE GONNA EAT ME!!!
OH MY GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWD!!!
Oh, btw, skip to 5:00.
[yt]hfTJGAVMCDk&NR[/yt]
Mind blown.
Quote from: VectorM on December 02, 2010, 12:28:48 AM
Shouldn't sfiorare be banned at this point? He is just flaming people right now.
As far as I can see, he hasn't broken Da Rules.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on December 02, 2010, 01:10:29 AMOn a related note, just checked the who's online list, and there are apparently three people registering for accounts on this site. Any guesses as to what would cause such a thing? :-P
Spammers, most likely. It happens all the time. Fortunately, the software I installed when we started having a big problem with them seems to be working like gangbusters. To date, it has prevented over 150 known spammers from posting!
Oh my, for a moment I read that as gangbangers. Phew.
Gangbanging the spammers out would be kinda funny. Or not.
In fact, just this morning we had 5 known spammers sign up, all from different IP addresses.
They're finding us somehow!
2 things:
1) Love your new userpic VectorM! :)
2) Everyone check it out! sfiorare broke RCO's record for most bogons!
LOL, i didn't even vote for him as much. Dayum, that's one bogon attractor.
You might not have voted on him much, but I sure did. ;3
Didn't RCO take months to rack that up? And this guy does it in under a week?
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 03, 2010, 10:45:54 AM
Didn't RCO take months to rack that up? And this guy does it in under a week?
It also took RCO 250 posts, while it takes this guy 46 posts.
I think he will end up with more bogons than posts ;D
Quote from: VectorM on December 03, 2010, 01:27:21 PMI think he will end up with more bogons than posts ;D
He does now. ;D
Just checking, but does anyone else have anything to say about the actual topic?
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 03, 2010, 07:30:23 PMJust checking, but does anyone else have anything to say about the actual topic?
I don't.
By the way, I sent you a PM through this forum. Did you get it?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on December 03, 2010, 10:01:14 AM
1) Love your new userpic VectorM! :)
I second that, though I preferred Dukat and Garak. =P
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on December 03, 2010, 07:32:01 PM
I don't.
By the way, I sent you a PM through this forum. Did you get it?
Oh, so did I. On both counts.
Quote from: sfiorare
'it's obvious that presidents do influence the fed and that congress created it to be that way.'
Quote from: Virgil0211
invalid appeal to common knowledge fallacy and an argument by assertion fallacy. Can you respond to a legitimate argument without resorting to fallacies?
hey Virgil0211, stop pretending you understand logic, philosophy, history and economics
"monetary policy is quite responsive to political climate, especially as represented by the preferences of the President"
source: 'Congress, the President and the Federal Reserve' by Irwin L Morris p 9
link: http://books.google.com/books?id=yJRtr5zu0AMC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=the+political+influence+of+the+fed+%22weintraub%22&source=bl&ots=HUrIOzhAaP&sig=WUtm0j8Ckf0PMQZZAG9Fgbu7feA&hl=en&ei=VkQCTcacKsOC8gbau9jtAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20political%20influence%20of%20the%20fed%20%22weintraub%22&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=yJRtr5zu0AMC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=the+political+influence+of+the+fed+%22weintraub%22&source=bl&ots=HUrIOzhAaP&sig=WUtm0j8Ckf0PMQZZAG9Fgbu7feA&hl=en&ei=VkQCTcacKsOC8gbau9jtAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20political%20influence%20of%20the%20fed%20%22weintraub%22&f=false)
**************************************************************************************************
"Several administrations used appointments to influence Federal Reserve decisions"
source: History Of The Federal Reserve By Allan H. Meltzer p 21
link: http://books.google.com/books?id=8peFljjm5CQC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=nixon+influence+federal+reserve&source=bl&ots=xkYppyGTR1&sig=cNoL4XLClJPZN30nZjoc-WilFgc&hl=en&ei=UUICTb-2H4Gq8AbMwum9CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=nixon%20influence%20federal%20reserve&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=8peFljjm5CQC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=nixon+influence+federal+reserve&source=bl&ots=xkYppyGTR1&sig=cNoL4XLClJPZN30nZjoc-WilFgc&hl=en&ei=UUICTb-2H4Gq8AbMwum9CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=nixon%20influence%20federal%20reserve&f=false)
**************************************************************************************************
if you [fed chairman] want to keep your job... you do what the boss [president] wants
source: Thomas DiLorenzo go to 35:00 [yt]VTs2ttdKatQ[/yt]
**************************************************************************************************
Quote from: Virgil0211
Anyone who wants to see this guy get torn to shreds whilst committing fallacy after fallacy in a vain attempt to save himself, check out the bogosity.tv forums. Considering how poorly he's able to defend himself, it's no wonder he started deleting comments that refer to the place on his page.
wrong again, but that's pretty funny coming from someone that blocked me on you tube
what's the matter, did you get tired of being shown your errors?
My good goodness. You actually made a post longer than a word.
Are you feeling well?
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 10, 2010, 12:08:18 PM
My good goodness. You actually made a post longer than a word.
Are you feeling well?
i feel fine
remind me what grade you're in?
Second grade. I'm your senior so watch it.
Quote from: sfiorare on December 10, 2010, 12:38:41 PM
i feel fine
remind me what grade you're in?
No capital letters, just like in ALL of your posts, including YouTube.
You are a master of self irony.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 10, 2010, 01:14:44 PM
Second grade. I'm your senior so watch it.
i completed the 2nd grade in 1963
Quote from: VectorM on December 10, 2010, 01:17:24 PM
No capital letters, just like in ALL of your posts, including YouTube.
You are a master of self irony.
have you ever heard of ee cummings or bill gates?
Quote from: sfiorare on December 10, 2010, 01:28:14 PM
I completed the 2nd grade in 1963.
Welcome to 1962, Marty.
Quote from: sfiorare on December 10, 2010, 11:10:28 AM
hey Virgil0211, stop pretending you understand logic, philosophy, history and economics
"monetary policy is quite responsive to political climate, especially as represented by the preferences of the President"
source: 'Congress, the President and the Federal Reserve' by Irwin L Morris p 9
link: http://books.google.com/books?id=yJRtr5zu0AMC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=the+political+influence+of+the+fed+%22weintraub%22&source=bl&ots=HUrIOzhAaP&sig=WUtm0j8Ckf0PMQZZAG9Fgbu7feA&hl=en&ei=VkQCTcacKsOC8gbau9jtAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20political%20influence%20of%20the%20fed%20%22weintraub%22&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=yJRtr5zu0AMC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=the+political+influence+of+the+fed+%22weintraub%22&source=bl&ots=HUrIOzhAaP&sig=WUtm0j8Ckf0PMQZZAG9Fgbu7feA&hl=en&ei=VkQCTcacKsOC8gbau9jtAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20political%20influence%20of%20the%20fed%20%22weintraub%22&f=false)
**************************************************************************************************
"Several administrations used appointments to influence Federal Reserve decisions"
source: History Of The Federal Reserve By Allan H. Meltzer p 21
link: http://books.google.com/books?id=8peFljjm5CQC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=nixon+influence+federal+reserve&source=bl&ots=xkYppyGTR1&sig=cNoL4XLClJPZN30nZjoc-WilFgc&hl=en&ei=UUICTb-2H4Gq8AbMwum9CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=nixon%20influence%20federal%20reserve&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=8peFljjm5CQC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=nixon+influence+federal+reserve&source=bl&ots=xkYppyGTR1&sig=cNoL4XLClJPZN30nZjoc-WilFgc&hl=en&ei=UUICTb-2H4Gq8AbMwum9CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=nixon%20influence%20federal%20reserve&f=false)
**************************************************************************************************
if you [fed chairman] want to keep your job... you do what the boss [president] wants
source: Thomas DiLorenzo go to 35:00 [yt]VTs2ttdKatQ[/yt]
**************************************************************************************************
wrong again, but that's pretty funny coming from someone that blocked me on you tube
what's the matter, did you get tired of being shown your errors?
The discussion you're referring to was about the ability of the president to influence the policy of the Federal reserve during the great depression. All of your sources refer to the structure of the federal reserve right now. FletchforFreedom already beat you on this argument. Your only response to the data was to repeat your original argument, the argument by assertion fallacy.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FletchforFreedom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTs2ttdKatQ
Interesting how you can't even defend yourself except by insulting, quote-mining your opponent, and substituting reasoned arguments for clumsy rhetoric. If you're just going to bore me instead of presenting a challenge, or even an argument, why should I spend that much time on you? You're little more than an amusement to me. You want onto my friends list so that you can message me? Prove yourself. Make one good argument for every bad one you've made here, against Fletch, etc. By now, you're up to 37, and that's just in the past 2 weeks.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on December 10, 2010, 10:19:27 PM
The discussion you're referring to was about the ability of the president to influence the policy of the Federal reserve during the great depression.
no, i said the president had influence over the federal reserve before, during and after the depression
Quote from: sfiorare on December 10, 2010, 11:08:28 PM
No, I said the president had influence over the federal reserve before, during and after the depression.
Which means exactly what? That frogs eat lepers during hollidays? That cows and pigs have a tendency to break into songs about a poor jewish kid discovering his love for the violin? Could you please elaborate more?
Quote from: Gumba Masta on December 11, 2010, 03:02:52 AM
Which means exactly what? That frogs eat lepers during hollidays? That cows and pigs have a tendency to break into songs about a poor jewish kid discovering his love for the violin? Could you please elaborate more?
watch the video, read the books i referenced, google it or take econ 101
Quote from: sfiorare on December 11, 2010, 09:34:28 AM
Watch the video, read the books I referenced, google it or take econ 101.
Videos are used by our reptilian overlords to rot our brains, Google is a tool by the NWO to screen our sperm and books are eating our children!
Also, I'm taking one of your bogons put them in my bunker.
Quote from: sfiorare on December 11, 2010, 09:34:28 AM
watch the video, read the books i referenced, google it or take econ 101
Homework Fallacy.
Quote from: sfiorare on December 10, 2010, 11:08:28 PM
no, i said the president had influence over the federal reserve before, during and after the depression
And your evidence only refers to the present or recent time, not the time period in question. A complete non sequitur.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on December 11, 2010, 03:23:24 PM
And your evidence only refers to the present or recent time, not the time period in question. A complete non sequitur.
you're wrong again, the ability to appoint the fed chairman constitutes power & influence, hoover used that power in 1930 when he appointed meyer
Was that before or after he invented the vacuum cleaner?
Quote from: sfiorare on December 12, 2010, 11:38:08 AM
you're wrong again, the ability to appoint the fed chairman constitutes power & influence, hoover used that power in 1930 when he appointed meyer
Let's see how Fletch responds to your arguments. Sfiorare in Red, Fletch in Blue.
no, i said the president had influence over the federal reserve before, during and after the depression
Yes, we know what you said. It is no less factually inaccurate than the first time you said it. The susceptibility of the Fed to political influence developed over time (along with the increased power of the Fed chairman). The power of the Federal Reserve bank of New York was such that, on its own, it made the decision to expand the money supply to aid Britain in its revaluation of its currency in the wake of WWI. This was the impetus for the boom that inevitably busted. The influence of the president over the Fed historically did NOT develop until well into FDR's term. That is history.
even today there are people that say congress and the president have no influence over the fed; the myth of the fed being ultra-powerful and completely independent is just that, a myth
But then I did not argue that the Fed is completely private and uninfluenced by the government today. That the Fed is a governmnet-created monopoly that is responsive to presidential power today is certainly true. I made an argument regarding the historical conditions as they existed during the first two decades of the Fed's existence - from 1913 to the mid-1930s - during which time it was not subject ti the same infuence because the dynamic reflected a weak chairman and a particularly powerful regional bank in New York that was in no small part the architect of the Great Depression and was all but immune to external influence.
that's right, the fed was not immune to presidential influence
You do, of course, realize that all you have accomplished now is to make yourself look foolish (and sometimes looks are not deceiving). That Hoover was completely unable to alter Fed policy before, during and, certainly, after his presidencey is an historical fact. You may choose to believe otherwise and that the Fed did what Hoover wanted. You may choose to believe that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Great Pumpkin and Elvis are really Fed governors helping the institution safeguard the nation's economy. They have roughly the same provenance.
show the information source of your 'so called' fact
You might start with Amity Shlae's "The Forgotten Man", particularly at the outset where the role of the New York Fed is expanding the money supply in the first place and its actions thereafter; move on to Jim Powell's "FDR's Folly", though as I recall the mention there is merely tangential, or any of the recorded procedings of the Fed at the time (as opposed to Hoover's memoirs written long after which you have misinterpreted). Any reading of either Friedman & Schwart's "Monetary History of the United States" or Rothbard's "America's Great Depression" shows the autonomy demonstrated by the Fed and the absence of any Hoover influence.
My expertise is on the disastrous economic consequences of state-supported unionism which requires an understanding of the economic causes and circumstances of the Great Depression.
i'm familiar with all those works/authors and it's just as i suspected, you cite highly biased sources (rothbard, shlaes & powell) that have political axes to grind; also you haven't presented any direct citation with a link
The opnly "bias" is (obviously) your own. You dismiss such sources entirely without basis because they do not conform to your worldview. That these works are not available on-line does not make them any less valid (and you haven't produced so much as the tiniest shred of evidence to support your view - merely a tangential reference to Hoover's memoirs - so your response now is entirely hypocritical.
My point has been made and your (gross and frequent) factual inaccuracies are not my problem, so I'll be moving on (excepting comments to videos that need correction lest false information be disseminated). It doesn't appear that the cdomments here are from anyone that takes you at all seriously anyway.
Adieu.
It would seem that you've already been thoroughly beaten on this subject. That is, unless, you're willing to drop your ignorance and actually check the sources you've been provided.
Quote from: Virgil0211 on December 12, 2010, 01:12:50 PM
It would seem that you've already been thoroughly beaten on this subject. That is, unless, you're willing to drop your ignorance and actually check the sources you've been provided.
notice how there is nothing in those comments disproving my assertion
Quote from: sfiorare on December 14, 2010, 09:58:32 AM
notice how there is nothing in those comments disproving my assertion
No, please do point it out to me.
Quote from: sfiorare on December 14, 2010, 09:58:32 AM
notice how there is nothing in those comments disproving my assertion
Even if you were correct, which you aren't, it would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. Screaming bias is only valid if you have a basis for making such a claim. Even then, it would only go to motive, and wouldn't have anything directly to do with the source itself. In order to really refute a source, you need to find a problem with the information presented within in and of itself.
Yet another link in the long chain of illogic that is sfiorare.
my assertion stands and nothing has been posted that disproves it
Quote from: sfiorare on December 15, 2010, 06:49:55 PMmy assertion stands and nothing has been posted that disproves it
Cool story, bro.
Quote from: sfiorare on December 15, 2010, 06:49:55 PMmy assertion stands and nothing has been posted that disproves it
You really don't get how this logic stuff works, do you?
It's not that hard is it,
You grind the beans, pour hot water over them and voila...Oh wait, that's coffee, not logic. Sorry.
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 15, 2010, 08:39:42 PM
You really don't get how this logic stuff works, do you?
Oh, silly Shane. You can't prove that he is 100% wrong, can you? That means he is right!
Quote from: MrBogosity on December 15, 2010, 08:39:42 PM
You really don't get how this logic stuff works, do you?
certainly i do
Ha ha, you say the darnest things. :P
You know Sfiofare, I admire your tenacity.
I've given up teaching these commie bootlickers the error of their ways a long time ago.
I suppose I'll end this off with a Fav Quote.
"The very fact that people can call a government central bank, created by Congress, with 7 board members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, operating under the decree of government creating legal tender, and being exempt from taxes, and free from any competition 'de jure private' is just completely laughable in itself." --Chris; the first post on that linked thread (http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8197.aspx)