Who owns the FED?

[MrBogosity]

watch the video, read the books i referenced, google it or take econ 101

Homework Fallacy.

[Virgil0211]

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.

[sfiorare]

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

[Gumba Masta]

Was that before or after he invented the vacuum cleaner?

[Virgil0211]

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.

[sfiorare]

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

[Gumba Masta]

notice how there is nothing in those comments disproving my assertion

No, please do point it out to me.

[Virgil0211]

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.

[sfiorare]

my assertion stands and nothing has been posted that disproves it

[Travis Retriever]

my assertion stands and nothing has been posted that disproves it

Cool story, bro.

[MrBogosity]

my assertion stands and nothing has been posted that disproves it

You really don't get how this logic stuff works, do you?

[Gumba Masta]

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.

[VectorM]

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!

[sfiorare]

You really don't get how this logic stuff works, do you?

certainly i do

[Gumba Masta]

Ha ha, you say the darnest things.