Why do people (if you can call libertarians people) have such an irrational hatred of the Federal Reserve?

Why do people (if you can call libertarians people) have such an irrational hatred of the Federal Reserve?

Other urls found in this thread:

multpl.com/s-p-500-earnings/
yardeni.com/pub/YARDENICHARTBOOKDAILY.PDF
digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9044/m1/1/high_res_d/IP0281G.pdf
federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20160921a.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises
yardeni.com/pub/FOFEQBND.PDF
yardeni.com/pub/FOFCORPFIN.PDF
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

National Bank shouldn't be privately owned, currency policy should be the realm of a publically owned national bank.

First off, that's a myth, every bank besides the New York Fed is publically owned, and second off, it doesn't matter who owns it, it matters who controls it, which in the case of the FOMC is publically appointed officials.

Publically =/= state owned

It's not necessarily irrational. I agree with the existence of the Federal Reserve, but a lot of them agree with Hayek's view. They might necessarily agree with certain policies taken by the Fed, but are opposed to the Fed's monopoly on currency. Opposition to giving ExxonMobil a monopoly on oil drilling doesn't equal opposition to oil drilling is the general vibe I get out of them.

So as a libertarian, you think that Bernie Sanders should be able to depress the interest rate until we have full employment?

A publicly owned Fed would give us something worse than our current Monetarism/Keynesianism hybrid, it'd give us Post-Keynesianism because of the Sanders-Warren wing of the Democrats. They'd use it to support socialist policies in the name of having full employment all the time, rather than just during recessions.

No I'm not American and my views have nothing to do with Bernie Sanders or the democratic party or Post Keynesianism.

I'm advocating state capitalism.

because theyre mad thyre not the ones printing money

>state capitalism

That's like a 'democratic dictatorship.'

Not at all

Sometimes i think that Libertarians are people who almost made it to Communism but stopped short and took a detour to Randland.

Because muh gold

Never read Rand. We're not all objectivists. Thanks for trolling.

Not one cent of federal income tax goes to pay for any program.

The pie charts that you see describing the allocation of the budget are fiction. The actual disbursement of funding was thoroughly audited in the 1980s and proved that it all goes to pay Fed interest.

The Fed/IRS/Income Tax were "enacted" simultaneously for a reason. The monetary pool does not include the counterfeiting fee (interest) - the income tax is a gunpoint guarantee that the fee will be paid either through more borrowing or the forfeiture of real assets by the government (by force).

>libertarians are not people, hue hue

>irrational fear of what nearly everyone agrees is inevitable economic catastrophe

$inflation/10, made me reply to this completely shite bait.

>The actual disbursement of funding was thoroughly audited in the 1980s and proved that it all goes to pay Fed interest.
source?

infowars link incoming

wtf does this even mean?

Communsim and Ayn Rand are polar opposites retard

Prove it, all of those have been successful so far.

Every economist who has any worth agrees that central banking is a good thing (99.9% of a economists). Take your retarded and irrelevant Austrian School of Thought somewhere else.

How so? she collected social security she paid into? She used public roads?

Did you know Karl Marx used goods that were bought and sold for profit?

I don't see why there is a double standard for Ayn Rand

No double standard. Just one standard to not be a hypocritical cunt

i don't even know what the fed does, but i hate it.

Just because I have slaves and think it should be illegal to own them doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Have you ever read any of Ayn Rand's works?

What makes /her/ justified in using social security, an inherently altruistic system, for her own benefit simply because she paid into it, but suddenly in Atlas Shrugged it's unjustified for James Taggart to use the government to take out his competition (Phoenix-Durango). Taggart pays into the system, isn't he entitled to something out of it?

That's the flaw with objectivism. I've read and own Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Virtue of Selfishness, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged.

Using Ayn Rand's logic, they wouldn't be. Ayn Rand frequently equated christianity with communism because both endorsed "self-sacrifice."

Assuming you're an unironic Objectivist, you have no grounds to, therefore, oppose the equation of communism and objectivism on the grounds that both are based in radical materialism and the rejection of Christianity.

Reminder that if Rand's philosophy were worth a grain of salt, the people clamoring for lower regulations, lower taxes, and smaller government would not conveniently be supported in large part by Evangelicals.

nicely said

The Grace Commission. President Reagan ordered the audit himself, and had a group of experts conduct an audit. Look it up yourself.

>who has any worth

e.g., everyone who agrees with you, agrees with you.

Back2rdt with your shite bait and personal attacks.

> So as a libertarian, you think that Bernie Sanders should be able to depress the interest rate until we have full employment?

You should probably take 5 minutes to understand libertarianism before you wade into this.

Your lack of understanding of any of this is why people think libertarians are retarded. Because they are.

Lol. The FED is why my job sucks!!

So how are those programs paid for? Lol. You watched one too many YouTube conspiracy videos.

Go through the top ten economic journals and find 1 fucking papers that agrees with you.

You should probably take 30 seconds to read the conversation before you reply with this.

I'm point out that a publicly owned Fed would be a fucking disaster from a libertarian point of view. I think I understand libertarianism, I was one for like two years until I came to my senses and realized that if every major economist disagrees with you, it's not because they're wrong.

[Citation needed]
And no, not a fucking conspiratard website
Heads up, 98% of all economists worth their salt aren't getting paid off by muh Rothschild banks

It's easy to hate and be fearful of things you don't understand. People hear the government is printing 80 billion a month, and think omg were going bankrupt. Plus, people try and use their personal understand of spending and budgets, and apply it in a macro sense.

^this

I find it hilarious that libertarians take an introductory microeconomics course and suddenly think they're hot shit and will criticize liberals for being economically illiterate, while having no knowledge about macroeconomics international trade

^^^again, this

libertarians are the ones screaming about "ECONOMIC ILLITERATES" when they literally know nothing of economics

Saying they take a microeconomics course is pretty generous

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Also Europeans are about to lol at you, because outside of the US Liberals and Libertarians are the same group. I understand what you mean though.

Curiously, why is there a concern that it is "privately owned"? It's not privately owned in the sense that profits are kept for the shareholders. Almost all of the Fed's profits are sent to the US Treasury. Also, it's not privately owned in the sense that the organization itself elects a board. The POTUS appoints the board of governors. Is the concern that it's not publicly owned that its policies are not controlled by the public? Is that it?

Or maybe people understand the desperate measures we've been taking in monetary policy and are cautious of it. Even the MSM talks about monetary policy no longer being as effective as we once thought.

>no longer being as effective
Until all financial assets are owned by the Fed and there is no more paper left to print money on, there is no excuse to say "monetary policy isn't effective"

It's effective at causing artificial bull markets on wall street.
Hows that inflation and interest rate goal going for them? Is yellen saying she's going to raise them or back to "negative rates is a serious possibility"? It's been 2 hours so I'm sure she switched it.

You think low interest rates are the cause of the bull market and not record earnings and revenues for public companies?

>record earnings and revenues for public companies?
Are you talking about corporate bond sales being at a high? What makes you think businesses are doing better than ever?

He literally just said revenue and earnings you imbecile

multpl.com/s-p-500-earnings/ Real EPS were at all time highs in 2013 and 2014 and we have not significantly dipped.

yardeni.com/pub/YARDENICHARTBOOKDAILY.PDF Forward EPS are at all time highs.

Why do you think it's artificial?

The snp500 measures stocks not revenues so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Why do you think interest rates are low if we're doing so well?

digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9044/m1/1/high_res_d/IP0281G.pdf

This is a link to the report handed directly to President Reagan.

Case closed, samefagging shills.

"Resistance to additional income taxes would be even
more widespread if people were aware that:
o One-third of all their taxes is consumed
by waste and inefficiency in the Federal
Government as we identified in our
survey.
o Another one-third of all their taxes
escapes collection from others as the
underground economy blossoms in direct
proportion to tax increases and places
even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers,
promoting still more underground
economy -- a vicious circle that must be
broken.
o With two-thirds of everyone's personal
income taxes wasted or not collected,
100 percent of what is collected is
absorbed solely by interest on the
Federal debt and by Federal Government
contributions to transfer payments. In
other words, all individual income tax
revenues are gone before one nickel is
spent on the services which taxpayers
expect from their Government. "

No. Libertarians do not advocate a publicly owned Fed. You don't know what you're talking about.

and understanding it is your burden, not ours. Go educate yourself, and learn how to argue without samefagging, trolling and name calling.

>Bernie Sanders
>any individual
>should be able to control interest rates

dude, you're in over your head.

What if I told you inflation is the only restriction on monetary policy?

>The snp500 measures stocks not revenues so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Surely the companies (the stocks) that constitute the SP500 have revenues and earnings, right? That's what those data sources show. If you were to take each of the 500 companies' EPS and multiply it by the percentage they represent in the SP500, you can arrive at the overall EPS of the SP500. Surely high earnings and revenues mean businesses are doing well? At least the SP500 businesses? The CHARTBOOKDAILY document also shows record high forward earnings and forward revenues for SP400 (mid cap) and SP600 (small cap). Surely 1500 companies doing well can be a proxy for the overall business climate?

>Why do you think interest rates are low if we're doing so well?

Well, the Fed attempts to explain this stuff. federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20160921a.htm

Here are some quotes:

>Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in July indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and growth of economic activity has picked up from the modest pace seen in the first half of this year.

>The Committee expects that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace and labor market conditions will strengthen somewhat further.

>Against this backdrop, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 1/4 to 1/2 percent. The Committee judges that the case for an increase in the federal funds rate has strengthened but decided, for the time being, to wait for further evidence of continued progress toward its objectives.

A lot of that press release seems to indicate that the primary reason why the fed funds rate is being kept low is because inflation is under their 2% threshold.

I think interest rates are low here because of the low fed funds rate and because they're low globally. The ECB and BoJ have been continuing to engage in QE.

>This poster literally never read about the panics of 1873, 1907, etc.

How did we get by before a Federal Reserve?

The economy was vastly less complex.

Is that a joke?

>"top ten" journals agree that "central banking" is a good thing

In other words, in your secluded universe, the "top ten" excludes any heretical non-Keynesian ideas.

Well, you sure showed me! Yes, central, bureaucratic control of the economy is a GREAT idea, and only (insert 10-year-old name calling here) would disagree!

for example: in ausland our reserve bank (equivalent of the fed) is independent of the federal govt (i.e. not controlled by parliament) but owned and ran (so the statement goes) for the public good.

that being said, all monetary policy has done (and can do) over the past years is to encourage investment, despite the fact that that investment has gone straight into non-productive assets (housing, and in this country there's a massive tax loophole for property investors, thank you rich and wealthy bankers!) and propped up the FIRE sector at the expense of more productive industries and the economy at large

now in the event of a viva la revolucion, you'd want to be able to publicly control the banking system, similar to how iceland did it a few years ago

macrobusiness.com.au (personally HnH is the most preachy of the bloggers but he makes for a good read, and the rest of them are guns)

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises, it looks like we got by, before a Federal Reserve, with banking crises in the US once every other decade.

No. The economy was vastly less complex prior to modern banking.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises

Looks like everything became significantly worse after we got off the gold standard.

The gold standard was no longer viable, do you actually understand why we left the gold standard user?

Markets are markets regardless of whether you're selling pomegranates at a bazaar or first mega bank is selling collateralized debt obligations to second mega bank.

You guys make markets sound more complicated than they actually are. I think this stems from you guys not actually knowing anything. Can markets become more sophisticated? I guess in the way that certain financial vehicles are used that incorporate multiple parties being affected, but the underlying economic rules are fundamentally the same. They don't change.

Sophisticated financial vehicles existed before the advent of the Fed.

I'm not trying to say that the sp500 is full of low profit corporations. If they were then they wouldn't be in the sp500. I'm saying keeping bond yields low has moved investors into the stock market which has inflated it. that and businesses selling bonds to buy back shares.

>Markets are markets regardless of whether you're selling pomegranates at a bazaar or first mega bank is selling collateralized debt obligations to second mega bank.

You know how I know you have zero education in economics past macro/micro 101 at best?

You know how I know you know nothing but enjoy pretending you do on the internet?

Further, I have a law degree and an MBA. Yes, I took macro and micro. No, I don't have an undergrad degree in economics.

However, I seriously doubt that you do as well. But continue with your false bravado and supercilious attitude. I want to see how long you can keep it up by saying nothing at all.

yardeni.com/pub/FOFEQBND.PDF shows, over the last 10 years, equity funds (mutual funds and ETFs) have grown from $3T to $4T. Bond funds have grown from $1.5T to $3.4T. Do you perhaps have data that shows that a ton of people are moving to hold individual stocks? It doesn't seem to me like there's a huge rotation of investors into equities.

yardeni.com/pub/FOFCORPFIN.PDF shows that, post crisis, non-financial new bond issues are growing from about $500B/yr to $750B/yr and that non-financial new equity issues are sort of stagnant between $50B/yr and $100B/yr. But, none of these look like the financials bond bubble prior to the 2008 crash.

My earlier points of pointing out earnings and revenues was to also (implicitly) point out that the SP500 price/forward earnings ratio doesn't really scream that we're in a bubble. Do you have some other indicator you look at?

Maybe because the state has a monopoly on currency creation.

Buttcoin is the first non-state currency that the feds haven't shut down because they realize that the world isn't going to put up with their shit anymore (and they sorta think the blockchain could be good for regulating things).

>law degree and an MBA
>on le internet arguing about economics ~midnight on a Tuesday

Also

>MBA

All opinions about economics automatically discarded.

I only minored in econ before I changed majors from IR, but I took macro and micro as one class, moved onto intermediate, then did International Macroeconomics and Finance.

>tossin out dem five dolla words when you trying to sound smart

If you can't admit that markets have become massively more complex since WW2, which happened post great depression, which led to modern globalism and the internet then we really have nothing to say to one another.

CTR incoming.

Lol. Maybe you need to read a book.

Do you even know what a Federal Reserve Note is, or a Treasury Note? Do you understand how money works?

How about taking this opportunity to learn something instead of being nasty and calling names like a 9 year old?

1) The profits come from real labor and profits.
2) The profits are "returned" by the issuance of a Fed check from the Fed account. That account has a zero balance. In other words, they "return" the profits by stealing from you yet again through inflation.
3) The President is handed a list of acceptable candidates, and is forced to pick one - preferably the name at the top of the list.
4) No for-profit corporation on Earth gets away with not even having to file a tax return, having no budget (how can we know what their profit is without one?), virtually totally secret meetings, and having zero accountability.

Example: $16T, the entire GDP of the US, printed and handed to another central bank with ZERO notification of the constituency.

All okey-dokey with you, huh? Please go to Cyprus and bless them with your genius.

>Why do people (if you can call libertarians people) have such an irrational hatred of the Federal Reserve?

If they knew how the FED and financial system in general operate, they wouldn't be libertardians in the first place.

No lol. New Classicals agree, Monetarists agree, Post-Keynesians agree, even fucking Hayek agreed that we should have a central bank.

He was talking about how libertarians want the Fed to adhere to congress, which would allow retarded senators (like Bernie) to control it.

So fucking what?

If they knew how the world worked then they wouldn't be libertarians.

When you borrow at 0% interest, your cost of capital tends to be low. Thus high earnings.

It's almost impossible to not use government funds when the government has it's snout in basically everything.

Just because evangelicals find some of her philosophy appealing, for whatever reason, doesn't make her philosophy flawed.

Your communism and objectivity comparison still doesn't make any sense. collectivism vs individual rights

did you actually read the books or are you just spewing shit you heard from CNN ?

we are lol- ing at your shit economy btw

>Greece the utopia for big government socialists

I suppose it is justified for her to use government services because it could be welfare maximizing for her to do it, even if those state organs are a net cost to society.

What makes t wrong to use government to take out competitors? From a larger view, it is noncompetitive. However, from the individual actor's point of view, it makes sense to use the law to illegalize competitors than compete for consumers.

If you are really wondering why that is an undesirable way for society to advance, t makes sense why libertarians seem opaque to you.

What if the next best alternatives for investment were all quite shitty?

For a non-US example: the Chi ESE government prohibits several investment instruments available outside of China. With the resulting market distortion for domestic investment, large numbers of Chinese invest in alternatives such as housing or real estate abroad.

Markets have become more complex in which way, though? Is it actually more complex, or is it just larger in size due to more participants? I lean towards increased participation.

WHAT FEAR MONGERI G YOU FUCKING IDIOT! they change the interest rates whenever the fuck they want first of all based on notheing other thatn "how much can we take before riots" and 2nd of all my wife made me take a faggot tour of that fuckibg shithole in kc. I been a salesman and i know when im being sold. And in their faggot shill vidya they said WE ARE A BANK FOR BANKS.

What "fear mongering" faggot.

Its simple goddamn math and accounting.

In my lifetime (30 years) i have seen this country go from being (you can work hard and have a good time) to social programs that cant even oay the first generation that soent their lives paying in! 2% is a good investment tho...

Oh well, now we need defined contribution plans (ie 401k) for retirement.

U gonna trust your retirement to a stock market????? BAHAHAHAAAAA! sure...

Dont mind the fact that mutual funds are LEGALLY allowed to just not report operating fees. Meaning all these hedge fund managers are rich because they made 40% gains on YOUR money and gave u enought to barely beat inflation.

Suck my fucking dick and argue when u can make some fucking sense faggot.

>get on my level
>or gtfo

Was that when they kept trying to fuck with my money by making 2 feds that failed?

Buzy at work and my give a fuck level to look it up is barely over that. I might latter.

>go educate yourself
read the thread, they were discussing a publicly owned Fed at the start

>First Bank of the United States
>19th century
>Second Bank of the United States
>20th century
Jesus Christ, kill yourself

1907 was the reason why they created the Fed in the first place, dumbass. Unless putting one banker directly in charge of solving recessions (J.P. Morgan) is a good solution to your fear mongering about "muh big banks"

>fiscal entitlements are out of proportions
>clearly monetary policy is to blame

Dude are you even trying

>Milton Friedman said there should be a central bank
>Hayek said there should be a central bank
>John Maynard Keynes said there should be a central bank
>Karl Marx said there should be a central bank

I never said there was a bond bubble. Our whole monetary plan is to move investors into riskier assets. Maybe it didn't work and there is no bubble because inflation is so low it still is drawing many foreign/domestic buyers, as your second paragraph suggests. It's not like bond buyers have a good market globally.

What's up with Veeky Forums thinking you're a tinfoil-hatter for questioning the fed? wsj, fox business, cnn money all debate their actions. Those aren't lolbertarian media outlets.

You can have a discussion about the Federal Reserve's actions. For fucks sake there's even internal disagreement within the Fed- Eric Rosengren, Janet Yellen, and Narayana Kocherlakota don't think the same way.

The opponents of the Fed in this thread aren't making typical criticisms of the Fed- something you could see Larry Kudlow or Rick Santelli saying. They aren't saying privatizing the Fed would be a good thing and then presenting a clear argument. Their arguments against the Fed and their arguments on monetary policy are retarded.

I keep reading about how the fed is privately owned and controlled by the jews and the Rotschilds but I've never seen any proof of this.
So far my understanding is that there's 12 federal reserve banks in the USA but who truly owns them ?