Historically, why has there been such resistance to the Federal Reserve? How did it come into being...

There is no constitutional justification for it.

...

Lack of oversight.
/thread

You can't fall back on the private sector and say, 'You take care of the nation's banking system.' That's a fundamental function of the government, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and the FDIC, etc. All of those agencies have a major role to play there.

Dick Cheney

>The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, including claims that it advocates "free love" or disincentivises people from working. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned etc.—the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

>This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other... This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found.[67][68]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin

Fun fact, the current Chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen, is a dual Israeli-American citizen.

I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made

Look throughout history, economy has done fine without the federal reserve, there is simply no need for a privately owned bank to act as a central bank. A central bank itself causes more trouble than it does good.

youtube.com/watch?v=tp3HEBNvZjk

Royalty is nothing without wealth to back it, and a central bank controls the wealth.

Neck yourself, honestly.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it written in the Constitution that it is Congress which has the right to coin and regulate the value of money?

I mean.. how can you even claim that it's simply "Innocent but complicated economics" for control of money, so essentially the entire economy of a nation, to rest upon the hands of the private sector, and more specifically bankers?

You could make a case for it if economies were largely closed off and the bankers that owned the Fed were American citizens living and operating in America, but that's not even the case.

How does one even sleep soundly at night knowing the economy of his nation rests upon the hands of foreign interests?

Because the average person doesn't know jack about economics, yet will insist that they do. It's kind of hilarious how accepted this ignorance is actually. No one would go up to a geologist and say "igneous rocks are bullshit".

false equivalence, and a terrible one at that.

Economics isn't complicated. Or any high art profession. Just magical nonsense mixed with a dash of common sense and moral relativism.

The Fed a government institution, the private shareholders have next to no power.

Money Creation in the Modern Economy:

bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

>every country on Earth has a National Bank
>BUT WE SPESHUL

All exceptionalists should be shot

JP Morgan saved our asses in 1907 and we realized we can't rely on the generosity of industrialists forever

>Historically, why has there been such resistance to the Federal Reserve?
There hasn't. It's just a persistent meme for fringe conspiracy theorists.

>conspiracy theorists

In this case, a libertarian loon like Penn is a great use of memes.

Most opposition is from nasho retards (muh jews)
I know the libertarians have an intellectual case against it that in free market the rate of interest is the intersection of loanable funds supplied and borrowed funds demanded but the fed sets and artificial rate that tends to be lower than the equilibrium rate which leads to too much borrowing and a boom then leads to inflation then leads to increase in rates and a crash.

Holy shit, this is beyond mental retardation. You're literally suggesting that the ones who literally OWN the central bank have absolutely no form of control over it?

What's the point of the Federal Reserve then? Why would its owners be its owners in the first place if they get nothing out of it? What you're suggesting is nonsensical. No sane human being would seek ownership (which includes responsibility) of something that doesn't serve their interests. And the only way to make sure something serves your interest is to exert influence on it in order have it do so.

How is the Federal Reserve a government institution when the government itself or the President can't influence it? The Fed is completely independent of the US Government. It may interact with it, but those interactions do not include exertion of influence on it by the Government.

people that use the term 'conspiracy theory' are retards and have been led astray

Unlike the people who believe these theories amirite my fellow chocolate wrapping enthusiast?

I thought the ownership thing was just banks directly paying the treasury to be part of the reserve scheme?

idk it just seems a bit off that something with massive congressional oversight and presidential appointments would be able to do anything dodgy

Because idiots don't understand that macroeconomics is more complicated than just the relatively simple supply vs. demand graphs that dominate microeconomics.

>The Fed is completely independent of the US Government

This is wrong. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is directly appointed by the President of the United States. The current chairman, Janet Yellen, was directly appointed by President Obama, and President Trump has signaled that he'll probably give her another term. The Chairman (or Chairwoman in this case) also must be approved by the Senate before they can take office.

Money good
Lots of money better
:DDD

Nice digits. What Reserve scheme? You mean banks being bailed out by taxpayer money in case they go bust? Why would there exist an entirely separate entity for that?

And assuming that was its purpose, why would the Federal Reserve have the right to manage the amount of capital that is available to either spend or invest, meaning that it essentially manages the money supply?

And what influence does The Chairman of the Federal Reserve in turn exert upon it? Or even the entire Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for that matter. The only answer I've been able to find so far is that she'd be required to report twice a year to Congress regarding the Fed's objectives. Also, even if you were to say that the Board of Governors is indeed the one that truly manages the Fed, once they're appointed they are completely independent, meaning Congress can't interfere in any way to decisions they may make.

Virtually all macroeconomics is a meme Also if we believe that the market is far more efficient than the government at producing essential things like food . Then why not the same for interest rates or the rates that banks can lend, especially if it impacts the entire economy.

Because last time we let banks do whatever they wanted without any central control, it caused the Panic of 1837.

Congress has the ability to delegate power to other agencies. In this case, Congress has delegated the power to control the country's monetary system to the Federal Reserve.

Sure, of course. And you could even argue that this delegation of power to control the monetary system doesn't violate the Constitution, which clearly states that Congress should be the one which has the right to coin and regulate the value of money, since Congress had to approve of the Fed's creation and power in the first place.

Here's the thing though.. Do you think that the people themselves, whose interests and wishes Congress supposedly represents, would ever agree to the existence of the Federal Reserve as it operates now? Assuming they were fully aware of what the Fed is and what it has been responsible for?

Not only that but let's not forget that corruption is perfectly legal. Lobbying is very much a thing (relevant video vid.me/kWtd). So really the fact that Congress delegated the power to control the country's monetary system to the Fed doesn't mean all that much either. In fact, I'd be surprised if it hadn't, given how corrupt everything is.

>Do you think that the people themselves, whose interests and wishes Congress supposedly represents, would ever agree to the existence of the Federal Reserve as it operates now?
yes. conspiracy theorists are at the fringes, and most people, if they understood what the fed does, would be fine with it. Look up polls of the Fed. The 2009 Gallup one showed more people saying good or excellent than poor, and even that was a sharp downturn in public opinion, due to the crisis, and people not understanding that the fed saved the economy from completely collapsing.

The government isn't in charge of producing food, but it is in charge of regulating food safety.

Markets are good at being quick to adjust, but not so much for planning ahead, because they are run by many players with often conflicting interests and often little to no information regarding the plans of other players. A central authority/inteligence comes in handy in this world where the best interests of the collective is different from the sum of the best interests of individuals.

That said, I generally dislike bailouts. But I like stuff like Dodd-Frank. Gov should be focused on preventing market failures rather than speeding up market corrections.

1. The economy was never "fine" for long. Market failures are a fact of life.
2. For most of history, most people didn't use coins or paper money. They traded food, clothes, tools, etc. Markets, in general, used to be small. And even when precious metals came to be the backbone of trade, coinage was still left to a central authority.

>For most of history, most people didn't use coins or paper money. They traded food, clothes, tools
no, barter economies were never really a thing. money is incredibly useful.

Yeah, it sure is easy to come off as the messiah to a crisis (in this case a collapse of the economy) after having played a major role in creating the crisis in the first place.

Anyways, conspiracy theory aside, what makes you think that the people would stand in support of the idea of a privately owned bank being in control of the nation's monetary system? Or it being largely independent, beyond the Board of Governors of the Fed being appointed by the President, with the Senate's approval? Were the people who took part in answering what they thought of the Fed even aware of these facts? And if the Government is truly in control of the Fed what is the point of it being privately owned in the first place?

Even if the Fed had done nothing suspicious up until now, which I wouldn't say that it hasn't, I'd still be opposed to it. Plus, the Fed is second to last when ranked based on net positive, out of nine major federal government agencies. I wouldn't exactly call that good.