Should the FED be privately owned or publicly owned

[Estro Felino]

Even if the FED is a public law entity, its stakes are controlled by 12 private banking institutions, owned by other banks.

What if the stakes were expropriated from the bank by State Treasury? In order to turn the FED into an exclusively public bank?

 

[Laika]

Voted “publicly owned”. I’m of the opinion that a central bank is a public institution and should therefore serve the public interest, rather than enrich private bankers. It just seems inconsistent in that sense.

This is, however, not an issue I have looked in to in very much detail though. So I guess I should keep an open mind beyond that.

 

[Cooky]

Privately owned, because if if ain't broke, why fix it?

 

[Estro Felino]

Voted “publicly owned”. I’m of the opinion that a central bank is a public institution and should therefore serve the public interest, rather than enrich private bankers. It just seems inconsistent in that sense.

This is, however, not an issue I have looked in to in very much detail though. So I guess I should keep an open mind beyond that.

Besides...if it were publicly owned , the Federal State would have the money to grant Universal Free Healthcare.

 

[Sunstone]

Privately owned, because if if ain't broke, why fix it?

So you like the fact the Fed consistently sacrifices the interests of average people in order to promote the interests of the super-wealthy. That's "not broke" to you.

Quite interesting, Landon.

 

[metis]

Definitely publicly owned as it is our (the people's) bank, so we need to have say on how it operates. .

 

[Estro Felino]

Definitely publicly owned as it is our (the people's) bank, so we need to have say on how it operates. .

It is already a public law Entity...but the Seigniorage income should belong to the Public Treasury and not to Private Bankers.

 

[metis]

It is already a public law Entity...but the Seigniorage income should belong to the Public Treasury and not to Private Bankers.

Under our system here in the States, it ain't that easy since our banks are largely private. Generally speaking, however, tax revenues should not go into the private banks, but there has been exceptions to the rule, especially with our "freefall" during the Great Recession whereas the banks needed to be propped up to prevent economic collapse.

 

[Nakosis]

Even if the FED is a public law entity, its stakes are controlled by 12 private banking institutions, owned by other banks.

What if the stakes were expropriated from the bank by State Treasury? In order to turn the FED into an exclusively public bank?

I don't know. Being publically owned may make it subject to the whims of politics. Whoever is running the government, it's going to give that body a lot of power over the federal reserves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Privately owned, because if if ain't broke, why fix it?

Having a bipolar economy of depressive lows and manic highs "ain't broke?" Allowing the decisions of just a few to have so much impact over the lives of millions ain't broke? It's not like a private investor who loses a private fortune over a few bad decisions. These privileged few, they make a few bad decisions and they are the only ones who don't pay for it. And often they don't want a stable, homeostatic economy that frees people to do as they will, they want charging manic bull markets. But it's unsustainable, it's not healthy, what goes up must come down, and they take everyone along for the ride with them.
We need a publicly owned Federal Bank to act as a "mood stabilizer" that works for what is best for all rather a handful of those who enable and encourage manic behaviors in the economy.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't know. Being publically owned may make it subject to the whims of politics. Whoever is running the government, it's going to give that body a lot of power over the federal reserves.

But I believe in men's good nature and in the will of preserving the common good.

 

[Nakosis]

But I believe in men's good nature and in the will of preserving the common good.

How about the good will of private ownership?
The government is made up of a bunch of private individuals who managed to get enough people to vote for them to get elected. These individuals have the same likelihood of being greedy or biased as anyone else.

 

[Cooky]

So you like the fact the Fed consistently sacrifices the interests of average people in order to promote the interests of the super-wealthy. That's "not broke" to you.

Quite interesting, Landon.

Having a bipolar economy of depressive lows and manic highs "ain't broke?" Allowing the decisions of just a few to have so much impact over the lives of millions ain't broke? It's not like a private investor who loses a private fortune over a few bad decisions. These privileged few, they make a few bad decisions and they are the only ones who don't pay for it. And often they don't want a stable, homeostatic economy that frees people to do as they will, they want charging manic bull markets. But it's unsustainable, it's not healthy, what goes up must come down, and they take everyone along for the ride with them.
We need a publicly owned Federal Bank to act as a "mood stabilizer" that works for what is best for all rather a handful of those who enable and encourage manic behaviors in the economy.

How do you think federal ownership of the U.S. dollar would work differently?

 

[Vee]

In order to turn the FED into an exclusively public bank?

Too late for that. Central banks have become too big and powerful. They will never accept to be supervised or controlled. They've been manipulating and buying everything under the sun in order to increase their power, not the other way around.

 

[Nakosis]

How do you think federal ownership of the U.S. dollar would work differently?

I'm not sure public ownership would have solved anything. Banks have the money, therefore the power to control the government anyway.

Power corrupts. The only folks who think otherwise, IMO, are those who never had any power.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How do you think federal ownership of the U.S. dollar would work differently?

Because then it has many owners with many interests rather than a privileged few with more money than they'll ever use or need looking to obtain even more money. The focus can be on stability and jobs, not high risks gambles that really only benefit a few when they pay off but devastate everyone but the gambler when those risks fail. It needs to have common ownership and reflect common interests.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not sure public ownership would have solved anything. Banks have the money, therefore the power to control the government anyway.

I'm a very big fan of term limits for pretty much every government position of public significance. The dog catcher probably not, but government bankers should have their time, do their job, and to avoid rooting long term interests and plans they get replaced. It's not full proof, but party loyalty won't be as problematic when you only get one or two re-elected terms (and it might help to study how Hover and the FBI have managed to break mob loyalty and implementing means to break up political party loyalty).

 

[Cooky]

Because then it has many owners with many interests rather than a privileged few with more money than they'll ever use or need looking to obtain even more money. The focus can be on stability and jobs, not high risks gambles that really only benefit a few when they pay off but devastate everyone but the gambler when those risks fail. It needs to have common ownership and reflect common interests.

I don't see how the owners of the dollar, having any interest, in whatever, would change the value of the dollar in any way.

You'd have to show me how that could work. Or even change anything.

 

[Cooky]

I just think people are desperate for socialism at any cost. Doing anything they can in regards to giving the government more power and control.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm a very big fan of term limits for pretty much every government position of public significance. The dog catcher probably not, but government bankers should have their time, do their job, and to avoid rooting long term interests and plans they get replaced. It's not full proof, but party loyalty won't be as problematic when you only get one or two re-elected terms (and it might help to study how Hover and the FBI have managed to break mob loyalty and implementing means to break up political party loyalty).

Not a bad idea, but in Calf, we seem to have the same folks in government, just moving to different positions. All kind of in the same group of supporters. Perhaps if government service itself had a term limit.