@dcarr said:
Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank.
Take control of it away from private interests.
North Dakota has shown that a state-owned bank is more equitable a system compared to banking in most other ?>states.
So you don't want a Central Bank to be able to stabilize exogenous shocks like a Financial Crisi, a bank panic, or Covid-19. Got it.
The Fed is raising rates that right now are hurting private interests. So your entire thesis is wrong.
ND's banks deals in a simple model in an agricultural state. It does not provide liquidity like the FHLB, FHA, GSEs, or The Fed. When banks collapse in North Dakota, it's the Fed to the rescue.
.
A nationalized central bank could stabilize the system as well as a cartel bank.
"Providing liquidity" is what causes a lot of the problems in the first place. Once that starts, there is no end to the demands for more liquidity. I have never received "liquidity" from the Federal Reserve. So why should certain entities receive massive amounts because they took on excessive speculative risk ? These entities should fail, especially since they produce nothing tangible for the economy and only exist to make a profit at the expense of everyone else.
Capitalism is like nature's "survival of the fittest". Unfit and unproductive entities need to fail.
@dcarr said:
Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank.
Take control of it away from private interests.
North Dakota has shown that a state-owned bank is more equitable a system compared to banking in most other ?>states.
So you don't want a Central Bank to be able to stabilize exogenous shocks like a Financial Crisi, a bank panic, or Covid-19. Got it.
Central banks create such shocks.
The Fed is raising rates that right now are hurting private interests. So your entire thesis is wrong.
Fed's painted themselves into a corner, they have no choice
ND's banks deals in a simple model in an agricultural state. It does not provide liquidity like the FHLB, FHA, GSEs, or The Fed. When banks collapse in North Dakota, it's the Fed to the rescue.
Does the Fed bailout any other businesses that fail? The only bailing out of banking that is needed is protecting account holders. Stock holders and all others took investment risk and should pay the consequences. Do stock holders turn any of their massive gains over to the Fed?
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
@jmski52 said:
Ok, then. Who are the shareholders of the Fed? If they aren't a cartel, who else gets to poof money into existence? >Not you. Not me.
No, it's banks. But again, the amount at risk/invested is miniscule. The largest banks have HUNDREDS of billions in capital and have maybe $20 million invested in Fed/GSE stock.
Answer me this:if banks are such a monopoly....if they have it so great with credit creation....if it's such a racket...how come PROFITS and the STOCK RETURNS have SUCKED going back 20 or 30 or 40 years for 90-95% of the banks ?
Who's on the PPT? Names? Their affiliation? Are they publicly traded entities? Where does the money come from >when PPT is in operation to rescue the stock market?
The Exchange Stabilization Fund, started with $2 BB with the revaluation upward of gold in 1933-34, is today about $60 BB and is used during times of market stress.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Now you know. You might also try something called READING.
You think that there's no banking lobby in DC? Talk about naive.
Considering all the banking regulations they face and will be facing, I'd say their lobby BLOWS.
You know who has a better lobby, one that you don't see in the financially ignorant media ? The unions....like the Teamsters Union who just got a $36,000,000,000 bailout for the Central States Pension Fund that you don't hear anything about.
Unlike the Wall Street banks, they don't have to pay back ANYTHING. Nobody lost their jobs, unlike bank and auto CEOs and executives. Nobody is talking about prosecuting the trustees and operators of a pension fund that was at most 25-35% funded.
Now....tell us....who has control of Congress and who has better lobbyists ? Who has control of the media ?
@jmski52 said:
Ok, then. Who are the shareholders of the Fed? If they aren't a cartel, who else gets to poof money into existence? >Not you. Not me.
No, it's banks. But again, the amount at risk/invested is miniscule. The largest banks have HUNDREDS of billions in capital and have maybe $20 million invested in Fed/GSE stock.
.
You could value the Federal Reserve at one cent, or a quadrillion dollars. But no matter what the price, neither you nor I could buy stock in it. It is not publicly traded.
@dcarr said:
You could value the Federal Reserve at one cent, or a quadrillion dollars. But no matter what the price, neither you > nor I could buy stock in it. It is not publicly traded.
What's your point, Dcarr ? It's a government agency...a Central Bank. You want to buy stock in the Department of Defense ? You want call options on the next military engagement ?
You're not a Primary Dealer and you don't engage with the System Open Market Account (SOMA) of the NY Fed. If you do -- by doing repos or reverse repos or directly bidding on Treasury auctions -- then you can get that preferred stock in the Federal Reserve System you so strongly desire.
@dcarr said:
You could value the Federal Reserve at one cent, or a quadrillion dollars. But no matter what the price, neither you > nor I could buy stock in it. It is not publicly traded.
What's your point, Dcarr ? It's a government agency...a Central Bank. You want to buy stock in the Department of Defense ? You want call options on the next military engagement ?
The Federal Reserve Bank IS NOT a government agency. For someone who spouts central banking behavior you should know this
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
@dcarr said:
You could value the Federal Reserve at one cent, or a quadrillion dollars. But no matter what the price, neither you > nor I could buy stock in it. It is not publicly traded.
What's your point, Dcarr ? It's a government agency...a Central Bank. You want to buy stock in the Department of Defense ? You want call options on the next military engagement ?
You're not a Primary Dealer and you don't engage with the System Open Market Account (SOMA) of the NY Fed. If you do -- by doing repos or reverse repos or directly bidding on Treasury auctions -- then you can get that preferred stock in the Federal Reserve System you so strongly desire.
Be careful what you wish for.
You claim that the major banks have only a small percentage of their capital in Federal Reserve stock.
So ask those banks if they would be opposed to nationalizing the Federal Reserve.
They shouldn't care too much if they don't have much invested, right ?
It isn't about the amount of capital investment that banks have in Federal Reserve stock.
It is all about the advantages that the big banks get from being part of the cartel.
@dcarr said:
You claim that the major banks have only a small percentage of their capital in Federal Reserve stock.
So ask those banks if they would be opposed to nationalizing the Federal Reserve.
They shouldn't care too much if they don't have much invested, right ?
It isn't about the amount of capital investment that banks have in Federal Reserve stock.
It is all about the advantages that the big banks get from being part of the cartel.
You continue to whine and moan on stuff that is irrelevant.
First....the Fed is already "nationalized" since it is not a private company.
Second....you keep talking about these "advantages" that "big banks" get. Thousands of banks in this country own stock in the Fed, FHLBB, FFCS, etc. It doesn't confer any special advantage.
Stock returns for all banks over the last 20 years is about 2% annualized compared to closer to 10% for the S&P 500. Some advantage !!
@GoldFinger1969 said:
Stock returns for all banks over the last 20 years is about 2% annualized compared to closer to 10% for the S&P 500. Some advantage !!
2% returns in bank stocks sure beats hoarding the gutter. THKS!
@blitzdude said:
2% returns in bank stocks sure beats hoarding the gutter. THKS!
My point is that some here think there's this secret "banking cartel" making untold riches. With the exception of JPM, no bank is earning great returns for shareholders OR the top execs/CEOs.
Compensation in banking pales in comparision to tech, private equity, social media, etc.
@blitzdude said:
2% returns in bank stocks sure beats hoarding the gutter. THKS!
My point is that some here think there's this secret "banking cartel" making untold riches. With the exception of JPM, no bank is earning great returns for shareholders OR the top execs/CEOs.
Compensation in banking pales in comparision to tech, private equity, social media, etc.
Oh trust me I fully agree with what you are saying. The conspiracy nuts here are convinced the big bad banking cartel has secretly conspired to hold the gutter price down. Without this cartel the gutter would be $500 ozt.....They honestly believe this crap. Crazy world. RGDS!
@dcarr said:
You claim that the major banks have only a small percentage of their capital in Federal Reserve stock.
So ask those banks if they would be opposed to nationalizing the Federal Reserve.
They shouldn't care too much if they don't have much invested, right ?
It isn't about the amount of capital investment that banks have in Federal Reserve stock.
It is all about the advantages that the big banks get from being part of the cartel.
You continue to whine and moan on stuff that is irrelevant.
First....the Fed is already "nationalized" since it is not a private company.
Second....you keep talking about these "advantages" that "big banks" get. Thousands of banks in this country own stock in the Fed, FHLBB, FFCS, etc. It doesn't confer any special advantage.
Stock returns for all banks over the last 20 years is about 2% annualized compared to closer to 10% for the S&P 500. Some advantage !!
@blitzdude said:
2% returns in bank stocks sure beats hoarding the gutter. THKS!
My point is that some here think there's this secret "banking cartel" making untold riches. With the exception of JPM, no bank is earning great returns for shareholders OR the top execs/CEOs.
Compensation in banking pales in comparision to tech, private equity, social media, etc.
I don't like what the Federal Reserve is doing or how it is being run. I want to vote for new leadership at the Fed.
But no, I can't.
The Federal Reserve has very large unrealized gains. When Federal Reserve Notes are issued, the Fed receives a credit for them, but the same amount also appears on the Fed's books as a liability. So that is a wash, as far as the balance sheet is concerned. But the credit that the Federal Reserve obtains from issuing the notes is used to earn interest. Federal Reserve notes do not pay any interest.
So, for example, the Federal Reserve receives an order from a regional bank for Federal Reserve Notes. The regional bank pays the Federal Reserve the nominal amount (face value) of the notes. The Fed can then use the credit they received to purchase US Treasury bills and earn interest. But the Fed doesn't have to pay any interest on the Federal Reserve notes issued.
Unrealized gains occur when Federal Reserve notes are lost, destroyed, or simply not returned. The notes are still on the Fed's balance sheet as a liability, but they will never be presented for payment.
I'd sure like to be able to earn interest on money that I create or borrow for free. The privilege of being able to issue the circulating currency is enormous.
Remember our previous conversation regarding Fed member banks being the first to receive new money, which gives them a great advantage ? I pointed out that banks could, for example, buy real estate with this new money. You claimed that no bank would invest their own capital in something like real estate. In less than two minutes of searching I found a fund that Goldman Sachs had set up to do exactly that (invest their own capital in Real Estate). Remember that ?
@derryb said:
It was created in darkness by its member bankers while congress was asleep. Do your research.
I have, lots of times. It passed Congress in 1913. Got nearly 80% of the House votes, and got about 60% of the Senate votes. So they voted, and it wasn't even close.
And all "profits" made by the Federal Reserve Bank (System) are swept to the Treasury, less what is needed to operate the Fed. In other words, the Fed pays for itself -- the one government agency that does -- and YOU are crying about the 1 profit center in the U.S. government instead of the other agencies that are cost centers.
@derryb said:
It was created in darkness by its member bankers while congress was asleep. Do your research.
I have, lots of times. It passed Congress in 1913. Got nearly 80% of the House votes, and got about 60% of the Senate votes. So they voted, and it wasn't even close.
And all "profits" made by the Federal Reserve Bank (System) are swept to the Treasury, less what is needed to operate the Fed. In other words, the Fed pays for itself -- the one government agency that does -- and YOU are crying about the 1 profit center in the U.S. government instead of the other agencies that are cost centers.
No, that is false.
We went over this before.
The Federal Reserve is allowed to retain up to 6% of their profits (after expenses).
Just because they haven't always taken their full 6% cut doesn't mean that they never take any of it.
In earlier days of the Federal Reserve, they kept 100% of their profits.
If the Federal Reserve Bank was nationalized, 100% of its profits would go the the US Treasury.
@dcarr said:
In earlier days of the Federal Reserve, they kept 100% of their profits.
If the Federal Reserve Bank was nationalized, 100% of its profits would go the the US Treasury.
All "profits" are swept to the Treasury and have been since the 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord. Profits before then were minimal anyway.
@dcarr said:
In earlier days of the Federal Reserve, they kept 100% of their profits.
If the Federal Reserve Bank was nationalized, 100% of its profits would go the the US Treasury.
All "profits" are swept to the Treasury and have been since the 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord. Profits before then were minimal anyway.
Go to the Fed or Treasury websites if you don't believe me.
Prior to 2011, the Federal Reserve kept some of its profits, and could do so again in the future (up to 6%).
The Federal Reserve also pays dividends to its member/owner banks. Those dividends are figured as part of the Fed's "operating costs", and so they reduce the amount of profit shown on the Fed's books (and thus, the amount they remit to the US Treasury).
So even if the Fed remits "all" of its profits to the US Treasury, the member/owner banks still retain profits from the Fed.
When the Federal Reserve was able to retain 100% of its profits, those profits were enormous and not "minimal" as you claim. From 1914-1933 the Federal Reserve issued 56,000 metric tons worth of gold-clause Federal Reserve Notes. This was essentially a 0% loan to the Federal Reserve amounting to more than 20 billion dollars (a lot of money at that time). The Federal Reserve was then able to earn interest on that 20 billion and keep that interest. Then in 1933 Roosevelt severed the gold clause relieving the Federal Reserve of all obligations to back their circulating currency with gold.
And also the Federal Reserve still has unrealized and unreported gains in terms of currency issuance and other operations.
I just came across a Forbes article which indicates that the Federal Reserve has declined to reveal the salaries and bonuses of the vast majority of its employees. The salaries for all other government departments (including the US Treasury) are fully known as part of the Government's GS pay-scale. But not the Federal Reserve, which is yet another indication that the Federal Reserve is privately-owned and not fully acting in the interests of the American public. How much did you earn when you worked there (if you did) ?
Fed Chairman Powell doesn't even earn $200,000 a year. He could earn 25x that amount working for PIMCO or JP Morgan.
The 6% is a return on capital invested by the banks, all profits after this are sent to the Treasury/U.S. Govt.
Profits not swept to Treasury are used to maintain regulatory capital, create swap lines, fund GSE's regulatory needs, and assist with the SOMA and Open Market Operations.
You are obsessed with nonexistent "profits" and windfalls of the Fed, whereas the Fed is concerned with the money supply, Fed Funds rate, and open market operations.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
Fed Chairman Powell doesn't even earn $200,000 a year. He could earn 25x that amount working for PIMCO or JP Morgan.
The 6% is a return on capital invested by the banks, all profits after this are sent to the Treasury/U.S. Govt.
Profits not swept to Treasury are used to maintain regulatory capital, create swap lines, fund GSE's regulatory needs, and assist with the SOMA and Open Market Operations.
You are obsessed with nonexistent "profits" and windfalls of the Fed, whereas the Fed is concerned with the money supply, Fed Funds rate, and open market operations.
So Powell can make personal investment decisions based on where he thinks interest rates are going. And he is also in a position to dictate interest rate moves. No wonder he wants to keep his "$200,000" job.
Funding of things such as "GSE regulatory needs" are a normal part of the Federal Reserve's expenses. The Fed's earnings may go towards paying for that, but not their profits. Their profits are only calculated after all expenses are accounted for.
This is from the Federal Reserve's own web page (note "Supervision and Regulation" expenses):
Powell's investments are handled by an OUTSIDE firm and by selling in October 2020 he missed out on HUGE GAINS, I don't know why you are trying to claim this is "insider trading" when it's just BAD trading by whoever managed his investments.
There were no "scandals" involving the regional Fed heads.
You continue to rely on "sources" who can't be bothered to look up the charts, what happened to the markets, and basic facts regarding how the Fed and her employees operate.
I'm enjoying the discussion and at different times have agreed & disagreed with sentiments. I believe most all of you have posted valid points and counterpoints. Until I can decide for myself, I will assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Carry on.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
Powell's investments are handled by an OUTSIDE firm and by selling in October 2020 he missed out on HUGE GAINS, I don't know why you are trying to claim this is "insider trading" when it's just BAD trading by whoever managed his investments.
There were no "scandals" involving the regional Fed heads.
You continue to rely on "sources" who can't be bothered to look up the charts, what happened to the markets, and basic facts regarding how the Fed and her employees operate.
Federal Reserve appointed officials, senior management, and employees should be subject to the same regulations as Federal Government elected officials, appointed officials, and employees. This is just one reason why the Federal Reserve should be nationalized. Are you opposed to nationalizing the Federal Reserve, and if so, why ?
Two Federal Reserve Bank presidents resigned after their insider trading was exposed. Due to negative public sentiment regarding that, Powell was forced to change the rules. We are discussing it. Other people discussed it. That makes it absolutely a "scandal".
The disclosure form, first reported by The American Prospect, shows that Powell sold between $1 million and $5 million of Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund shares on Oct. 1, 2020 – The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled nearly 6% over the course of October 2020, marking the steepest monthly drop since the early days of the pandemic when the virus brought the U.S. economy to a screeching halt.
There were also transactions listed without specific dates.
The Fed did not immediately respond to a FOX Business request for comment, but a spokesperson previously told The Wall Street Journal that Powell's financial transactions complied with U.S. central bank rules and had been approved by government ethics officers. The representative added that transactions without specific date information were reported under rules that allowed things like regular reinvestments to be lumped together.
The Fed is already "nationalized" -- it's a Central Bank. You want the Fed to have 330 million shareholders dictating how it operates ?
There was no insider trading by the Fed officials. They simply executed trades.
You continue to look for scandal and conflicts of interest where non exist. Meanwhile, special interests getting tens of billions in exchange for votes and keeping certain elected officials in power totally escapes you. You say very little about the scam known as the Central States Pension Fund. $36 BB of taxpayer money flushed down the toilet but you are worried about Powell using his own $$$ and selling stocks when he should have been buying.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
The Fed is already "nationalized" -- it's a Central Bank. You want the Fed to have 330 million shareholders dictating how it operates ?
There was no insider trading by the Fed officials. They simply executed trades.
You continue to look for scandal and conflicts of interest where non exist. Meanwhile, special interests getting tens of billions in exchange for votes and keeping certain elected officials in power totally escapes you. You say very little about the scam known as the Central States Pension Fund. $36 BB of taxpayer money flushed down the toilet but you are worried about Powell using his own $$$ and selling stocks when he should have been buying.
.
So you are using the "nothing to see here - move along and look over there" tactic in this debate.
You just admitted that the Federal Reserve is not "nationalized", because you point out that 330 million stakeholders (the American populace) do not have a say in how it operates. It is an undemocratic system.
330 million stakeholders could not do worse than the Federal Reserve has in terms of managing the economy for the benefit of the American people (repeatedly blowing up and popping bubbles, for example).
A better solution would be to have an entity like the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office manage the Federal Reserve.
@dcarr said:
You just admitted that the Federal Reserve is not "nationalized", because you point out that 330 million >stakeholders (the American populace) do not have a say in how it operates. It is an undemocratic system.
330 million stakeholders could not do worse than the Federal Reserve has in terms of managing the economy for >the benefit of the American people (repeatedly blowing up and popping bubbles, for example).
A better solution would be to have an entity like the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office manage the Federal >Reserve.
Yeah...what could go wrong with people who spend 4 hours a day watching "Jerry Springer" and reality TV shows deciding monetary policy !!
The CBO knows nothing about monetary policy. They're fiscal experts, and I use the term "experts" loosely.
Maybe you want the CBO -- non-partisan, you say -- performing your next life-saving operation rather than a "biased" Democrat or Republican skilled surgeon ?
@dcarr said:
You just admitted that the Federal Reserve is not "nationalized", because you point out that 330 million >stakeholders (the American populace) do not have a say in how it operates. It is an undemocratic system.
330 million stakeholders could not do worse than the Federal Reserve has in terms of managing the economy for >the benefit of the American people (repeatedly blowing up and popping bubbles, for example).
A better solution would be to have an entity like the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office manage the Federal >Reserve.
Yeah...what could go wrong with people who spend 4 hours a day watching "Jerry Springer" and reality TV shows deciding monetary policy !!
The CBO knows nothing about monetary policy. They're fiscal experts, and I use the term "experts" loosely.
Maybe you want the CBO -- non-partisan, you say -- performing your next life-saving operation rather than a "biased" Democrat or Republican skilled surgeon ?
.
Still, that would be better than an organization that has the interests of its member/owner banks first, and everyone else second (or third).
PS:
I wrote "an entity like the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office", not necessarily that specific organization (but it could be a new organization formed for the purpose).
@GoldFinger1969 said:
He [dcarr] may know tokens, but he knows nothing about monetary policy, the Fed, or central banking. Conspiratorial to the nth degree. Assuming it's who I think it is ATS.
.
Why did you feel the need to insert that into a discussion over there that was about the Madison County Coin Club medal ?
BRICS are not a homogenous or harmonious union at the moment (see news of India rejecting Russia's request to trade for oil in Chinese Yuan). I don't put a lot of credance into their (mostly Russia's) rhetoric about a bloc currency. I was curious when Saudi Arabia applied to join their bloc and even more attentive after Iran and Saudi Arabia re-established diplomatic relations at the behest of China (purportedly as a condition for both Iran's and KSA's application to the BRICS). My thoughts on the bloc could change if KSA fully embraces the proposed (idea of a) currency, but I don't think that is likely any time soon (like for the next few decades at least). $.02
The growing switch from dollars to other means of barter by numerous countries is a fact and is representative of their desire to cut the "dollar apron string." This cannot be denied and is/will affect the value of the dollar worldwide.
There is an economic war in progress. Do not be fooled into letting your opinion of a nation's politics affect your realization that their economic power carries worldwide weight.
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
Both the BRICS and the dollar will weaken. Currencies and fiat money will continue to inflate around the world due to terrible fiscal and bank policies, and more needs to be created to pay the interest as well. Not sure a "reserve" currency means the same thing anymore. Buy gold and don't sell it too soon or you will regret it.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
He [dcarr] may know tokens, but he knows nothing about monetary policy, the Fed, or central banking. Conspiratorial to the nth degree. Assuming it's who I think it is ATS.
.
Why did you feel the need to insert that into a discussion over there that was about the Madison County Coin Club medal ?
.
Why do you feel the need to post links to the NGC board on the PCGS forum? If we were interested in NGC we would go there to read about it. Stick with your fantasy tokens please. CRIPES!
@GoldFinger1969 said:
He [dcarr] may know tokens, but he knows nothing about monetary policy, the Fed, or central banking. Conspiratorial to the nth degree. Assuming it's who I think it is ATS.
.
Why did you feel the need to insert that into a discussion over there that was about the Madison County Coin Club medal ?
.
Why do you feel the need to post links to the NGC board on the PCGS forum? If we were interested in NGC we would go there to read about it. Stick with your fantasy tokens please. CRIPES!
why not just stick to the discussion and stop slamming a fellow member. Reminds me of another guy here with the same problem though he hasn't appeared in a while. Miss ya CoHo.
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
@derryb said:
The growing switch from dollars to other means of barter by numerous countries is a fact and is representative of > > their desire to cut the "dollar apron string." This cannot be denied and is/will affect the value of the dollar
worldwide. There is an economic war in progress. Do not be fooled into letting your opinion of a nation's politics > > affect your realization that their economic power carries worldwide weight.
94% of all transactions involve the dollar, virtually unchanged from 5, 10, or 20 years ago.
Don't be fooled by these anti-dollar articles. At the end of the day, everybody wants dollars.
@dcarr said:
Why did you feel the need to insert that into a discussion over there that was about the Madison County Coin Club > medal ?
I thought I was paying you a compliment on your tokens. Many people like them apparently.
Don't take the monetary policy jibe personal. I was a Fed Watcher out of college so I take attacks on the Fed personally.
"He [dcarr] may know tokens, but he knows nothing about monetary policy, the Fed, or central banking. Conspiratorial to the nth degree."
To me, that doesn't read as a compliment at all. The opposite, in fact.
It is a matter of opinion and not "conspiratorial to the nth degree" to think that the public would be better served if the Federal Reserve was fully nationalized into the Federal Government.
@dcarr said:
It is a matter of opinion and not "conspiratorial to the nth degree" to think that the public would be better served if > the Federal Reserve was fully nationalized into the Federal Government.
I think an opinion that would give control over the Fed to Rashaida Tlaib, AOC, and other Socialists and self-professed Marxists is a prescription for economic and financial ruin that will make the 1970's look like The Good Old Days !!
Of course...if you want the price of gold at $7,000 an ounce...that could be the ticket !!
@dcarr said:
It is a matter of opinion and not "conspiratorial to the nth degree" to think that the public would be better served if > the Federal Reserve was fully nationalized into the Federal Government.
I think an opinion that would give control over the Fed to Rashaida Tlaib, AOC, and other Socialists and self-professed Marxists is a prescription for economic and financial ruin that will make the 1970's look like The Good Old Days !!
Of course...if you want the price of gold at $7,000 an ounce...that could be the ticket !!
We have a democratic government, but not in the financial arena. There, it is more like a monarchy or even fascism.
I hate marxists, communism, and socialism. Banks hate those as well, except when they get into trouble and embrace financial socialism so as to spread their losses onto everyone else.
The current financial system has caused debt levels and cost of living to go way too high.
We should have a well-defined and relatively static monetary system, akin to a digital gold standard.
The US Treasury needs to take back the issuance of currency from the Federal Reserve. I would have the US Treasury issue a digital currency with specific limits on it. Such as: no more than 4% annual growth in the amount of such currency issued; a 3% interest rate which stays constant; A small transaction fee for every transfer to fund the government and to eliminate income taxes and most of the IRS (imagine never having to file tax returns again). To implement "monetary policy", rather than changing the underlying interest rate, the transaction fee rate would be adjusted (higher to cool the economy and direct more funding to the government, lower to spur the economy).
@jmski52 said: 94% of all transactions involve the dollar, virtually unchanged from 5, 10, or 20 years ago.
Looking at the Fed's own data, it looks closer to 85% than 94%, and that's based on 2021 data.
The BRICS now consist of about 35% of world GDP, and 85% of world oil production. The dollar isn't being > >replaced, but it's losing dominance.
It is 94% for large-transactions but high-80's overall. 88% for 2022.
It's not losing dominance so much as others are growing small-transactions faster as EM GDP and 3rd World GDP grow faster than the U.S. and OECD (like China, 2000-2020).
@dcarr said:
We have a democratic government, but not in the financial arena. There, it is more like a monarchy or even >fascism.
I hate marxists, communism, and socialism. Banks hate those as well, except when they get into trouble and >embrace financial socialism so as to spread their losses onto everyone else.
Where do you get your information on banking and finance ? Because it's clear to me that you are going to right-wing, libertarian, Murray Rothschild-like polemical websites that spew nonsense that isn't backed up by facts.
You hate Marxists, Communism, and Socialism ? GOOD !! What about BAD INFORMATION ? Because that is what you are using and posting here repeatedly. You state things that are CLEARLY wrong and materially so. Not getting a number wrong but the direction right, kind of thing. But totally off-base.
For instance....your statement that "banks embrace financial socialism so as to spread their losses onto everyone else." TOTALLY FALSE !! You checked the price of Citibank lately ? 1/10th the level pre-2008. I dare you to go tell the shareholders that they got "bailed out" and "spread their losses." Banks got burned by the Fed 2022 tightening and are holding RECORD losses on their books as their reward for facilitating QE and buying long-dated assets as the Fed requested (see chart below).
What you stay about banks and finance is so off-base...and so EASILY disproven by checking stock prices or reading balance sheets or income statements..... that I just have to believe you think you are an expert in this area and can just say whatever you want, even on more-or-less anonymous Forum Chat Boards like these. While you have that right, I don't believe you should be posting clearly factually incorrect statements.
I repeatedly have posted a rebuttal involving a $36,000,000,000 bailout of the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund. A classic bailout.....money for nothing...nobody gets fired....corruption and fraud are papered over. You have said NOTHING about it. Should I surmise that you are a Teamsters member ? Meanwhile, Citibank shareholders got diluted to hell (I dare you to attend the annual meeting and make that statement about socialize losses to the stockholders !! ) and others PAID BACK all the TARP loans they got (of which many didn't want the $$$ in the first place).
Meanwhile, you bash banks for "socialism" and $36 BB got stolen from the Treasury and not a peep from you, the media, or an entire political party which also railed about "Wall Street bailouts."
You seem like a nice guy, dCarr, but please do some research on financial markets and banking and central banking before you post CLEARLY false information that isn't backed up by the historical record.
The current financial system has caused debt levels and cost of living to go way too high.
We should have a well-defined and relatively static monetary system, akin to a digital gold standard.
It's FISCAL policy, not monetary policy or debt which is behind the current elevated inflation levels. It will come down more.
A digital gold standard or anything digital means the government knows every time you received money or spent money. You really want them to know that ?
The US Treasury needs to take back the issuance of currency from the Federal Reserve. I would have the US >Treasury issue a digital currency with specific limits on it. Such as: no more than 4% annual growth in the amount of >such currency issued; a 3% interest rate which stays constant; A small transaction fee for every transfer to fund the >government and to eliminate income taxes and most of the IRS (imagine never having to file tax returns again). To >implement "monetary policy", rather than changing the underlying interest rate, the transaction fee rate would be >adjusted (higher to cool the economy and direct more funding to the government, lower to spur the economy).
Your prescriptions would mean the end of the dollar as the Global Reserve Currency.....a depression as the Fed would not have the ability to react to exogenous shocks.....the ability to "cancel" one's digital assets....and dozens more problems.
Inflation and interest rates would be volatile since the only way the economy would be able to adjust to internal or external shocks would be through internal devaluations of the price level and/or wages or their inflationary revaluation.
@dcarr said:
We have a democratic government, but not in the financial arena. There, it is more like a monarchy or even >fascism.
I hate marxists, communism, and socialism. Banks hate those as well, except when they get into trouble and >embrace financial socialism so as to spread their losses onto everyone else.
Where do you get your information on banking and finance ? Because it's clear to me that you are going to right-wing, libertarian, Murray Rothschild-like polemical websites that spew nonsense that isn't backed up by facts.
You hate Marxists, Communism, and Socialism ? GOOD !! What about BAD INFORMATION ? Because that is what you are using and posting here repeatedly. You state things that are CLEARLY wrong and materially so. Not getting a number wrong but the direction right, kind of thing. But totally off-base.
For instance....your statement that "banks embrace financial socialism so as to spread their losses onto everyone else." TOTALLY FALSE !! You checked the price of Citibank lately ? 1/10th the level pre-2008. I dare you to go tell the shareholders that they got "bailed out" and "spread their losses." Banks got burned by the Fed 2022 tightening and are holding RECORD losses on their books as their reward for facilitating QE and buying long-dated assets as the Fed requested (see chart below).
What you stay about banks and finance is so off-base...and so EASILY disproven by checking stock prices or reading balance sheets or income statements..... that I just have to believe you think you are an expert in this area and can just say whatever you want, even on more-or-less anonymous Forum Chat Boards like these. While you have that right, I don't believe you should be posting clearly factually incorrect statements.
I repeatedly have posted a rebuttal involving a $36,000,000,000 bailout of the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund. A classic bailout.....money for nothing...nobody gets fired....corruption and fraud are papered over. You have said NOTHING about it. Should I surmise that you are a Teamsters member ? Meanwhile, Citibank shareholders got diluted to hell (I dare you to attend the annual meeting and make that statement about socialize losses to the stockholders !! ) and others PAID BACK all the TARP loans they got (of which many didn't want the $$$ in the first place).
Meanwhile, you bash banks for "socialism" and $36 BB got stolen from the Treasury and not a peep from you, the media, or an entire political party which also railed about "Wall Street bailouts."
You seem like a nice guy, dCarr, but please do some research on financial markets and banking and central banking before you post CLEARLY false information that isn't backed up by the historical record.
The current financial system has caused debt levels and cost of living to go way too high.
We should have a well-defined and relatively static monetary system, akin to a digital gold standard.
It's FISCAL policy, not monetary policy or debt which is behind the current elevated inflation levels. It will come down more.
A digital gold standard or anything digital means the government knows every time you received money or spent money. You really want them to know that ?
The US Treasury needs to take back the issuance of currency from the Federal Reserve. I would have the US >Treasury issue a digital currency with specific limits on it. Such as: no more than 4% annual growth in the amount of >such currency issued; a 3% interest rate which stays constant; A small transaction fee for every transfer to fund the >government and to eliminate income taxes and most of the IRS (imagine never having to file tax returns again). To >implement "monetary policy", rather than changing the underlying interest rate, the transaction fee rate would be >adjusted (higher to cool the economy and direct more funding to the government, lower to spur the economy).
Your prescriptions would mean the end of the dollar as the Global Reserve Currency.....a depression as the Fed would not have the ability to react to exogenous shocks.....the ability to "cancel" one's digital assets....and dozens more problems.
Inflation and interest rates would be volatile since the only way the economy would be able to adjust to internal or external shocks would be through internal devaluations of the price level and/or wages or their inflationary revaluation.
.
You are clearly an apologist for the banking status quo.
The price of a particular bank stock is hardly the only consideration.
When a corporation goes bankrupt and creditors come calling, there are often "claw-back" procedures. The purpose is to recover for the creditors money that the corporation diverted to other entities prior to the bankruptcy filing.
Many banks have gone into receivership or have otherwise been bailed out. Have any of these banks ever taken back dividends or bonuses that they paid out prior to their failure and used those funds to offset their losses (instead of taking a bailout) ?
@dcarr said:
You are clearly an apologist for the banking status quo.
I'm an apologist for industries that help America create jobs and remain competitive in the global economy. You want Chinese and Japanese banks dominating world finance ?
Check out what has happened to British and European banks the last 15 years. Totally wrecked.
The price of a particular bank stock is hardly the only consideration.
It's a good indication if they are reaping undeserving rewards like you keep whining about.
When a corporation goes bankrupt and creditors come calling, there are often "claw-back" procedures. The >purpose is to recover for the creditors money that the corporation diverted to other entities prior to the bankruptcy >filing.
That's RARELY the case with big companies since they are so heavily regulated. It happens with small privately held businesses or micro-cap businesses. You think Lehman or Bear Stearns were able to shift billions ? No, they couldn't.
Many banks have gone into receivership or have otherwise been bailed out. Have any of these banks ever taken >back dividends or bonuses that they paid out prior to their failure and used those funds to offset their losses >ionstead of taking a bailout) ?
Which banks have been "bailed out" after paying unearned bonuses or dividends ??? NONE !!! And you can't go back in time and take back employee pay.
Comments
.
A nationalized central bank could stabilize the system as well as a cartel bank.
"Providing liquidity" is what causes a lot of the problems in the first place. Once that starts, there is no end to the demands for more liquidity. I have never received "liquidity" from the Federal Reserve. So why should certain entities receive massive amounts because they took on excessive speculative risk ? These entities should fail, especially since they produce nothing tangible for the economy and only exist to make a profit at the expense of everyone else.
Capitalism is like nature's "survival of the fittest". Unfit and unproductive entities need to fail.
.
Central banks create such shocks.
Fed's painted themselves into a corner, they have no choice
Does the Fed bailout any other businesses that fail? The only bailing out of banking that is needed is protecting account holders. Stock holders and all others took investment risk and should pay the consequences. Do stock holders turn any of their massive gains over to the Fed?
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
No, it's banks. But again, the amount at risk/invested is miniscule. The largest banks have HUNDREDS of billions in capital and have maybe $20 million invested in Fed/GSE stock.
Answer me this: if banks are such a monopoly....if they have it so great with credit creation....if it's such a racket...how come PROFITS and the STOCK RETURNS have SUCKED going back 20 or 30 or 40 years for 90-95% of the banks ?
The Exchange Stabilization Fund, started with $2 BB with the revaluation upward of gold in 1933-34, is today about $60 BB and is used during times of market stress.
Now you know. You might also try something called READING.
Considering all the banking regulations they face and will be facing, I'd say their lobby BLOWS.
You know who has a better lobby, one that you don't see in the financially ignorant media ? The unions....like the Teamsters Union who just got a $36,000,000,000 bailout for the Central States Pension Fund that you don't hear anything about.
Unlike the Wall Street banks, they don't have to pay back ANYTHING. Nobody lost their jobs, unlike bank and auto CEOs and executives. Nobody is talking about prosecuting the trustees and operators of a pension fund that was at most 25-35% funded.
Now....tell us....who has control of Congress and who has better lobbyists ? Who has control of the media ?
.
You could value the Federal Reserve at one cent, or a quadrillion dollars. But no matter what the price, neither you nor I could buy stock in it. It is not publicly traded.
.
What's your point, Dcarr ? It's a government agency...a Central Bank. You want to buy stock in the Department of Defense ? You want call options on the next military engagement ?
You're not a Primary Dealer and you don't engage with the System Open Market Account (SOMA) of the NY Fed. If you do -- by doing repos or reverse repos or directly bidding on Treasury auctions -- then you can get that preferred stock in the Federal Reserve System you so strongly desire.
Be careful what you wish for.
Shanghai Oil, Gas Exchange Settles First Cross-Border Trade in E-Yuan
Russian oil companies demand payment in Chinese yuan
The Federal Reserve Bank IS NOT a government agency. For someone who spouts central banking behavior you should know this
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
You claim that the major banks have only a small percentage of their capital in Federal Reserve stock.
So ask those banks if they would be opposed to nationalizing the Federal Reserve.
They shouldn't care too much if they don't have much invested, right ?
It isn't about the amount of capital investment that banks have in Federal Reserve stock.
It is all about the advantages that the big banks get from being part of the cartel.
It's created by the U.S. Government and acts of Congress. It is essentially a government agency with a much greater degree of independence.
You continue to whine and moan on stuff that is irrelevant.
First....the Fed is already "nationalized" since it is not a private company.
Second....you keep talking about these "advantages" that "big banks" get. Thousands of banks in this country own stock in the Fed, FHLBB, FFCS, etc. It doesn't confer any special advantage.
Stock returns for all banks over the last 20 years is about 2% annualized compared to closer to 10% for the S&P 500. Some advantage !!
2% returns in bank stocks sure beats hoarding the gutter. THKS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
My point is that some here think there's this secret "banking cartel" making untold riches. With the exception of JPM, no bank is earning great returns for shareholders OR the top execs/CEOs.
Compensation in banking pales in comparision to tech, private equity, social media, etc.
Oh trust me I fully agree with what you are saying. The conspiracy nuts here are convinced the big bad banking cartel has secretly conspired to hold the gutter price down. Without this cartel the gutter would be $500 ozt.....They honestly believe this crap. Crazy world. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
What's the "gutter" price ???
Spot price of the Ag. A physical ounce of gutter is currently worth what it was back in 1974. 50 years to break even. SMH!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
Silver wasn't at today's price in 1974.....gotta go back to late-1979/early-1980 during the Hunt Bubble.
I don't like what the Federal Reserve is doing or how it is being run. I want to vote for new leadership at the Fed.
But no, I can't.
The Federal Reserve has very large unrealized gains. When Federal Reserve Notes are issued, the Fed receives a credit for them, but the same amount also appears on the Fed's books as a liability. So that is a wash, as far as the balance sheet is concerned. But the credit that the Federal Reserve obtains from issuing the notes is used to earn interest. Federal Reserve notes do not pay any interest.
So, for example, the Federal Reserve receives an order from a regional bank for Federal Reserve Notes. The regional bank pays the Federal Reserve the nominal amount (face value) of the notes. The Fed can then use the credit they received to purchase US Treasury bills and earn interest. But the Fed doesn't have to pay any interest on the Federal Reserve notes issued.
Unrealized gains occur when Federal Reserve notes are lost, destroyed, or simply not returned. The notes are still on the Fed's balance sheet as a liability, but they will never be presented for payment.
I'd sure like to be able to earn interest on money that I create or borrow for free. The privilege of being able to issue the circulating currency is enormous.
Remember our previous conversation regarding Fed member banks being the first to receive new money, which gives them a great advantage ? I pointed out that banks could, for example, buy real estate with this new money. You claimed that no bank would invest their own capital in something like real estate. In less than two minutes of searching I found a fund that Goldman Sachs had set up to do exactly that (invest their own capital in Real Estate). Remember that ?
Clarification: Inflation adjusted. RGDS!
PS. No issues with the FED here. THKS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
It was created in darkness by its member bankers while congress was asleep. Do your research.
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
I have, lots of times. It passed Congress in 1913. Got nearly 80% of the House votes, and got about 60% of the Senate votes. So they voted, and it wasn't even close.
And all "profits" made by the Federal Reserve Bank (System) are swept to the Treasury, less what is needed to operate the Fed. In other words, the Fed pays for itself -- the one government agency that does -- and YOU are crying about the 1 profit center in the U.S. government instead of the other agencies that are cost centers.
No, that is false.
We went over this before.
The Federal Reserve is allowed to retain up to 6% of their profits (after expenses).
Just because they haven't always taken their full 6% cut doesn't mean that they never take any of it.
In earlier days of the Federal Reserve, they kept 100% of their profits.
If the Federal Reserve Bank was nationalized, 100% of its profits would go the the US Treasury.
All "profits" are swept to the Treasury and have been since the 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord. Profits before then were minimal anyway.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20230113a.htm
Go to the Fed or Treasury websites if you don't believe me.
Prior to 2011, the Federal Reserve kept some of its profits, and could do so again in the future (up to 6%).
The Federal Reserve also pays dividends to its member/owner banks. Those dividends are figured as part of the Fed's "operating costs", and so they reduce the amount of profit shown on the Fed's books (and thus, the amount they remit to the US Treasury).
So even if the Fed remits "all" of its profits to the US Treasury, the member/owner banks still retain profits from the Fed.
When the Federal Reserve was able to retain 100% of its profits, those profits were enormous and not "minimal" as you claim. From 1914-1933 the Federal Reserve issued 56,000 metric tons worth of gold-clause Federal Reserve Notes. This was essentially a 0% loan to the Federal Reserve amounting to more than 20 billion dollars (a lot of money at that time). The Federal Reserve was then able to earn interest on that 20 billion and keep that interest. Then in 1933 Roosevelt severed the gold clause relieving the Federal Reserve of all obligations to back their circulating currency with gold.
And also the Federal Reserve still has unrealized and unreported gains in terms of currency issuance and other operations.
I just came across a Forbes article which indicates that the Federal Reserve has declined to reveal the salaries and bonuses of the vast majority of its employees. The salaries for all other government departments (including the US Treasury) are fully known as part of the Government's GS pay-scale. But not the Federal Reserve, which is yet another indication that the Federal Reserve is privately-owned and not fully acting in the interests of the American public. How much did you earn when you worked there (if you did) ?
https://forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/10/26/why-so-secret-the-federal-reserve-hides-nearly-all-23000-employee-salaries/?sh=264406561366
.
God Bless the FED! THKS!!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
Fed Chairman Powell doesn't even earn $200,000 a year. He could earn 25x that amount working for PIMCO or JP Morgan.
The 6% is a return on capital invested by the banks, all profits after this are sent to the Treasury/U.S. Govt.
Profits not swept to Treasury are used to maintain regulatory capital, create swap lines, fund GSE's regulatory needs, and assist with the SOMA and Open Market Operations.
You are obsessed with nonexistent "profits" and windfalls of the Fed, whereas the Fed is concerned with the money supply, Fed Funds rate, and open market operations.
So what if Powell only makes $200,000 per year in official salary. He is quite wealthy otherwise. According to this article, he sold over a million dollars in stock just before a significant drop in the stock market:
https://prospect.org/economy/powell-sold-more-than-million-dollars-of-stock-as-market-was-tanking/
And this article comparing Powell's investments to Yellen's, indicates that both had placed bets on rising interest rates prior to the Federal Reserve's recent ramping of rates:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4130089-jerome-powell-and-janet-yellens-portfolios-compared
So Powell can make personal investment decisions based on where he thinks interest rates are going. And he is also in a position to dictate interest rate moves. No wonder he wants to keep his "$200,000" job.
All Federal Reserve employees should be subject to the same financial disclosure rules as elected Federal Government officials: https://citizen.org/article/personal-financial-disclosure-requirements-for-public-officials/#:~:text=Senior%20governmental%20officials%20must%20file%20annual%20public%20disclosure,conflicts%20of%20interest%20due%20to%20outside%20financial%20holdings.
In the wake of scandals involving investments by two Federal Reserve Bank governors, Powell did change the rules for Fed officials. But they still don't have the same reporting requirements as normal Federal Government officials:
https://cnn.com/2021/10/21/investing/fed-bans-officials-stocks/index.html#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20the%20rule%20changes%2C%20regional%20bank,restrictions%20will%20be%20incorporated%20%E2%80%9Cover%20the%20coming%20months.%E2%80%9D
Funding of things such as "GSE regulatory needs" are a normal part of the Federal Reserve's expenses. The Fed's earnings may go towards paying for that, but not their profits. Their profits are only calculated after all expenses are accounted for.
This is from the Federal Reserve's own web page (note "Supervision and Regulation" expenses):
Powell's investments are handled by an OUTSIDE firm and by selling in October 2020 he missed out on HUGE GAINS, I don't know why you are trying to claim this is "insider trading" when it's just BAD trading by whoever managed his investments.
There were no "scandals" involving the regional Fed heads.
You continue to rely on "sources" who can't be bothered to look up the charts, what happened to the markets, and basic facts regarding how the Fed and her employees operate.
I'm enjoying the discussion and at different times have agreed & disagreed with sentiments. I believe most all of you have posted valid points and counterpoints. Until I can decide for myself, I will assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Carry on.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
Will BRICS replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency?
Not in my lifetime.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
Federal Reserve appointed officials, senior management, and employees should be subject to the same regulations as Federal Government elected officials, appointed officials, and employees. This is just one reason why the Federal Reserve should be nationalized. Are you opposed to nationalizing the Federal Reserve, and if so, why ?
Two Federal Reserve Bank presidents resigned after their insider trading was exposed. Due to negative public sentiment regarding that, Powell was forced to change the rules. We are discussing it. Other people discussed it. That makes it absolutely a "scandal".
The personal financial reporting rules for Fed officials allow transactions to be lumped together and otherwise obfuscated.
https://foxbusiness.com/economy/federal-reserve-jerome-powell-personal-stock-sale
The Fed is already "nationalized" -- it's a Central Bank. You want the Fed to have 330 million shareholders dictating how it operates ?
There was no insider trading by the Fed officials. They simply executed trades.
You continue to look for scandal and conflicts of interest where non exist. Meanwhile, special interests getting tens of billions in exchange for votes and keeping certain elected officials in power totally escapes you. You say very little about the scam known as the Central States Pension Fund. $36 BB of taxpayer money flushed down the toilet but you are worried about Powell using his own $$$ and selling stocks when he should have been buying.
.
So you are using the "nothing to see here - move along and look over there" tactic in this debate.
You just admitted that the Federal Reserve is not "nationalized", because you point out that 330 million stakeholders (the American populace) do not have a say in how it operates. It is an undemocratic system.
330 million stakeholders could not do worse than the Federal Reserve has in terms of managing the economy for the benefit of the American people (repeatedly blowing up and popping bubbles, for example).
A better solution would be to have an entity like the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office manage the Federal Reserve.
.
Not in anybody on this boards lifetime. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
Yeah...what could go wrong with people who spend 4 hours a day watching "Jerry Springer" and reality TV shows deciding monetary policy !!
The CBO knows nothing about monetary policy. They're fiscal experts, and I use the term "experts" loosely.
Maybe you want the CBO -- non-partisan, you say -- performing your next life-saving operation rather than a "biased" Democrat or Republican skilled surgeon ?
.
Still, that would be better than an organization that has the interests of its member/owner banks first, and everyone else second (or third).
PS:
I wrote "an entity like the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office", not necessarily that specific organization (but it could be a new organization formed for the purpose).
.
I see that this "debate" has leaked over to the NGC forum:
https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/431809-daniel-carr-madison-county-coin-club-medal/
.
Why did you feel the need to insert that into a discussion over there that was about the Madison County Coin Club medal ?
.
BRICS are not a homogenous or harmonious union at the moment (see news of India rejecting Russia's request to trade for oil in Chinese Yuan). I don't put a lot of credance into their (mostly Russia's) rhetoric about a bloc currency. I was curious when Saudi Arabia applied to join their bloc and even more attentive after Iran and Saudi Arabia re-established diplomatic relations at the behest of China (purportedly as a condition for both Iran's and KSA's application to the BRICS). My thoughts on the bloc could change if KSA fully embraces the proposed (idea of a) currency, but I don't think that is likely any time soon (like for the next few decades at least). $.02
Yelling at clouds on pmbug.com
The growing switch from dollars to other means of barter by numerous countries is a fact and is representative of their desire to cut the "dollar apron string." This cannot be denied and is/will affect the value of the dollar worldwide.
There is an economic war in progress. Do not be fooled into letting your opinion of a nation's politics affect your realization that their economic power carries worldwide weight.
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
Both the BRICS and the dollar will weaken. Currencies and fiat money will continue to inflate around the world due to terrible fiscal and bank policies, and more needs to be created to pay the interest as well. Not sure a "reserve" currency means the same thing anymore. Buy gold and don't sell it too soon or you will regret it.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
Why do you feel the need to post links to the NGC board on the PCGS forum? If we were interested in NGC we would go there to read about it. Stick with your fantasy tokens please. CRIPES!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
why not just stick to the discussion and stop slamming a fellow member. Reminds me of another guy here with the same problem though he hasn't appeared in a while. Miss ya CoHo.
"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he just doesn’t see?” - Bob Dylan
I thought I was paying you a compliment on your tokens.
Many people like them apparently.
Don't take the monetary policy jibe personal. I was a Fed Watcher out of college so I take attacks on the Fed personally.
94% of all transactions involve the dollar, virtually unchanged from 5, 10, or 20 years ago.
Don't be fooled by these anti-dollar articles. At the end of the day, everybody wants dollars.
Or Gold-Pressed Latinum !!
"He [dcarr] may know tokens, but he knows nothing about monetary policy, the Fed, or central banking. Conspiratorial to the nth degree."
To me, that doesn't read as a compliment at all. The opposite, in fact.
It is a matter of opinion and not "conspiratorial to the nth degree" to think that the public would be better served if the Federal Reserve was fully nationalized into the Federal Government.
I think an opinion that would give control over the Fed to Rashaida Tlaib, AOC, and other Socialists and self-professed Marxists is a prescription for economic and financial ruin that will make the 1970's look like The Good Old Days !!
Of course...if you want the price of gold at $7,000 an ounce...that could be the ticket !!
We have a democratic government, but not in the financial arena. There, it is more like a monarchy or even fascism.
I hate marxists, communism, and socialism. Banks hate those as well, except when they get into trouble and embrace financial socialism so as to spread their losses onto everyone else.
The current financial system has caused debt levels and cost of living to go way too high.
We should have a well-defined and relatively static monetary system, akin to a digital gold standard.
The US Treasury needs to take back the issuance of currency from the Federal Reserve. I would have the US Treasury issue a digital currency with specific limits on it. Such as: no more than 4% annual growth in the amount of such currency issued; a 3% interest rate which stays constant; A small transaction fee for every transfer to fund the government and to eliminate income taxes and most of the IRS (imagine never having to file tax returns again). To implement "monetary policy", rather than changing the underlying interest rate, the transaction fee rate would be adjusted (higher to cool the economy and direct more funding to the government, lower to spur the economy).
94% of all transactions involve the dollar, virtually unchanged from 5, 10, or 20 years ago.
Looking at the Fed's own data, it looks closer to 85% than 94%, and that's based on 2021 data.
The BRICS now consist of about 35% of world GDP, and 85% of world oil production. The dollar isn't being replaced, but it's losing dominance.
I knew it would happen.
It is 94% for large-transactions but high-80's overall. 88% for 2022.
It's not losing dominance so much as others are growing small-transactions faster as EM GDP and 3rd World GDP grow faster than the U.S. and OECD (like China, 2000-2020).
The dollar isn't going ANYWHERE for decades.
Where do you get your information on banking and finance ? Because it's clear to me that you are going to right-wing, libertarian, Murray Rothschild-like polemical websites that spew nonsense that isn't backed up by facts.
You hate Marxists, Communism, and Socialism ? GOOD !!
What about BAD INFORMATION ? Because that is what you are using and posting here repeatedly. You state things that are CLEARLY wrong and materially so. Not getting a number wrong but the direction right, kind of thing. But totally off-base.
For instance....your statement that "banks embrace financial socialism so as to spread their losses onto everyone else." TOTALLY FALSE !! You checked the price of Citibank lately ? 1/10th the level pre-2008. I dare you to go tell the shareholders that they got "bailed out" and "spread their losses." Banks got burned by the Fed 2022 tightening and are holding RECORD losses on their books as their reward for facilitating QE and buying long-dated assets as the Fed requested (see chart below).
What you stay about banks and finance is so off-base...and so EASILY disproven by checking stock prices or reading balance sheets or income statements..... that I just have to believe you think you are an expert in this area and can just say whatever you want, even on more-or-less anonymous Forum Chat Boards like these. While you have that right, I don't believe you should be posting clearly factually incorrect statements.
I repeatedly have posted a rebuttal involving a $36,000,000,000 bailout of the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund. A classic bailout.....money for nothing...nobody gets fired....corruption and fraud are papered over. You have said NOTHING about it. Should I surmise that you are a Teamsters member ?
Meanwhile, Citibank shareholders got diluted to hell (I dare you to attend the annual meeting and make that statement about socialize losses to the stockholders !! 
) and others PAID BACK all the TARP loans they got (of which many didn't want the $$$ in the first place).
Meanwhile, you bash banks for "socialism" and $36 BB got stolen from the Treasury and not a peep from you, the media, or an entire political party which also railed about "Wall Street bailouts."
You seem like a nice guy, dCarr, but please do some research on financial markets and banking and central banking before you post CLEARLY false information that isn't backed up by the historical record.
It's FISCAL policy, not monetary policy or debt which is behind the current elevated inflation levels. It will come down more.
A digital gold standard or anything digital means the government knows every time you received money or spent money. You really want them to know that ?
Your prescriptions would mean the end of the dollar as the Global Reserve Currency.....a depression as the Fed would not have the ability to react to exogenous shocks.....the ability to "cancel" one's digital assets....and dozens more problems.
Inflation and interest rates would be volatile since the only way the economy would be able to adjust to internal or external shocks would be through internal devaluations of the price level and/or wages or their inflationary revaluation.
.
You are clearly an apologist for the banking status quo.
The price of a particular bank stock is hardly the only consideration.
When a corporation goes bankrupt and creditors come calling, there are often "claw-back" procedures. The purpose is to recover for the creditors money that the corporation diverted to other entities prior to the bankruptcy filing.
Many banks have gone into receivership or have otherwise been bailed out. Have any of these banks ever taken back dividends or bonuses that they paid out prior to their failure and used those funds to offset their losses (instead of taking a bailout) ?
.
I'm an apologist for industries that help America create jobs and remain competitive in the global economy. You want Chinese and Japanese banks dominating world finance ?
Check out what has happened to British and European banks the last 15 years. Totally wrecked.
It's a good indication if they are reaping undeserving rewards like you keep whining about.
That's RARELY the case with big companies since they are so heavily regulated. It happens with small privately held businesses or micro-cap businesses. You think Lehman or Bear Stearns were able to shift billions ? No, they couldn't.
Which banks have been "bailed out" after paying unearned bonuses or dividends ??? NONE !!! And you can't go back in time and take back employee pay.