>> ^yaroslavvb:
I've watched half of the second video, and they propose to abolish private lending at interest, just letting the government print money to finance its spending. There is a couple of problems with this:
1. If the government is elected like in US, it would be motivated to print large amounts of money to coincide with elections, to increase it's electability. This was seen with Carter administration putting pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates (thereby increasing money supply), that were raised to battle stagflation. Fed didn't bulge, Carter got voted out, and Fed managed to conquer the stagflation crisis. US government being forced to borrow from the Fed puts a check on irresponsible spending, likely to prevent hyperinflation episodes like in Russia or Yugoslavia
2. If there's no private lending with interest, how would promising ventures get funded? Surely we couldn't have some government bureaucrat review funding for every start-up


Ummm... were we watching the same video?

I've watched half of the second video, and they propose to abolish private lending at interest, just letting the government print money to finance its spending. There is a couple of problems with this:

1. If the government is elected like in US, it would be motivated to print large amounts of money to coincide with elections, to increase it's electability. This was seen with Carter administration putting pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates (thereby increasing money supply), that were raised to battle stagflation. Fed didn't bulge, Carter got voted out, and Fed managed to conquer the stagflation crisis. US government being forced to borrow from the Fed puts a check on irresponsible spending, likely to prevent hyperinflation episodes like in Russia or Yugoslavia

2. If there's no private lending with interest, how would promising ventures get funded? Surely we couldn't have some government bureaucrat review funding for every start-up

his younger brother Aleksander Pešut – Schatzi is also a musician, a drummer in his band "Magnifico & Turbolentza", and he also produced his 2007 Grand Finale album. Magnifico is played on radio stations across EU. He signed a contract with Sony Music in spring 2004, that helped him promote his music and boosted his popularity in countries such as Sweden, Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Poland, Switzerland, Spain and of course all over former Yugoslavia, but most of all in Italy where he went top 10 with this song - Hir aj kam, hir aj go (fonetic script for "Here I come, Here I go")

I had a brief period of piracy myself. when I was 14 i bought an Atari 520 ST in Germany and someone smuggled it across the Yugoslavian border in the trunk of a car for me. the tariffs were enormous, specialy for the technical goodies from the capitalist west so, i have my computer safe at home, now what? you couldn't buy most of the new games or software legaly then, if any. you had a bunch of pirates to choose from, but most of them just ripped you off. so i got together with a few friends from school who also owned Ataris, each had some money so we mail ordered some 50 or 60 games, on 3.5" floppys, from this shady character from Netherlands to a PO box in Austria and then smuggled them back home. we then copied the games on as many floppys as we could afford, placed an ad in a computer magazine (all the pirates did it since then socialist Yugoslavia didn't have adequate copyright laws for digital media) and started making some bucks. in the beggining it was enough to cover our expenses and finance the buying of new stuff, then more people started buying these 16-bit machines, business was good, but we, at least myself as far as i can remember, didn't do it for long, we did it mostly for access to new games and other software, which we couldn't get anywhere else but abroad. some friends of mine still continued this into the PC era... all that changed with us joining the dirty capitalist rat-race in the 90s, of course, but in that brief time it certainly helped us in computer literacy as we could get practicaly any game or professional software for free and toy with it at home

This prompted me to read up on Kosovo. No shortage of blood spilled over it/on it over the last 1000 years. Every side putting the boot into each other whenever they got the power.

To paraphrase something Peter Ustinov said after the fall of communism and the breakup of the ussr, about tiny regions that have never been independent entities, people think that having their own flag and anthem are going to solve all their problems. Thats often only the beginning of the problems. He said that shortly before Yugoslavia really kicked off.

Hope this isnt going to be a repeat of history, but history would indicate that it is.

This was a mistake on Obama's part.

Let's admit that the commentary is there because the Clinton campaign is viciously attacking Obama's crediantials. Obama rightfully wants to stay above it, but instead of looking with a critical eye over Clinton era (white house scandals, unlawful bombing of Yugoslavia, etc) mistakes he somehow pulls this comparison with Regean, which I think was silly given that Regean era policies will divid supporters of Obamas side given Regean policies (iran, contra, economic problems, afghanistan, anti-AIDS).

I think Bill Clinton is acting totally below par for a ex-president however in acting as a voce for his wifes campaign attacking the other leading democratic candidate.

I strongly disagree. I think the cold hard facts from history disproves this idealistic claim.

Hate to bring up America's current biggest controversy here, but look at Iraq. It was a militant police state. There was cruelty and oppression but also control and order. You say freedom and democracy is better than order and control? Just look at Iraq and all its glory today.

Same can be said about Afghanistan, German Confederacy, post-world war 2 Czechoslovakia, Fascist Italy (Mussolini), Yugoslavia, Aztec Empire, post-colonial India, Roman Empire, the USSR, and perhaps the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Order and control is always better than the unlimited amount of freedom that comes when regimes are fallen afterwards.

Chaos (too much freedom) is no better than tyranny. But at least you can control the level of tyranny when things are organized (Russia has enough order and stability to 'fake' democratic elections). When you have chaos, you have power over nothing, and everything blows up with massive collateral damage, effectively undermining local populace' economy as well as infrastructure. Eliminating any means for them to rebound from their old regime and forced to live in extreme poverty.

Give Russia some time to economically develop and politically stabilize. And things will change by themselves (also speaking historically. higher economic power = higher civic power). But trying to force something that's clearly not ready for will only make things worse (Nepal). Because democracy is not the most ideal way of governance for every country (let alone a corporate company/private business) 100% of the time.

this coming from the guy who let Iraq get away with bloody murder for 8 years? Puhleeze. Then there was Somalia, Yugoslavia, and all of Clinton's other foreign policy "successes", so ya, keep spouting the party line Bill, that's all you ever were good for anyway...

ha haaaaa "peaceful countryside of Yugoslavia". there's your comedy gold right there. And what's with the freaky music? Seriously though I love how the narrator says authoritatively: "there are no explanations for the origin or purpose of the paintings" like 'don't you dare even try to think of any either!'. Doesn't it seem infinitely more plausible that these are a highly superstitious society's depictions of comets with some sort of god/demon inside or somesuch? Comets were widely seen back then to be harbingers of catastrophe and we know all too well how even modern nutjobs like the heaven's gate cult still like to populate them with imaginary gods/aliens and so on. But no, let's stick with the explanation that they're actually alien spacecraft because, you know, that just more fun to believe.

Firstly - the concept of a "lender of last resort" is one created by JP Morgan, himself. Secondly - you do know that JP Morgan helped to write the Federal Reserve Act, right?

Oh yeah, I guess it's fortunate that the government has just "some check" on the central banking system - not like they're supposed to be printing the money themselves or anything. Not like they ever have appointed anybody that wasn't already rich by inheritance(not by knowledge, mind you) to be governor, or lowered their salaries, or ever impeached anybody.

As for politics playing a greater role in monetary policy - what would be the difference? On the one hand, you have the politics of a small group of people controlling the monetary policy of the masses versus the politics of people who have to DIRECTLY answer to the people of the United States. Who currently benefits from the politics of a small group of people running the Federal Reserve?...Oh yeah, that's right - they aren't going to do something that is not in their best interests...if the government took direct control, whose best interests would they be required to answer for?

I think you maybe assume that the President would control the Fed if it came under direct governmental control - that's precisely the problem here - the only person that appoints the Chairman IS the President - neither the Congress NOR the Senate have any say in it. I am most certainly NOT suggesting that the President take direct control - I am suggesting that, what is stated in the Constitution, that the Congress and the Senate takes direct control.

It's very interesting that you've read "Secrets of the Temple(as you defend the value of the Federal Reserve so adamantly)," but, as you'll note - I do not reference Milton Friedman's monetarist theories - I reference his "Monetary History of the United States," more specifically his account of what caused the Great Depression, or, as he notes, the Great Contraction.

Have you by any chance read "The Creature from Jekyll Island?" Yet another interesting diatribe on the Federal Reserve that you might like.

We can extensively debate the causes of Yugoslavia's economic troubles, but I would hope you'd recognize the economic role that the United States played in their demise. In other words - what is stopping us from racking up the same amount of debt that they racked up with the IMF? As the IMF increases our credit to fund our various wars, they also retain the power to require that the loans we made with them be paid back, at any time of their choosing. Last I checked, that would equal what?...about $80,000 per American? I'll let you find the details of that on your own, but I hope that you do realize that most Americans do not have $80,000 to pay back the IMF loans that this country has taken out to fund our various wars.

So many things you say interest me - like why do you think it was a GOOD thing that the Fed didn't allow bank runs? I ask this mainly because, well, by doing so they didn't exactly curtail the spread of economic depression, as evidenced by the following 8 years - essentially they just held onto the little bit of money the people HAD earned instead of letting the people trade it as they would have otherwise - probably even lessening the devastation of the Great Contraction, but, well, we'll never know, because the Federal Reserve didn't do that.

Who could have made better choices? That's a good question - practically, a group of people that had closer ties to the caste of citizens that make up the working foundation of this country, and not a group of people that were neither a citizen of this country, or represented the caste of society that manages the working foundation indirectly.

In other words, I'd consider it a safe bet that the Congress and the Senate could have done a better job of managing the money supply - at least if and when the Great Depression happened, the people would have been required to take responsibility for it themselves, instead of theorizing about WHAT or WHO caused it, as we have done for almost the past 100 years.

Long and short of it - Americans have become complainers, mostly because they do not have responsibility over the various systems that affect them, and therefore they can NOT exercise any rights they DO have to make their own situations better - they can't take their cases to the Fed, they can't even petition for the Congress or the Senate to exercise control of the Fed, because both the Congress AND the Senate would just note the status of the Federal Reserve as a corporation, and, as such, it is not within their legal abilities to regulate a system that people themselves have prescribed to(by using Federal Reserve Notes).

Check this out: http://smallbusiness.dnb.com

Go there and search for "State of <state>" and pick the state. You'd be surprised at what is registered as a corporation these days.

Without the Fed, who is going to be the lender of last resort? We could revert to the situation to what it was before the Fed was created, which would mean that a handful of big banks, like JP Morgan, would be the lenders of last resort, and with that, in charge of the monetary policy. In fact, the Fed was created in part to break that clique of power.

At least now the government has some kind of check on the central bank system, by being able to appoint the governors, set their salaries, and impeach them.

Or we could bring the Fed under direct government control, but that would mean that politics would play a greater role in the monetary policy. Congressmen and the president realize that economy experiences cycles, and they could use the interest rate "lever" to make the cycles of boom correspond to election times.

Not that they don't try -- both Carter and Nixon both appointed "team players" as chairmen, loyal supporters that tried to lower interest rates when the president was in trouble. The 14 year appointment terms reduce those effects.

The reason Friedman Milton's book is out of date on the Fed is because since the 60s, Milton's "monetarist" philosophy has grown more accepted in the economic community, and even tried by the Fed. Milton was essentially saying that instead of complicated deliberations on when to speed the economy up, and when to cool it down (something that the Fed governors allegedly did just to make themselves feel important), the Fed should be there to make sure that money supply grows at fixed rate, so to take more of an accounting role. In fact, when Reagan was elected, and Milton Friedman became the president's economic advisor, the Fed did just that -- instead of working to "take away the punch when the party gets going", it changed it policy to that of a passive guardian of money supply, changing interest rates automatically to make sure there's a stable amount of money in the system. The whole account of what happened is long and fascinating, which you can read in the book "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country", but the bottom line is that it backfired, and the Fed reverted back to the old mode of operation. Friedman's monetarist philosophy proved too simple for the real world. He later aknowledged "I was wrong. And I have no good explanation as to why I was wrong"

Yugoslavian scenario won't happen in US because the hyperinflation (quintillion of percent per year) was caused by the government issuing money to cover it's own fiscal deficit. In US, the Federal Reserve has the authority of issuing money, but not the government. The US government can pressure the Fed to loan it money, which in essence results in more money being printed, but within limits. By having to go to the Fed to ask for more money, it creates a balance on the government's control over spending, as opposed to Yugoslavia's case, when the government itself could quietly print more currency on demand.

As far as Argentina goes, one of the things that happened in the financial crisis was a bank run in 2001. The Fed, with their capacity to print currency, would not let a bank run happen in US. For instance the 1929 stock market collapse was not accompanied by a banking panic due to the quick action of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

United States uses IMF and the World Bank to lend money to developing countries, not the other way round. A more realistic scenario is if the Asian countries lose faith in US treasury bills and stop buying them. That would mean the current trade deficit would go unfunded, dollar would fall in value, and Americans would no longer be able to afford to buy chinese goods. That would be bad for China just as it's bad for US, in fact, it would probably cause a world-wide recessions, so the whole world would work to prevent this from happening.

The Fed could mess up the economy by flooding the streets with fed banknotes without limit, or by refusing loan requests at it's Discount window. However that can be said of anybody in charge of the monetary policy. A more relevant question is what what they are realistically expected to do. In retrospect, they've made some mistakes, but who could've made those choices better?

My point is - we didn't NEED the Fed, in the first place, and it most certainly did NOT help the United States to get it.

Also, the examples you cite are somewhat flawed:
Argentine Currency Board - Based on the design of the Federal Reserve, and even linked the peso with the USD at a rate of 10,000:1

Economy of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - "Despite Belgrade's non-alignment and its extensive trading relations with the European Community and the US, the Reagan administration targeted the Yugoslav economy in a "Secret Sensitive" 1984 National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 133), "Us Policy towards Yugoslavia." A censored version declassified in 1990 elaborated on NSDD 64 on Eastern Europe, issued in 1982. The latter advocated "expanded efforts to promote a 'quiet revolution' to overthrow Communist governments and parties," while reintegrating the countries of Eastern Europe into a market-oriented economy. [2]

Western trade barriers, dramatically reduced its economic growth. In order to counter this, Yugoslavia took on a number of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans and subsequently fell into heavy IMF debt. As a condition of receiving loans, the IMF demands "liberalisation" of Yugoslavia. By 1981, Yugoslavia had incurred $19.9 billion in foreign debt. However, Yugoslavia’s real concern was the unemployment rate, at 1 million by 1980."

Wow, man, you're really making me realize how much the United States Government has used it's economic influence and power to mess up other countries - with organizations like the IMF and World Bank backing us the entire time.

Your arguments, while trying to show how the Federal Reserve benefits us, only seem to show that, once organizations like the IMF and World Bank(and, subsequently, some of the richest people in the world that ARE invested in our Federal Reserve) start pulling their money out, we're screwed - I don't doubt(after researching the countries you mention), that this country will suffer a worse fate - I mean, how could our Federal Reserve possibly PROTECT our currency from the same fate as that of the Argentinian currency?...especially when it WAS the same system that caused their collapse?

Again - I ask - If everybody else around the world is following a "fad," why argue for that international "fad," especially by ignoring the signs of damage that said "fad" has caused?

Not sure how or why the World Bank would cause 50% devaluation of the dollar. US Government could cause such devaluation by creating money out of thin air (that's what caused Russian hyper-inflation). But why would that help the banks? It would hurt them by decreasing the value of their domestic investments. The bottom line is that inflation is bad for everybody.

As far as us government not doing a good job by mismanaging our currency, look at it in perspective. In 1993, Yugoslavian currency experienced hyperinflation in which prices increased 5 quadrillion percent in the period of 4 months. By comparison, US prices go up about 1% in that period of time. So US government's monetary policy is 5 quadrillion times better than it could've been
http://www.rogershermansociety.org/yugoslavia.htm

This clip is rubbish and absolute propaganda. Talk about leaving out facts! One small example of its omission of major facts is that it does not mention the six soldiers who were killed when they kidnapped the other two in Israeli borders! This clip mentions so many incorrect things that I don't know where to start to criticize it. Here is an article with some sense: Frederick Forsyth (Daily Express, 11/8): “It must surely be true that the level of lies and hypocrisy that a society can tolerate is in direct proportion to the degeneration of that culture.

Personally I am not particularly pro or anti Israel, pro or anti Arab or pro or anti Islam. But I do have a dislike of myth, hypocrisy and lies as opposed to reality, fairness and truth.

Watching the bombing of Lebanon it is impossible not to feel horror and pity for the innocent civilians killed, wounded or rendered homeless. But certain of our politicians, seeking easy populism and the cheapest round of applause in modern history, have called the Israeli response “disproportionate”. Among thee politicos are Jack Straw and that master of EU negotiations William Hague.

That accusation can only mean: “disproportionate to the aggression levelled against them”. Really? Why did the accusers not mention Serbia? What has Serbia got to do with it? Let’s refresh our memories.

In 1999 five Nato air forces – US, British, French, Italian and German – began to plaster Yugoslavia, effectively the tiny and defenceless province of Serbia. We were not at war with the Serbs, we had no reason to hate them, they had not attacked us and no Serbian rockets were falling on us.

But we practically bombed them back to the Stone Age. We took out every bridge we could see. We trashed their TV station, army barracks, airfields and motorways.

We were not fighting for our lives and no terrorists were skulking among the civilian population but we hit apartment blocks and factories anyway. There were civilian casualties. We did not do it for 25 days but for 73. We bombed this little country economically back 30 years by converting its infrastructure into rubble. Why?

We were trying to persuade one dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, to pull his troops out of Kosovo, which happened to be (and still is) a Yugoslav province. The dictator finally cracked; shortly afterwards he was toppled but it was his fellow Serbs who did that, no Nato.

Before the destruction of Serbia, Kosovo was a nightmare of ethnic hatred. It still is. If we wanted to liberate the Kosovans why did we not just invade? Why blow Serbian civilians to bits?

Here is my point. In all those 73 days of bombing Serbia I never heard one British moralist use the word “disproportionate”.

The entire point of Hezbollah is not to resolve some border dispute with Israel; its aim is to wipe Israel off the map, as expressed by Hezbollah’s master, the crazed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. That aim includes the eradication of every Israeli Jew; i.e. genocide.

Serbia never once threatened to wipe the UK off the map or slaughter our citizens, yet Straw, in office in 1999, and Hague, leading the Conservative Party, never objected to Serbia being bombed.

As an ex-RAF officer I am persuaded the Israelis fighter pilots are hitting civilian-free targets with 95% of their strikes. These are the hits no TV network bothers to cover. It is the 5% that causes the coverage and the horror: wrong target, unseen civilians in the cellar, misfire, unavoidable collateral casualties. Unavoidable?

Israel has said I effect, “If you seek to wipe us out we will defend ourselves to the death. You offer us no quarter, so we will offer none to you. But if you choose intentionally, inadvertently, or through the stupidity of your government to protect and shelter the killers among yourselves then with deepest regret, we cannot guarantee your exemption.”

Yesterday we Brits learned that certain elements in our society had tried to organise a mass slaughter of citizens flying out of our airports. We will have to take draconian measures against these enemies in our midst. Will Messrs Hague and Straw complain our methods are disproportionate? Not a chance. Now that, dear readers, is blatant hypocrisy.”