[wiz21c]

As a parent, I fail to see exactly how I'm guilty of anything here. I used the banks because I had to, I listened to their advice because I can't possibly become an expert on their subjects, etc. I even voted for people who want to regulate them. I don't play on the stock exchange (pension funds do, with my money). I didn't do anything wrong.

My children will pay for the mess a few made by pushing unreasonable expectations and by not listening to people like me.

There are some fights that must be fought by others.

Now if you can provide me with decent alternatives, I'd be glad to here from them. But remember, I have to live in the system.

[Lazeb]

>But remember, I have to live in the system.

That's generally the problem is that people can only ever see a solution that mirrors our society as is which means voting for the same politicians talking about the same neo-liberal capitalist economy, people need to be a bit braver ideologically if they don't want the wealth gap to increase and when the time for peaceful solutions has passed. We see the rise of the far right, it's slow but there's no denying those people are there in significant numbers and won't go away by calling them all sorts. It would be easy for me as a generally liberal middle-class white man to say everything is fine now but there are some issues which are still prevalent that can't be ignored.

[icu]

I'm with you on decent alternatives of which I think a non-Fed based monetary system as well as the end of crony capitalism (not capitalism itself) would probably be a decent alternative.

However, the biggest problem is the education of the wider public and garnering the democratic will of the people to make necessary changes.

Economics, for all its show of being empirical is really just politics, and politics is really just philosophy.

In the daily struggle, hustle and bustle of life, few have the time and desire to learn these subjects, let alone pay the price to apply themselves politically to make the necessary changes.

Are you willing to?

I'm not... at least for now, willing to do anything. Charity starts at home and before I contemplate doing anything political I must ensure my family is well off.

However if you are willing, and able to do something, I strongly encourage you to.

[wiz21c]

>>> Economics, for all its show of being empirical is really just politics, and politics is really just philosophy. >>> Are you willing to?

You're painfully right. I 100% agree. There lies the issue. I have the philosophy right, but the opportunity and skills to fight for it, well, it's much tougher. If only one could contribute to that like on open source projects ('cos there, I contribute, I find time and energy)

But I'm not guilty :-)

[icu]

Well I think you can make opportunities through persistence and sacrifice and for a given level of intelligence and time, all skills can be learnt.

However the will to do it requires a good enough why... and if you have more pressing whys than you just won't start.

Best I can do for the time being is vote.

[pas]

> a non-Fed based monetary system

Could you elaborate on that please?

> Economics, for all its show of being empirical is really just politics, and politics is really just philosophy.

That's very-very incorrect. Economics is about models, and understanding the past, and maybe trying to peek at the future. But at its core, it's about modeling.

And it helps us understand what works and what doesn't. Politics should be about giving the parameters to those models. And philosophy (logic) is about finding the inconsistencies in our politics.

And as you say, nowadays people don't care about logic, they care about their beliefs. Even if they are inconsistent. They are too busy to notice that they are wrong.

[icu]

Re: The Fed

The Fed is a privately owned bank that is given the monopoly to issue debt backed by the taxation of the State.

The U.S. could simply issue debt itself. Even though the President appoints the Fed Chairman and it has the word "Federal" in its name it is not a Government organization. If you don't believe me, try getting ownership information from the Fed via the Freedom of Information Act.

For further information see what happened when President Andrew Jackson abolished the precursor to the current Fed. America didn't implode it actually thrived. Also worth looking into is how the current Fed came about. President Woodrow Wilson lived long enough to regret bringing the Fed back.

Fun fact, the Bank of England started off as a private bank before it became nationalized. Nothing is stopping the U.S. from doing the same.

Re: Economics is modelling

If that were the case what is Communism? Is that a model or a political system? What is Capitalism? Is that a model too? No... they are 'societal beliefs in action' which is what politics is.

As for your assertions on philosophy... I would say philosophy is more than finding inconsistencies, it's a framework for thought itself that allows for reasoning.

What is a model anyway? At its essence it's an idea (or set of ideas) that may or may not be true. I think a big part of the problem with Economics today is the hubris modelling can confer by giving the illusion of accuracy.

It's worth looking into the works of Nobel Prize winner in Economics and the Turing Award winner Herbert A. Simon or more recently Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Simon's Nobel acceptance speech suns things up better than I can.

[dragonwriter]

> Even though the President appoints the Fed Chairman and it has the word "Federal" in its name it is not a Government organization. If you don't believe me, try getting information from the Fed via the Freedom of Information Act.

The Fed's own page on the FOIA indicates that the Fed thinks it's a federal agency covered by FOIA.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/about_foia.htm

[icu]

Okay... request information on the ownership structure of each of the Fed banks (i.e. share register) and see how far you get.

I know it sounds crazy but the Fed is simply not a Government organization if it is privately owned.

[pas]

It's not privately owned.

It has mandatory non-voting non-transferable shares. That is, when you fund a bank, you have to buy in at the regional Fed. Why? Who knows, it's a law on the books, and it's basically mindless administration. It does not make it "owned" in any sense.

The Fed is established by an Act of Congress, directly reports to Congress, and every aspect of the Fed's rights and duties is directly spelled out in laws.

If you do a FOIA request for ownership structure, you'll get nothing, because there's no such thing. The Fed is not owned by anyone, it's an independent-from-the-WhiteHouse US agency. It has a budget (and is self funded, from the interests of the securities/assets it holds), it has expenses for staff and for the cost of providing services, it then gets reimbursed from the Treasury for certain services, etc. ( https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/files/2018ReserveBankBud... ) And it pays out 6% to the member banks, who are mandated by law to have equal to 3% of their capital in Fed Regional Bank "shares".

There's one instance where the regional fed banks can be thought of as "private": from the perspective of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act].

See also Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, in which the distinction is made between Federal Reserve Banks, which are federally created instrumentalities, and the Fed Board of Governors, which is a federal agency.