eListas Logo
   The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net
      HOME    SERVICES    SOLUTIONS    COMPANY    
Home > My Lists > socialcredit > Messages

 Message Index 
 Messages from 5263 to 5322 
SubjectFrom
Reconstruction william_
Re: Responding in Martin H
Unlike Consumers, william_
Re: Unlike Consume Martin H
Re: Unlike Consume William
Question regarding william_
Re: Question regar Martin H
Re: Question regar Joe Thom
Re: Public-spirite Peter Ho
We are looking for Franšois
Re: Public-spirite Peter Ho
Re: Question regar william_
Re: Re: Public-spi keith wi
Re: Re: Public-spi Peter Ho
RE: Re: Question r John G R
Re: Re: Public-spi Wallace
Re: Re: Public-spi Jim Inne
Re: We are looking Martin H
Re: Re: Public-spi keith wi
Re: We are looking Bob Taft
Re: Re: Question r Joe Thom
Re: DICK EASTMAN: Peter Ho
Re: Re: Public-spi Peter Ho
Re: Question regar william_
Re: I await your a Peter Ho
Re: Re: I await yo Peter Ho
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Z elistas <socialc John G R
Re: Re: I await yo Peter Ho
in further reply t william_
Re: in further rep Vicky Da
Re: Re: Re: I awai Martin H
Re: in further rep Joe Thom
Re: in further rep Joe Thom
Re: in further rep Vicky Da
Re: in further rep Adavans
Re: in further rep Adavans
Re: in further rep Bob Taft
Re: in further rep Joe Thom
Re: in further rep Vicky Da
Re: Shakespeare's Peter Ho
Re: Shakespeare's Peter Ho
Re: Food For Thoug William
Shortage of staple Eric Enc
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
RE: Shortage of st Henry Ra
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Shakespeare's Peter Ho
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
Re: Re: Re: I awai Martin H
Re: Re: Re: I awai Per Almg
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai Martin H
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
Re: Re: Re: I awai Per Almg
Re: Re: Re: I awai Joe Thom
Re: Re: Re: I awai William
Re: Re: Re: I awai Wallace
 << Prev. 60 | Next 60 >>
 
socialcredit
Main page    Messages | Post | Files | Database | Polls | Events | My Preferences
Message 5295     < Previous | Next >
Reply to this message
Subject:[socialcredit] Re: [chdouglas] DICK EASTMAN: DEMAND THAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE MUST LOWER THE RESERVE REQUIEMENT ON BANKS IMMEDIATELY
Date:Thursday, March 20, 2008  07:53:01 (-0700)
From:Peter Hogwood <p_t_hogwood @.....com>

Dick, I agree with this statement completely except to
note that returning to gold is certainly not populist
doctrine:

"Let's set one thing straight.  Being for the
abolition of the Federal Reserve or a return to gold
as a solution to the immediate crisis is barking up
the wrong tree.  Whether it fits populist received
doctrine or not, there is nothing wrong with the
Federal Reserve system, only with who is controlling,
what levers they are choosing to pull and which to
ignore, and who they are seeking to benefit and at
whose expense."

In other words, it is not the structure of the Fed
that we object to, but the policy of those in charge.

I do not however agree that reducing reserve
requirements will make much difference.

The United States is one of the few remaining
jurisdictions that still maintain a reserve
requirement.  Canada, for example, has eliminated
required reserves.

Reducing required reserves does increase the potential
for additional loans to be granted by banks against
reserves.  This does not mean that additional loans
will indeed be granted.  During recessionary times
banks, being conservative institutions, will always
maintain more reserves than legally required.  The
experience from the Great Depression tells us it's
somewhat like pushing on a string in terms of
stimulus.  More aggressive action is required, the
conceptually best being the Social Credit dividend and
retail discount programs to increase consumer demand
in getting the economy moving again.

Your assertion that "most dollars are outside the US"
is factually incorrect.  Most dollars created by the
banking system are in fact circulating within the
domestic economy.

This assertion is also factually incorrect: "...the US
does not produce things any more," although it is
indeed true that the US is progressively
de-industrializing through the so-called "trade
deficit."

The cure for that is protectionism.

Peter Hogwood
Certified Public Accountant
Monroe, Louisiana



--- Dick Eastman <olfriend@nwinfo.net> wrote:

> 
> THE FEDERAL RESERVE MUST LOWER THE RESERVE
> REQUIREMENT ON BANKS IMMEDIATELY   -- Dick Eastman
> 
> 
> On 18-Mar-08 Ken Freeland wrote:
> 
> 
>   In other words, insist that the banks create even
> more money out of thin air?
> 
>   Peace,
>   Ken
> 
> On 18-Mar-08  Ardeshir Mehta  wrote:
> 
> 
>   Yes, why this appeal from you, Dick? Ken seems to
> be right on the money here. (Or am I missing
> something?) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   -Ardeshir.
> Reply:
> 
> Yes, my old friend, you are missing some
> life-and-death issues.  Let me explain the solution
> to you showing the many reasons why this and only
> this can end this crisis in the people's favor. This
> really is the cure.  As simple as taking penicillin.
> I'll prove that to you now.
> 
>    Let's set one thing sraight.  Being for the
> abolition of the Federal Reserve or a return to gold
> as a solution to the immediate crisis is barking up
> the wrong tree.  Whether it fits populist received
> doctrine or not, there is nothing wrong with the
> Federal Reserve system, only with who is
> controlling, what levers they are choosing to pull
> and which to ignore,  and who they are seeking to
> benefit and at whose expense.  I know, Ardeshir,
> that you understand the crimes of the Federal
> Reserve hithertoo, and that you understand and
> advocate social credit and the transaction tax. 
> Well not let us look at how a governments bank  --
> whether it be the treasury or a private central bank
> like the Federal Reserve should be serving the
> country wherein it has authority.  I am going to
> give you the diagnosis of what is wrong with our
> economic system and tell you the cure to bring us
> out of our potentially fatal economic coma -- by
> using the right medicine  -- a reduction of the
> reserve requirment that allows all lending
> institutions to give grace and purchasing power to
> the entire country, instead of just Wall Street (and
> China's red slave-trading princelings.) 
> 
> 
> When the Fed attempts to simulate the economy by
> "raising interest rates" (by increasing the rate at
> the discount window where banks borrow from the Fed
> so they are not caught under their reserve
> requirement) this has only marginal effect. And when
> the Fed stimulates the economy by open market
> operations, that is by buying securities from Wall
> Street (in exchange for Federal Reserve money) in
> the loanable funds market -- the investment
> available money is no longer invested in the US, but
> goes to build new factories in China or other low
> production cost countries. However if every bank in
> the US gets to lend more because they are required
> to keep less reserves on hand -- that will inject
> purchasing power in the economy. Loan payment
> deadlines can be extended because the banks will
> have new excess to make that possible. Loans will
> not have to be called. Property will not have to be
> foreclosed. Solvency will continue because banks
> will have a margin of fresh loanable reserves
> without having to contract loan exposure which in
> turn decreases the money supply in the hands of the
> workers and firms of the domestic economy. It is not
> social credit, but done right it will get America
> through the hard time without the pillaging of
> assets through foreclosure. 
> 
> 
> Remember too that most dollars are outside the US.
> That was fine as long as foreigners held on to them
> as a secure asset. But with the depreciation of the
> dollar people lose when they hold onto dollars and
> so they are unloading them. Unfortunately the
> Federal Reserve System looks out for the interests
> of those foreign dollar holders more then it looks
> out for the American people. In fact the collapsed
> housing market is a gift to those foreign dollar
> holders, enabling them to buy up foreclosed houses
> and turn them into rental properties. My proposal
> will put countervailing money power in the hands of
> the domestic economy so that people can have more
> money circulating in the local middle-class loop
> economy to bid against the flood of foreign dollars
> and hold their own. 
> Yes, we have inflation -- and inflation is not good,
> but it is more complicated than that, and because of
> that complication to save the country you have to
> increase the money in the hands of the public to
> counter the money that is coming in to buy up
> assets. America produces an economic pie each year.
> Let's say one fifth of the dollars are in the US in
> the hands of households who buy and sell in the
> domestic economy. Let's say the other four fifths
> are in the hands of foreigners. But now the
> foreigners want to get rid of their dollars because
> they are losing purchasing power in comparison with
> other currencies and with gold and with commodities
> and land. And everyone wants to get rid of them at
> the same time. So they must get rid of them by
> buying American assets. But the US does not produce
> things any more -- because all of the corporations
> (who got their money from the loanable funds market
> suppled by the Federal Reserve's open market
> operations( have invested the money in productive
> capacity in China and Malaysia etc. And so the
> dollars must buy real estate. But the international
> super wealthy who have been holding dollar deposits
> also just happen to be the same international super
> wealthy who own the Presidents and Congress and
> picks who is going to head the Federal Reserve and
> the open market committee out of the New York
> Federal Reserve Bank. They can create a buyers'
> market and they have done so because they are out to
> buy houses for rentals and to foreclose on local
> businesses that compete with their international
> corporations. 
> 
> 
> By decreasing the amount of reserves the banks are
> required to hold it keeps banks further from
> insolvency. That is another thing the big money men
> behind this crisis want. They want to close down
> competing banks -- just like in 1929 and in 1933
> when Roosevelt called the bankers holiday and
> hundreds of banks did not reopen. As I have often
> repeated -- in an economic crisis, assets like
> homes, farms, small businesses, expensive equipment
> aren't destroyed, they just change hands. By
> increasing the amount of money that banks can
> dispose of at their own discretion (new loans or
> extended grace periods on existing loans -- we must
> legislate to make this easy) the people can hold
> onto their assets. They can begin to produce again
> -- even as foreign goods become prohibitively
> expensive, the domestic economy will have the means
> to rebuild productive capacity where the
> China-investors had let American production to fall
> into decay and near extinction. 
> 
> 
> The Money Power never wants to use the power of the
> Fed to decrease the reserve requirement, because
> when that is done they don't make any money on it.
> It always benefits the domestic economy, and they
> are only interested in the international corporation
> that produces abroad. They don't want purchasing
> power in the hands of Americans because Americans
> may start providing for themselves, starting small
> businesses, etc. That is what Wall Street has always
> been against. They want to lend, they want to
> foreclose and they want to consolidate the
> foreclosed properties into big monopoly holdings
> that set monopoly prices. 
> 
> When the Federal Reserve was sold to the country --
> the people were told that the money supply would be
> flexible -- and the reserve requirement was the
> mechanism by which the Fed was to stimulate the
> economy in a depression. However, the Federal
> Reserve was a bait and switch scam. After the
> Federal Reserve was created the Fed never used the
> reserve requirement to stimulate the economy. They
> did not want to create fresh purchasing power in
> every little bank throughout the country. Instead
> they used the open market mechanism of having the
> Federal Reserve buy and sell securities exclusively
> at the New York Federal Reserve Bank -- so that all
> the new currency injected by the Fed buying
> securities from Wall Street would go to the Wall
> Street financiers to invest where they wanted --
> overseas or in the making of giant monopolies -- to
> gain monopoly power. The last thing they wanted was
> for the small single branch banks in the Midwest,
> the south and the west to get fresh money with which
> to trade with each other, with which to build small
> businesses. 
> 
> Think about that for a moment. The gospel of the
> market economist -- and I am a pro-market economist
> -- is that the firm that "makes a better mousetrap"
> will have the customers beat a path to his door and
> he 
=== message truncated ===



     
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Services:  HomeList Hosting ServicesIndustry Solutions
Your Account:  Sign UpMy ListsMy PreferencesStart a List
General:  About UsNewsPrivacy PolicyNo spamContact Us

eListas Seal
eListas is a registered trademark of eListas Networks S.L.
Copyright © 1999-2006 AR Networks, All Rights Reserved
Terms of Service