Central Banks are privately owned

superluck

There's a widely held misconception amongst far right thinkers that all money is owned by someone that "worked hard" or "earned it" and thus the peasants don't deserve anything except starvation, incarceration and death for disobeying the rules of law which the wealthy themselves have no problem circumventing.

Isn't it strange central banks can magically find money to buy high-tech weapons and invade other nations overseas but can't find money to help their own people?

Look at some recent examples of this in the below article and ask yourselves why a bunch of sanctimonious crooked politicians would care about the welfare of peasants in some far away desert when they can't even be bothered to look after people in their own country.
MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: The Money Continues to Flow Like Wine: Defense Dept. Contracts for May 29, 2012

These contracts run into billions of dollars and illustrate cogently the ineptitude of those arguing for austerity through cuts to education and health and other infrastructure.

The US government cites lack of money for closing down the schools in some US states but ...funnily enough, there's plenty for weapons and of course private banks that can borrow at 0% and buy a treasury bond with 2.5% return.

I've been arguing before that central banks are privately owned by extremely wealthy people, It aggravates me to see people believe central banks are owned by the people when the people can't even get a loan for 0% from the central bank.

Is it not obvious to everyone these central banks are privately owned?

Daithi 1

There is no way in the world the central bank could be privately owned, like the federal reserve. Absolutely no way. Coz I aint seen proof.

superluck

If it was in the politics forum, It wouldn't be long moved here yet nobody in the politics forum can explain how a central bank owned by the people for the people has to borrow money from it at 2.5%

Anyone that believes the people own the central bank are incapable of explaining why the governments need to borrow from the central bank with interest.

troposphere

superluck wrote: »

The US government cites lack of money for closing down the schools in some US states but ...funnily enough, there's plenty for weapons and of course private banks that can borrow at 0% and buy a treasury bond with 2.5% return.

k-12 education is mostly a local and state issue

superluck

Speaks for itself.

troposphere

superluck wrote: »

Speaks for itself.

Not really, K-12 education is funded by local property taxes and state tax with minimal funding from the federal government. The federal government has no role in closing schools unless I believe they take them over because they are failing so bad.

enno99

superluck wrote: »

If it was in the politics forum, It wouldn't be long moved here yet nobody in the politics forum can explain how a central bank owned by the people for the people has to borrow money from it at 2.5%

Anyone that believes the people own the central bank are incapable of explaining why the governments need to borrow from the central bank with interest.

Victoria Grant, aged 12, became an overnight Internet sensation after a video of her slamming Canada's banks and the government for robbing the people went viral.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwitWJ-9ITY

superluck

@troposphere: How is that even relevant? Because it's federal, it's okay?

It's perfectly fine to borrow money from the central bank at 2.5% ?

I think you're missing the point here my friend, the problem isn't with the lack of money, it's who controls it, that's the problem.

The Central Bank shouldn't be earning any interest from money the government borrows unless of course it's privately owned, are you agreeing that it is?

Incidentally, most of the defense projects funded by the US taxpayer reap absolutely no benefit to the US taxpayer. The profits made by the contractors are paid out in dividends each quarter to the shareholders.

troposphere

superluck wrote: »

@troposphere: How is that even relevant? Because it's federal, it's okay?

It's perfectly fine to borrow money from the central bank at 2.5% ?

I think you're missing the point here my friend, the problem isn't with the lack of money, it's who controls it, that's the problem.

The Central Bank shouldn't be earning any interest from money the government borrows unless of course it's privately owned, are you agreeing that it is?

Incidentally, most of the defense projects funded by the US taxpayer reap absolutely no benefit to the US taxpayer. The profits made by the contractors are paid out in dividends each quarter to the shareholders.

You are the one who brought up school funding in your original post when you obviously did not understand how schools are funded in the US.

superluck

troposphere wrote: »

You are the one who brought up school funding in your original post when you obviously did not understand how schools are funded in the US.

No, the problem here is you don't understand the purpose of a central bank.

troposphere

superluck wrote: »

No, the problem here is you don't understand the purpose of a central bank.

Actually I could care less, next time learn about something before using it as an example to back up what you think is wrong about a country.

FISMA

superluck wrote: »

Speaks for itself.

Superluck, you're chart is so incredibly bad and cherry picked it is hard to know where to begin.

Eh... Where's social security spending?

Eh... Where's medicaid and medicare?

Finally, who the hell is the National Priorities Project?

Last I remember, we spent less on Defense than on Social Security OR medicaid/medicare.

Discretionary spending... Please.

If you want us to entertain your hypothesis about central banks you shouldn't present such biased charts.

studiorat

superluck wrote: »

If it was in the politics forum, It wouldn't be long moved here yet nobody in the politics forum can explain how a central bank owned by the people for the people has to borrow money from it at 2.5%

You should ask in the Economics Forum. Perhaps a moderator would move it for you...

The Central Bank is an agency of the government. It manages the euro in Ireland, the regulation of financial institutions, it also monitors the economy and gives advice to the government. Although last year Central Bank paid 671 million euro to the exchequer, it isn't set up to make a profit.

It would seem the OP if getting it mixed up with the Federal Reserve in the US. :rolleyes:

Why this obsession with America? I dunno, perhaps you should visit!

humanji

studiorat wrote: »

You should ask in the Economics Forum. Perhaps a moderator would move it for you...

The Central Bank is an agency of the government. It manages the euro in Ireland, the regulation of financial institutions, it also monitors the economy and gives advice to the government. Although last year Central Bank paid 671 million euro to the exchequer, it isn't set up to make a profit.

It would seem the OP if getting it mixed up with the Federal Reserve in the US. :rolleyes:

Why this obsession with America? I dunno, perhaps you should visit!

Don't make it personal!

Jonny7

US military spending is about 5% of GDP

FISMA

studiorat wrote: »

It would seem the OP if getting it mixed up with the Federal Reserve in the US. :rolleyes:
Why this obsession with America? I dunno, perhaps you should visit!

I think I understand the OP's "obsession." The same debate goes on in the States - what's so "Federal" about the federal reserve.

The OP's concern is well grounded. What gives these central banks the right to print money?

So I work my whole life, save up enough to retire and they pop the money supply, leaving me woefully unprepared? Hardly seems democratic or fair.

Also, the Euro is backed by the IMF, but who backs the IMF? More than likely it is the Federal Reserve. This is fundamentally why the Euro will not fail - America has out a backstop to the Euro. If the Euro fails, the dollar fails.

So back to the OP's original question - who's in charge of the Central Banks?

It's an important question.

The problem in the states is at least in part due to the Fed's cheap money policy. If they hadn't flooded the world with cheap money, there could have been no housing boom...

The Federal Reserve System reminds me of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Holy Roman Empire: wasn't holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't an Empire.

The Federal Reserve System: isn't Federal, there's no reserves, and it isn't even a system.

Buy Gold! 5000years of value! The trend is your friend.

hooradiation

FISMA wrote: »

So I work my whole life, save up enough to retire and they pop the money supply, leaving me woefully unprepared? Hardly seems democratic or fair.

What is this obsession that things ought to be "democratic" - what the shit does that even mean? Or are you just doing that thing whereby you use the word "democratic" as a magic word to make what you're arguing sound reasonable and right?
I think you are.

And to quote Sarah Nixey "Life is unfair, kill yourself or get over it".

FISMA wrote: »

Buy Gold! 5000years of value! The trend is your friend.

oh yeah, gold.
How's that working out right now?

enno99

hooradiation wrote: »

oh yeah, gold.
How's that working out right now?

It's still up $11.80 from the previous week

according to your link

hooradiation

enno99 wrote: »

It's still up $11.80 from the previous week

according to your link

Down from $1,622 to $1,588 p/oz, you've lost money either way.

But the point was gold is just like everything else, it's value can rise and fall.
And while it may long term trend fairly evenly, that does you fuck all good in the short term.

in short, it's not the magic panacea that people like to pretend it is.

studiorat

FISMA wrote: »

Also, the Euro is backed by the IMF, but who backs the IMF? More than likely it is the Federal Reserve. This is fundamentally why the Euro will not fail - America has out a backstop to the Euro. If the Euro fails, the dollar fails.

The IMF is "backed" by 38 member countries. Japan has a borrowing arrangement nearly equal to the US'. China and Germany coming 3rd and 4th.
Brazil, the UK, France, India, and Russia are also among the top shareholders in the fund.

enno99

hooradiation wrote: »

Down from $1,622 to $1,588 p/oz, you've lost money either way.

So I bought gold last week @ $1.564 per Oz its now worth $1,588
How much have I lost ?

But the point was gold is just like everything else, it's value can rise and fall.
And while it may long term trend fairly evenly, that does you fuck all good in the short term.

in short, it's not the magic panacea that people like to pretend it is

Wonder why you did'nt just say that

You seem to like to put in the drama and vitriol to add weight to your inane points

hooradiation

enno99 wrote: »

So I bought gold last week @ $1.564 per Oz its now worth $1,588
How much have I lost ?

It was worth $1,622 in the interm, so you've lost versus what you could have had.

enno99 wrote: »

Wonder why you did'nt just say that

You seem to like to put in the drama and vitriol to add weight to your inane points

I like to credit people with the base intelligence of being able to see the patently obvious - and if necessary, I'll expand on it.

If you think this equates to drama and vitriol, then I invite you to have a little look around in the three ring extravaganza here in the middle of chicken little's circus of perpetual skyfalling in which we are currently posting.

Torakx

Jonny7 wrote: »

US military spending is about 5% of GDP

If thats true, it really makes me wonder who the private investers are O.o

Monty Burnz

Central banks are not privately owned. That is nonsense.

HTH.

phantom_lord

Really don't understand how this always comes up.

Why would this happen if it is "privately owned"?

The Central Bank reported profits of more than €1.2 billion in 2011. The bank said in the annual report that surplus income of €958 million will be paid to the Exchequer, compared with €671 million in 2010. The value of the institution’s assets fell in 2011, to €173 billion from €204.5 billion a year earlier.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0521/breaking18.html