Replies

>>> I don't really understand the Federal Reserve. Perusing Rockefeller's archive, and plenty of disturbing Rockefeller docs came up to the 1920's.
>>> The banking industry gave us Obama. The Federal Reserve is worth understanding.
>>
>> But what is it? Where does it come from? How is it created? Who controls it?
>> It is a government agency created by the government to create money out of thin air for the treasury to spend without the need for taxes.
>
> Actually, it’s not a gov agency.

The Federal Reserve is an excellent illustration of government avoiding accountability by delegating responsibility; this technique is used everywhere, by all three branches, in various forms to keep essentially unacceptable policies/rules/regulations/laws in place.

First, let's start with the origination of the item [power/authority] we're examining; so we go straight to the Constitution which says:
Congress shall have the power […] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

So we clearly see that the ability to set the value of the dollar (and to coin monies) is that of the Congress.

Enter the Federal Reserve; whose purpose, according to their site, was created by the Congress to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. The Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. They further say that there are four areas this responsibility falls into:

Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices.
Supervising and regulating banks and other important financial institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers.
Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.
Providing certain financial services to the U.S. government, U.S. financial institutions, and foreign official institutions, and playing a major role in operating and overseeing the nation's payments systems.

Now let's demolish why the Federal Reserve is needed for any of these cases:

A credit's value does not set [stable] prices, but rather the prices [perceived value, to include perceived risks] determine credit [which is a restructuring of the formula isolating the actual value]. IOW it's completely backwards. — Moreover; it is unclear how having a set standard valued dollar [say a weight of Gold] would be intrinsically less stable.
Supervising and regulating banks is absolutely unneeded; put them under the simple common law and vigorously pursue them when they engage in fraud or larceny.
Maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets.
An absolute load of horse dung — the markets don't have a systemic risk until they are manipulated, it is the manipulation itself which causes bubble/burst economics.
Providing certain financial services to the U.S. government
One of which is cooking the books — this it the real reason that the Federal Reserve is never audited; because just creating money out of thin air doesn't work in any accounting, if they were to be audited then the scam would be over.

On the topic of #4; look how the Congress fights tooth-and-nail against an audit, yet when they are blamed WRT the dollar's valuation (or the stable prices which only seem to go up) they wring their hands and cry about how they don't have any control/authority/accountability in those matters, that the Federal Reserve is private, and so on.

We see this employed WRT the executive as well: The EPA's CO₂ regulations, the NSA's domestic espionage, the FBI/DEA/ICE/ATF operation known as Fast & Furious, the IRS's political targeting — in all of these cases the Congress could (a) dissolve the agency, (b) cut funding, (c) reduce/restrict the agency's jurisdiction. — They do not. Why? Because they agree with these operations.

We can see this technique in the Judicial realm where a federal judge declares a state's constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional and — after the State's supreme court certifies the standing of the citizens to ensure their constitution upheld — the USSC tosses the case challenging this out due to lack of standing. — It would be bad political juju to rule on it, so they just say it's not our responsibility all the while giving a wink and nod to the federal judges that they can/should throw out the state's laws [or constitutions] on the matter.

The executive does much of the same; enforcing laws that are clearly contraconstitutional while hiding behind its the law, you have to get congress to change it while winking and nodding to congress and the bureaucrats.