This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Nobel Prize-Winning Economist: Federal Reserve System is Corrupt and Undermines Democracy
Joseph Stiglitz - former head economist at the World Bank and a nobel-prize winner - said yesterday that the
very structure of the Federal Reserve system is so fraught with
conflicts that it is "corrupt" and undermines democracy.
Stiglitz said:
If
we [i.e. the World Bank] had seen a governance structure that corresponds to
our Federal Reserve system, we would have been yelling and screaming
and saying that country does not deserve any assistance, this is a
corrupt governing structure.
Stiglitz pointed out
that - if another country had presented a plan to reform its financial
system, and included a regulatory regime that copied the makeup of the
Federal Reserve system - "it would have been a big signal that
something is wrong."
Stiglitz stressed that the Fed banks have
clear conflicts of interest, since the banks are largely governed by a
board of directors that includes officers of the very banks they're supposed to be overseeing:
So, these are the guys who appointed the guy who bailed them out ... Is that a conflict of interest?
They would say, 'no conflict of interest, we were just doing our job. But you have to look at the conflicts of interest"...
The reason you talk
about governance is because in a democracy you want people to have
confidence ... This is a structure that will undermine confidence in a
democracy.
Indeed, by all objective measures, the Fed has performed horribly (and see this).
As 6 congressmen wrote
last November, there are at least 4 reasons to demand full transparency
of the Federal Reserve, and a change in the Fed's structure:
First ... how effective a regulator can the Federal
Reserve be if it is unwilling to strive for good public policy through
its regulatory powers?Second, there is an inherent conflict in the manner in which
regional reserve branch presidents are selected – in that
representatives of the member banks select the regional president. It
seems counterproductive, yet the banking system has provided case after
case of regulated entities selecting their own regulator.Third, the Federal Reserve has continually resisted efforts to
engage in discussion on structural and governance reform at the System.
Most recently, Bloomberg reported yesterday that the Federal Reserve
has rejected a White House request that [the Federal Reserve] conduct a
public review of its structure and operations.Despite a request from the administration that provided ample
opportunity for the Federal Reserve to have input into its own reforms,
the central bank has simply refused. It is because of this attitude
that I argue that real financial regulatory reform cannot occur without
an examination into the structure of this entity.Fourth, and most importantly, the Federal Reserve has shown a
repeated unwillingness to accept efforts to improve transparency for
the System.
»
- advertisements -
IMF vs FED is like Stalin vs Hitler.
Giant shark vs mega octopus
+1000 @ 29.95% APR.
killed hitler as i remember.
Many of the members that OWN the Federal Reserve are also holders/owners of the IMF. So perhaps he is trying to alert some to the massive scheme that is ongoing?
BTW, the same members comment goes for the central banksters in Europe too.See the list at:
www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html
Of course it could be a Ops to then eliminate the Fed and fold them into a World Bank....
One Bank To Rule Them All and all that.
Anybody that is paying attention can see the fraud and corruption.
Its like GW once said "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorist", unfortunately there are financial terrorist in charge of just about everything and nobody seems to be paying attention.
They are paying attention, they know. There is more than meets the eye imho.
Heck, even my contact at the SEC knows about the Cramer YouTube fully admitting to market manipulation yet that bubble head is on TV 'giving advice' nearly every weekday instead of being in jail. That alone speaks volumes.
+1
IMF vs Fed?
Wal-Mart vs Target?
GM vs Chrysler?
Rebooblicans vs Democraps?
Dingleberries vs Klingons?
WTF?
More like Shit vs Crap
Either the IMF or the World Bank calling the Fed corrupt is the pot calling the kettle black.
Touting Joseph Stiglitz's Nobel Prize puts him on a moral par with Yasser Arafat.
A former academic with an unaccountable international body is in no position to throw stones about conflicts of interest at the Fed, or anywhere else.
He re-emerges in the private sector; sorry, I see the same M.O.
So what is your point? Does that make either of them less black if they start washing their dirty laundry in public? You should state clearly why those arguments Stiglitz put out are false rather than use rhetoric, that is not solving the problem or anhancing the quality of critical discussion.
He seems to know the limitations of the system. Perhaps it is first hand knowledge. Be that as it may, just because he worked for the IMF does not mean he is unethical nor is it a reason to discount his statement regarding the Federal Reserve. The more mainstream this becomes the more likely it will change.
Whatever Stiglitz's flaws, he actually presented a solid case for why the Fed has massive conflicts of interest and is flawed.
Given that he in respected (or so I think) in the more mainstream media, and even many unwashed could understand his argument, this can certainly be viewed as a positive development in the quest to help democracy regain primacy.
Deflection. The last thing the IMF wants is to been seen as the world 'FED'. It would be like the mass of people realizing in 1913 the the FED system is fraudulent.
Reduce him to a broken clock, but people are looking to him at the right time.
Agreed, be happy he finally sees the light. We'll never get rid of the Fed if the only people that can question its legitimacy are folks that have always been anti Fed.
Think of Nixon going to China. The most effective people, quite often, are those who have been on the other side. Kind of like an alcoholic finding religion.
+ 100,000 for Lux Fiat's comment.
+1
Finally seeing a few cracks in the Fed's armor. But remember what the bank did against Andrew Jackson, it will not go gently into that good night. And we are currently down 1 Andrew Jackson to try to pull this off, though Ron Paul is certainly going above and beyond the call of duty here.
Watch Alan Grayson. He has the potential to be a new Teddy Roosevelt, at least in spirit and deed.
Finally, Stiglitz is learning something from somebody who knows something. Ivory tower meets real world...
Legitimate questions regarding the questionable legitimacy of the Fed...
Seems Dr. Paul is going mainstream. Never thought I'd see the day.
:D