OT - Danger. Big time.

Have a look at the autonomous fraud called "The Fed". Better yet, take a look at the economic expert named Don Harrold. He'll educate you as to just how much influence, with no acccountability, the Fed has.

FYI: They are NOT a government entity.

Get back to us after remedial ed.

But the dims say that Bush's plans don't go far enough.

I've heard they did similar things in the great depression stretching it out for 10 years...but I wasn't around back then so I wouldn't know.

The best thing for our country, and quite possibly the world, is to destroy the Fed.

"It is a miserable arithmetic which makes any single privation whatever so painful as a total privation of everything which must necessarily follow the living so far beyond our income." --Thomas Jefferson to William Hay, 1787. ME 6:223 "The system of banking [I] have... ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction, which is already hit by the gamblers in corruption, and is sweeping away in its progress the fortunes and morals of our citizens." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME

And most important of all:

"The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed [by legislation doing so] have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:146

Legally it's owned by a few hundred banks and isn't part of any branch of the federal government, but I've never heard of a non-government entity where all members of the governing board are nominated by the US president and confirmed by the US Senate. The odd structure of our central bank is probably the result of libertarian, anti-government sentiment that existed in the country, or at least in Congress, at its creation. The US had previously created and dissolved 3-4 national banks, and there had been long periods where we had no central bank at all, such as during the late 19th century.

So should the US create a more traditional central bank, or should we do completely without any?

I can't find much information on Don Harrold. All I see is that he's willing to send audio commentary to anyone who gives him their e-mail address, and he believes heavily in using technical analysis for evaluating the stock market. It's hard to check his track record for accuracy because he doesn't show up in the Hulbert Financial Digest.

Find my previous post containing quotes from Jefferson. I believe his foresight was genius.

He's a good guy. Free e-mailings and videos he posts on youtube for convenience.

He has no love for the Fed, and predicted the recent downturn in the market well over a year ago. He maintains the Fed is responsible for our mess, and it's only going to get worse.

While I didn't get out of the market quite at the recent peak, thanks to him I lost far less than I would have had I stayed in.

Moron waffle, the point of your post does not take into consideration the dims don't feel Bush's plan goes far enough. Do you understand what that implies? Are you stupid or what.

Moron waffle, the point of your post does not take into consideration

Are you stupid enough to not understand that this isn't a party or partisan issue? I don't give a rat's ass which party wants it more or less. This has nothing to do with the fact that the Fed needs to go away.

It's the FED you knuckle-dragging cretin. They're not a party, they're the people who regulate your life beyond your wildest nightmares.

You can't transfer money from account to account, or bank to bank, without them knowing about it.

God, you are even more stupid than I thought.

Blow it out your ass, binky. Just get your head out of the way first.

BTW, you've now given me all the Booleans I need to permanently filter your sorry, mouth-breathing ass.

Waffle, you just don't get it at all do ya.

BTW, you will never be able to filter me you phony.

This is the same person who was also against the industrialization of America, he probably thougth it was only obvious that money should be backed 100% with gold or silver, another idea that would have been disasterous.

I'm afraid we need a central bank to maintain economic stability, especially in this age of electronic trading and computer models that can rapidly affect markets more severely than before because everybody's computer models may give the same buy/sell advice simultaneously.

Why is he trying to help us? There's always a selfish motive.

What's his longer term track record according to an independent judge, like Hulbert or Timer's Digest? We can never trust an advisor's own claims for this because the vast majority of advisors claim to outpace th market, even though the vast majority underperform it, and a track record of at least 80 years is typically needed to validly judge whether a person beat the market due to skill rather than just luck.

Many people have said the same, but it takes multiple predictions to tell if they really know anything. Remember Elaine Garzarelli? She became a financial celebrity for correctly predicting the Oct. 1987 stock market crash, and she rode that waveof fame for years, until about a decade later she told everybody to sell their stocks -- almost on the exact day of the market bottom. Then there's Martin Zweig, who also did well during the 10/87 crash, when he told investors to invest 5% in a put option, which soared in value. But except for that call, Zweig's long term record has actually lagged the market.

What about the next time? I didn't avoid this bear market, but in early 2000 I switched to bonds and small cap value stocks because I was sweating.

That doesn't negate the fact that our government should not be ruled by banks, nor hostage to them.

Then you have to accept their manipulation of your personal economic future. How's that feel?

He's selling his investment advice, but had no knee-pads for anyone. Quite the opposite of Cramer, the loon on CNBC.

You'd have to do some reading to find out just how good he is. No one's perfect, but his calls are far more on the mark than the shills on television.

We will see. I don't "trust" anyone's advice 100%, but sometimes a good foundation of knowledge helps you avoid disaster.

If we get rid of the Fed and replace it with nothing else, we'll be ruled even more by the whims of banks. OTOH if we replace the Fed with a central bank more resembling those found in most democracies, we could end up with a much more partisan economic policy.

The economy has always been manipulated, in the past by private entities and rocks in the ground, for the past century mostly by central banks. The latter have done better and have greatly smoothed out business cycles. I'm saying the financial control of the economy is too important to be left to the private sector because its track record has been so erratic, and modern technology makes it too easy for a purely private banking sector to make it go boom or bust in a hurry.

Cramer relied a lot (mostly?) on manipulating stocks by exploiting his celebrity for frontrunning.

Does that mean you don't know?

Everybody has a hot streak -- just look at Joseph Granville in the

Maybe not, because managed mutual funds haven't done better in bear markets than market indexes.

Have a look at the economic downturns of the past eighty years or so. Look at what policies or decisions were made, and by whom, that led up to these downturns.

We'll talk then.