Torrent is just the file transfer protocol, like FTP, HTTP, or of course USENET. It is indexing sites like PirateBay that give Torrent a bad name. They could just as easily use another protocol... something like torrent is even used by CNN to play video (Octoshape?).
If the Obama administration wanted to deal with Al-awlaki, here was the legal way to do it: 1. Present evidence to a grand jury sufficient to obtain an indictment. 2. Issue a warrant for his arrest. 3. Work with the Yemeni authorities (who have good relations with the US) to arrest him and extradite him to the US for trial. If he shoots at whoever's doing the arrest, then you can shoot back. 4. Put him through a standard civilian trial, and if convicted, punish him.
That is the preferred way to do things, but the part of Yemen he was in is not under the control of the friendly (to the US) part of the Yemeni government. He was even charged, tried, and convicted in Yemen but the Yemeni government could not get him. Your scenario was not possible.
Also, the idea that he had no idea that the US was after him or what the charges against him were is laughable - he was an active belligerent, even posting videos on the internet where he called for people to go out and kill Americans. He was banished from the US. He was listed by the UN as a terrorist. His parents were even trying to get him removed from the kill list years prior to his death, and he survived a prior attempt on his life.
Did he even apologize for not following up on this promise ?
A politician apologize??? LOL! It's not even a sex scandal.
But in all seriousness - he made a big deal about the fact that congress tied his hands when he signed the bill. Not an apology, just a big stink. Here is the text from the press conference:
Ann Compton: Mr. President, what does it say about the status of Americans’ system of justice when so many of those who are thought to be plotters for September 11th or accused of — suspected terrorists — are still awaiting any kind of trial? Why are you still convinced that a civilian trial is correct for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? And why has that stalled? And will Guantánamo remain open for another year?
President Obama: Well, you know, we have succeeded on delivering a lot of campaign promises that we made. One where we’ve fallen short is closing Guantánamo. I wanted to close it sooner. We have missed that deadline. It’s not for lack of trying. It’s because the politics of it are difficult.
Now, I am absolutely convinced that the American justice system is strong enough that we should be able to convict people who murdered innocent Americans, who carried out terrorist attacks against us. We should be able to lock them up and make sure that they don’t see the light of day.
We can do that. We’ve done it before. We’ve got people who engaged in terrorist attacks who are in our prisons — maximum-security prisons all across the country. But, you know, this is an issue that has generated a lot of political rhetoric. And people — understandably, you know — are fearful.
But one of the things that I think is worth reflecting on after 9/11 is, you know, this country is so resilient; we are so tough. We can’t be frightened by a handful of people who are trying to do us harm, especially when we’ve captured them and we’ve got the goods on them.
So, you know, I’ve also said that there are going to be circumstances where a military tribunal may be appropriate. And the reason for that is — and I’ll just give a specific example. There may be situations in which somebody was captured in theater, is now in Guantánamo; it’s very hard to piece together a chain of evidence that would meet some of the evidentiary standards that would be required in an Article III court, but we know that this person is guilty. There’s sufficient evidence to bring about a conviction. So what I’ve said is, you know, the military commission system that we set up, where appropriate, for certain individuals that it would be difficult to try in Article III courts, for a range of reasons, we can reform that system so that it meets the highest standards of due process and prosecute them there.
And so I’m prepared to work with Democrats and Republicans, and we, over the course of the last year, have been in constant conversations with them about setting up a sensible system in which we are prosecuting, where appropriate, those in Article III courts; we are prosecuting others, where appropriate, through a military tribunal. And in either case, let’s put them in prisons, where our track record is, they’ve never escaped.
And by the way, just from a purely fiscal point of view, the costs of holding folks in Guantánamo is massively higher than it is holding them in a supermax maximum security prison here in the United States.
Ann Compton: Is that all for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Will that trial ever happen?
President Obama: Well, I think it needs to happen. And we’re going to work with members of Congress — and this is going to have to be on a bipartisan basis — to move this forward in a way that is consistent with our standards of due process, consistent with our Constitution, consistent also with our image in the world of a country that cares
Wow, your post got Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave so fast that Japan is offering to buy him to replace their decommissioned nuclear reactors. Congrats, you saved Japan!
But you told me that I got the license when I agreed to it:
You do get something when you click "Accept", you get the ability to use the software.
I can't get the same license twice, right?
This has stood up legally every time someone has attempted it.
It has more of a mixed record than that, but in general I agree that they seem to be deemed "valid" by the courts and I don't understand how or why. I just chalk it up to the needless complexity of the wild world of copyright. There is no way for even a well-trained IP lawyer to completely understand the rights involved with copyright - let alone expect an average citizen to know what his rights are.
I agree with you completely - the two US parties differ only on some almost meaningless "wedge issues" and otherwise are nearly identical in practice.
He should quit. There are some things worth taking a stand over. I believe this is one of them.
I disagree. I've never thought that Guantanamo was a really big deal. Just like the "wedge issues", it inflames passions and represents the crushing of a cherished ideal. Also like a wedge issue, it makes very little difference to the state of the union what happens at Guantanamo. I think it should be closed, but on the list of national priorities, it is very low. Should Obama resign in protest, I would have to seriously question his judgement. In my mind it would be like resigning over the issue of abortion or gay marriage.
I can understand the point of view that Guantanamo hurts the interests of the US overseas, but in a world where China is so quickly gaining reputation, power, and prestige despite their atrocious treatment of human rights, I have to respectfully disagree on the significance of it's impact.
Things like bread don't get more expensive because of shortages though, they get more expensive as the value of the dollar is diluted. where as gold technically has not.
Bread is probably a bad example, simply because grain production is so dependent on petroleum.
Your shoes, robe, and belt example is a good one, though. That's absolutely true, and that's largely because those items haven't really changed much in terms of technology or construction method. So, yes, the price has gone "up" in currency terms, but does it cost you more hours of work to get those shoes? That's the only important measure.
Why not? What law prevents him from granting them a US visa and turning them loose somewhere on US soil? What law prevents him from sending them to another country?
The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution demands that he either try them or let them go. That supercedes any other consideration, especially whether it's politically convenient for him to do so.
I don't think that is settled at all, and in fact everything I've read seems to imply that it probably doesn't cover non-citizens captured at wartime.
That, along with the completely illegal killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki,
Illegal? Maybe not morally justified... but illegal?
Had to fix a Mac with a bad hard drive and wound up re-installing Snow-Leopard, re-downloading Lion, and then re-installing Lion... silly extra OS install step in there! Made a DVD from the installer for next time.
It's funny how the US set up gitmo, breaking go knows how many laws, international treaties and human rights, but when it comes to dismantling the place, all of a sudden they can't because of the rules.
You understand that the same people who set up Gitmo aren't the same people trying to close it, right?
We now have two choices: Gitmo is NOT unconstitutional, or Barack Obama is a demagogue and lying sack of shit.
I can't believe I'm about to defend Barack Obama, but...
His hands are kind of tied. He's not emperor, you know. Whether he thinks it is constitutional or not has very little bearing on his ability to do anything about it. He's not allowed to move them to the US, and he can't send them to other countries. So what is he supposed to do?
Huh? Then what did I get when I bought it at the register?
A license is not a contract.
I think you are wrong about that.
Did you get to negotiate the rules of the road with the state when you got your driver license?
Negotiation has nothing to do with it. I got something (the right to drive) and I gave them something (money). But I was referring to private contracts, not government laws... the government can pass all sorts of laws without my consent.
With software, you do not own the software
True, but copyright comes with some fair use rights - including the right to copy the software that I've purchased in as much as is technologically necessary to make it usable. Thus I have no need to agree to the shrink-wrap license - I'll be fine just using the statutory license, thank you. Microsoft handles the situation with technology - the software that they sell can't be made usable until you activate it, at which point they make you agree to a contract (license). You get something (activation) and they get something (additional restrictions on your use of their product). Apple has no such technical roadblock, so they were relying on the law - and I am still confused as to how the shrink-wrap license was upheld, but it still seems to be related to the re-selling. I'm wondering what this means if I try to sell an old computer on eBay, even if the software on it was lawfully installed and I include the original disks... there could be a no-reselling clause in the shrink-wrap license that I am violating.
But there is something very odd about a business model that becomes illegal simply by growing in market share.
That's the norm, though. Microsoft was perfectly in the right when they would pay partner companies to be exclusive MS vendors... until they became a monopoly.
I'd argue that Apple's model is the normal model and Microsoft's was the anomaly. The Amiga, Atari, Commodore - heck even the IBM PC prior to Compaq... all of these followed the proprietary model. Even MS follows this model in the console game market. But no one accuses the XBox360 of having a monopoly over anything.
Finally, all of this seems to be moot now - as of Lion, it seems that Apple no longer sells standalone copies of their OS. Pystar could not exist one way or another since they wouldn't have any (legal) way to buy just the software.
but this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior.
They only have like 5% of the market?
Only Apple can sell OSX, and they're using the software monopoly to artificially prop up their hardware division.
Or, they only make OSX because they want to sell hardware. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
My problem with the decision is that it defies my concept of contract law... I always thought that to have a valid contract there had to be consideration on both sides - I get something in exchange for something else. In this case, I get nothing. I hit "I Accept" on the license agreement and Apple gets all of these extra rights and I get... nothing. At that point, I've already purchased the machine. I presumed these contracts were worthless, but this decision changes that.
Well, you have to admit that reality is a harsh teacher. I'm a little leery of idealistic middle-aged adults, never quite sure if they are crazy or somehow have been sheltered from real life. By our late 30s, most of us have switched to using ideology as a sort of guiding principle to strive for more than a blueprint to live life by.
Most people don't "comprehend car models". They do the same thing that the average computer buyer does - walk into a store and buy what the salesman talks them into.
I'd bet good money that my wife knows that she drives a Toyota, but not what model. I'm mostly sure of this because she refers to it as "the red car". I know for a fact she does not remember what her last car was (manufacturer or model).
Yeah, if I had a good wireless connection of even 100Mbit/s I think I'd probably not need to plug in. Theoretically, I should be able to get 100-140Mbit on 801.11n - but we're not all-Apple or all-Linksys or all-Netgear or whatever the secret sauce is to getting that super-high wireless bandwidth. At home I have an Apple laptop with an Apple Time Capsule and I get fantastic speeds... in the same room. Put a wall or floor between me and that router and I get about 10x less speed.
Anyway, there's gigabit at my desk so I won't complain:)
I think there is something seriously wrong with your wifi network then.
No, I tested it - I'm getting good throughput and latency (unless there are too many other users).
I think you mean 50Mbit/s:)
I'm not "remote", I'm just not in the server room. When I'm remote, I use RDC from home to my office desktop and then make the X11 connection on that.
At home I find WiFi to be quite acceptable for backup to the Time Capsule, but I still plug it in if I'm in a rush. The speed difference is quite obvious.
A stable currency cannot cause short-term inflation and deflation.
Right, which is why I said that gold was not stable historically. It was stable in dollar terms, because the dollar was defined in terms of gold. But compared to other commodities, it historically has been volatile on a short-term scale. Look at a chart of historic CPI (estimated, obviously). Can you really look at that data and say that we were better off with the gold standard? You have several swings up and down that exceed even the worst we've seen in the 70s.
That's exactly what happens when the goverment prints money, except of course they are not giving you the other pieces back of your now ripped in half dollars they are putting them in their own pockets.
Easily dealt with by not holding on to cash and instead treating it as a proxy for barter. Inflation discourages cash hoarding, which is a good thing. Hoarding leads to shortages. In the old days people would start hoarding cash at the first hint of a down economic cycle and then there wouldn't be enough circulating cash for the economy to function properly. Do that now and you risk losing money as it is "torn in half" as you say. In the last financial crisis, people hoarded cash anyway - but you know what? The government was able to pull as much money out of thin air as was necessary to keep the economy from shutting down.
Most things do not go up in price every year usually they go down
Manufactured goods? Sure, that's mostly true. Energy? Not really. We are using up the easiest-to-access sources of energy first, and it costs more to get a barrel of oil out of the ground than it used to. Since agriculture these days is so tied to petroleum, food cost goes up as well. Inflation on manufactured goods is so low as to be almost insignificant - most "inflation" these days is not inflation at all, but a slow rise in the price of petroleum that is very real. Here's a neat gold-oil price chart that shows how in recent times, we'd have an increasing oil price even if we were on a gold standard. The chart is a bit dated, but it should be sufficient to demonstrate my point.
Think about what that really means to your set amount of income now that most businesses are no longer giving "cost of living" increases every year.
Personally, I'd love an automatic raise every year. From an economic perspective, though, this seems like a bad idea. You don't want anything "automatic", because it spoils efficiency. In fact, one of the advantages of steady low inflation is that it allows real wages to go down - people don't normally react well to a wage decrease even when it is warranted.
In other words, people are not perfectly rational and so we should not expect our financial system to be, either. It has to be engineered to be compatible with the human psyche.
So they spend by driving up a huge debt. Then, when printing money is called for, its handled by the fed who hands out sweetheart loans to the people who need it the least.... hell, they can turn around and lend it to the government for a profit, and then never pay it back.
Well, sort of. The Fed doesn't borrow money or spend money they don't have... that's Congress. The fed doesn't "print" money, but they can pull any number out of thin air and put it on their balance sheet. Recently, they used this ability to buy a bunch of Treasury bonds from the bond market (Quantitative Easing). The Fed did loan out money as part of the recent bailout, but that was rare (unprecedented?) and controversial. It was also specifically authorized by Congress. They also had the "TAF" program, which auctioned very short-term (30-90 days) loans when the liquidity crisis hit. Yes, the loans were "below market interest rate" but at that point the market was so screwed up that there was no "market", thus the Fed stepping in. The "excess profit" the banks made was $13 billion, which is indeed a nice gift at taxpayer expense - but the amount of money loaned out was a staggering $1.2 trillion, so $13 billion represents only 1%, just to add some perspective back in. You are on-par with the student loan interest subsidy at that point.
So even if the Fed isn't technically private, its operations may be private enough to allow shady practices.. with billions/trillions of your money.
What you said makes sense, but people thought of that already. Not only are the Fed's books open, but you can get to them online.
But anti-Fed people never comb through the books and cite specific transgressions, instead they talk in broad strokes. My impression is that they don't really know what they are talking about and haven't really done any research or they would be able to list some specific incident.
Slashdot Mirror
Is a European lecturing us on fiscal discipline? Let the flame wars begin!
Torrent is just the file transfer protocol, like FTP, HTTP, or of course USENET. It is indexing sites like PirateBay that give Torrent a bad name. They could just as easily use another protocol... something like torrent is even used by CNN to play video (Octoshape?).
If the Obama administration wanted to deal with Al-awlaki, here was the legal way to do it:
1. Present evidence to a grand jury sufficient to obtain an indictment.
2. Issue a warrant for his arrest.
3. Work with the Yemeni authorities (who have good relations with the US) to arrest him and extradite him to the US for trial. If he shoots at whoever's doing the arrest, then you can shoot back.
4. Put him through a standard civilian trial, and if convicted, punish him.
That is the preferred way to do things, but the part of Yemen he was in is not under the control of the friendly (to the US) part of the Yemeni government. He was even charged, tried, and convicted in Yemen but the Yemeni government could not get him. Your scenario was not possible.
Also, the idea that he had no idea that the US was after him or what the charges against him were is laughable - he was an active belligerent, even posting videos on the internet where he called for people to go out and kill Americans. He was banished from the US. He was listed by the UN as a terrorist. His parents were even trying to get him removed from the kill list years prior to his death, and he survived a prior attempt on his life.
Did he even apologize for not following up on this promise ?
A politician apologize??? LOL! It's not even a sex scandal.
But in all seriousness - he made a big deal about the fact that congress tied his hands when he signed the bill. Not an apology, just a big stink. Here is the text from the press conference:
Wow, your post got Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave so fast that Japan is offering to buy him to replace their decommissioned nuclear reactors. Congrats, you saved Japan!
A licence.
But you told me that I got the license when I agreed to it:
I can't get the same license twice, right?
This has stood up legally every time someone has attempted it.
It has more of a mixed record than that, but in general I agree that they seem to be deemed "valid" by the courts and I don't understand how or why. I just chalk it up to the needless complexity of the wild world of copyright. There is no way for even a well-trained IP lawyer to completely understand the rights involved with copyright - let alone expect an average citizen to know what his rights are.
I agree with you completely - the two US parties differ only on some almost meaningless "wedge issues" and otherwise are nearly identical in practice.
He should quit. There are some things worth taking a stand over. I believe this is one of them.
I disagree. I've never thought that Guantanamo was a really big deal. Just like the "wedge issues", it inflames passions and represents the crushing of a cherished ideal. Also like a wedge issue, it makes very little difference to the state of the union what happens at Guantanamo. I think it should be closed, but on the list of national priorities, it is very low. Should Obama resign in protest, I would have to seriously question his judgement. In my mind it would be like resigning over the issue of abortion or gay marriage.
I can understand the point of view that Guantanamo hurts the interests of the US overseas, but in a world where China is so quickly gaining reputation, power, and prestige despite their atrocious treatment of human rights, I have to respectfully disagree on the significance of it's impact.
Things like bread don't get more expensive because of shortages though, they get more expensive as the value of the dollar is diluted. where as gold technically has not.
Bread is probably a bad example, simply because grain production is so dependent on petroleum.
Your shoes, robe, and belt example is a good one, though. That's absolutely true, and that's largely because those items haven't really changed much in terms of technology or construction method. So, yes, the price has gone "up" in currency terms, but does it cost you more hours of work to get those shoes? That's the only important measure.
Why not? What law prevents him from granting them a US visa and turning them loose somewhere on US soil? What law prevents him from sending them to another country?
It sucks, but there is indeed such a law.
The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution demands that he either try them or let them go. That supercedes any other consideration, especially whether it's politically convenient for him to do so.
I don't think that is settled at all, and in fact everything I've read seems to imply that it probably doesn't cover non-citizens captured at wartime.
That, along with the completely illegal killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki,
Illegal? Maybe not morally justified... but illegal?
Well thank God, because that was retarded :)
Had to fix a Mac with a bad hard drive and wound up re-installing Snow-Leopard, re-downloading Lion, and then re-installing Lion... silly extra OS install step in there! Made a DVD from the installer for next time.
Rule 34
Also, give them weapons.
It's funny how the US set up gitmo, breaking go knows how many laws, international treaties and human rights, but when it comes to dismantling the place, all of a sudden they can't because of the rules.
You understand that the same people who set up Gitmo aren't the same people trying to close it, right?
We now have two choices: Gitmo is NOT unconstitutional, or Barack Obama is a demagogue and lying sack of shit.
I can't believe I'm about to defend Barack Obama, but...
His hands are kind of tied. He's not emperor, you know. Whether he thinks it is constitutional or not has very little bearing on his ability to do anything about it. He's not allowed to move them to the US, and he can't send them to other countries. So what is he supposed to do?
you get the ability to use the software.
Huh? Then what did I get when I bought it at the register?
A license is not a contract.
I think you are wrong about that.
Did you get to negotiate the rules of the road with the state when you got your driver license?
Negotiation has nothing to do with it. I got something (the right to drive) and I gave them something (money). But I was referring to private contracts, not government laws... the government can pass all sorts of laws without my consent.
With software, you do not own the software
True, but copyright comes with some fair use rights - including the right to copy the software that I've purchased in as much as is technologically necessary to make it usable. Thus I have no need to agree to the shrink-wrap license - I'll be fine just using the statutory license, thank you. Microsoft handles the situation with technology - the software that they sell can't be made usable until you activate it, at which point they make you agree to a contract (license). You get something (activation) and they get something (additional restrictions on your use of their product). Apple has no such technical roadblock, so they were relying on the law - and I am still confused as to how the shrink-wrap license was upheld, but it still seems to be related to the re-selling. I'm wondering what this means if I try to sell an old computer on eBay, even if the software on it was lawfully installed and I include the original disks... there could be a no-reselling clause in the shrink-wrap license that I am violating.
But there is something very odd about a business model that becomes illegal simply by growing in market share.
That's the norm, though. Microsoft was perfectly in the right when they would pay partner companies to be exclusive MS vendors... until they became a monopoly.
I'd argue that Apple's model is the normal model and Microsoft's was the anomaly. The Amiga, Atari, Commodore - heck even the IBM PC prior to Compaq... all of these followed the proprietary model. Even MS follows this model in the console game market. But no one accuses the XBox360 of having a monopoly over anything.
Finally, all of this seems to be moot now - as of Lion, it seems that Apple no longer sells standalone copies of their OS. Pystar could not exist one way or another since they wouldn't have any (legal) way to buy just the software.
but this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior.
They only have like 5% of the market?
Only Apple can sell OSX, and they're using the software monopoly to artificially prop up their hardware division.
Or, they only make OSX because they want to sell hardware. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
My problem with the decision is that it defies my concept of contract law... I always thought that to have a valid contract there had to be consideration on both sides - I get something in exchange for something else. In this case, I get nothing. I hit "I Accept" on the license agreement and Apple gets all of these extra rights and I get... nothing. At that point, I've already purchased the machine. I presumed these contracts were worthless, but this decision changes that.
Idealism is for adolescents.
Well, you have to admit that reality is a harsh teacher. I'm a little leery of idealistic middle-aged adults, never quite sure if they are crazy or somehow have been sheltered from real life. By our late 30s, most of us have switched to using ideology as a sort of guiding principle to strive for more than a blueprint to live life by.
Most people don't "comprehend car models". They do the same thing that the average computer buyer does - walk into a store and buy what the salesman talks them into.
I'd bet good money that my wife knows that she drives a Toyota, but not what model. I'm mostly sure of this because she refers to it as "the red car". I know for a fact she does not remember what her last car was (manufacturer or model).
Yeah, if I had a good wireless connection of even 100Mbit/s I think I'd probably not need to plug in. Theoretically, I should be able to get 100-140Mbit on 801.11n - but we're not all-Apple or all-Linksys or all-Netgear or whatever the secret sauce is to getting that super-high wireless bandwidth. At home I have an Apple laptop with an Apple Time Capsule and I get fantastic speeds... in the same room. Put a wall or floor between me and that router and I get about 10x less speed.
Anyway, there's gigabit at my desk so I won't complain :)
I think there is something seriously wrong with your wifi network then.
No, I tested it - I'm getting good throughput and latency (unless there are too many other users).
I think you mean 50Mbit/s :)
I'm not "remote", I'm just not in the server room. When I'm remote, I use RDC from home to my office desktop and then make the X11 connection on that.
At home I find WiFi to be quite acceptable for backup to the Time Capsule, but I still plug it in if I'm in a rush. The speed difference is quite obvious.
I never use the DVD drive :)
A stable currency cannot cause short-term inflation and deflation.
Right, which is why I said that gold was not stable historically. It was stable in dollar terms, because the dollar was defined in terms of gold. But compared to other commodities, it historically has been volatile on a short-term scale. Look at a chart of historic CPI (estimated, obviously). Can you really look at that data and say that we were better off with the gold standard? You have several swings up and down that exceed even the worst we've seen in the 70s.
That's exactly what happens when the goverment prints money, except of course they are not giving you the other pieces back of your now ripped in half dollars they are putting them in their own pockets.
Easily dealt with by not holding on to cash and instead treating it as a proxy for barter. Inflation discourages cash hoarding, which is a good thing. Hoarding leads to shortages. In the old days people would start hoarding cash at the first hint of a down economic cycle and then there wouldn't be enough circulating cash for the economy to function properly. Do that now and you risk losing money as it is "torn in half" as you say. In the last financial crisis, people hoarded cash anyway - but you know what? The government was able to pull as much money out of thin air as was necessary to keep the economy from shutting down.
Most things do not go up in price every year usually they go down
Manufactured goods? Sure, that's mostly true. Energy? Not really. We are using up the easiest-to-access sources of energy first, and it costs more to get a barrel of oil out of the ground than it used to. Since agriculture these days is so tied to petroleum, food cost goes up as well. Inflation on manufactured goods is so low as to be almost insignificant - most "inflation" these days is not inflation at all, but a slow rise in the price of petroleum that is very real. Here's a neat gold-oil price chart that shows how in recent times, we'd have an increasing oil price even if we were on a gold standard. The chart is a bit dated, but it should be sufficient to demonstrate my point.
Think about what that really means to your set amount of income now that most businesses are no longer giving "cost of living" increases every year.
Personally, I'd love an automatic raise every year. From an economic perspective, though, this seems like a bad idea. You don't want anything "automatic", because it spoils efficiency. In fact, one of the advantages of steady low inflation is that it allows real wages to go down - people don't normally react well to a wage decrease even when it is warranted.
In other words, people are not perfectly rational and so we should not expect our financial system to be, either. It has to be engineered to be compatible with the human psyche.
So they spend by driving up a huge debt. Then, when printing money is called for, its handled by the fed who hands out sweetheart loans to the people who need it the least.... hell, they can turn around and lend it to the government for a profit, and then never pay it back.
Well, sort of. The Fed doesn't borrow money or spend money they don't have... that's Congress. The fed doesn't "print" money, but they can pull any number out of thin air and put it on their balance sheet. Recently, they used this ability to buy a bunch of Treasury bonds from the bond market (Quantitative Easing). The Fed did loan out money as part of the recent bailout, but that was rare (unprecedented?) and controversial. It was also specifically authorized by Congress. They also had the "TAF" program, which auctioned very short-term (30-90 days) loans when the liquidity crisis hit. Yes, the loans were "below market interest rate" but at that point the market was so screwed up that there was no "market", thus the Fed stepping in. The "excess profit" the banks made was $13 billion, which is indeed a nice gift at taxpayer expense - but the amount of money loaned out was a staggering $1.2 trillion, so $13 billion represents only 1%, just to add some perspective back in. You are on-par with the student loan interest subsidy at that point.
So even if the Fed isn't technically private, its operations may be private enough to allow shady practices.. with billions/trillions of your money.
What you said makes sense, but people thought of that already. Not only are the Fed's books open, but you can get to them online.
But anti-Fed people never comb through the books and cite specific transgressions, instead they talk in broad strokes. My impression is that they don't really know what they are talking about and haven't really done any research or they would be able to list some specific incident.
There's campaign talk (e.g. "Read my lips, no new taxes") and then there's making good on campaign talk.