Hm, you simply ignored my points or straight contradicted them without any sources.

> + "I call BS. Low rates are almost always punitive to banks' bottom lines" this is completely false.

Follow the link my friend -- net interest margins are sharply lower when rates are low. If you are going to just flatly disagree, you're entitled to your opinion, but I really don't think you will find accurate data to justify your viewpoint.

> This is utterly, beyond naive. The Fed Chair is an extremely politically driven position - they don't get to this position and do whatever suits them or the economy.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Please make up your mind: either the bankers own the Fed, or politicians do. Also, if you think that the bankers own all the politicians, then nationalizing the Fed wouldn't help anyway, would it?

Also, this bears repeating: THE PRIVATE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE FED DO NOT CONTROL THE FED, BECAUSE THEY ONLY CONTROL A MINORITY OF THE BOARD SEATS.

> My friend - if you believe for a second that the Fed is acting entirely in the public's interest - then the public should be able to see what's on the Fed's books.

This is a classic conspiracy theorist argument. They don't want to show us all their books, so they must be doing something bad and hiding it.

You don't have any evidence of any wrongdoing, you just presume that it exists because of your prior beliefs.

In reality, people don't like politically motivated critics to rummage through their books. Climate scientists don't want their critics access to their e-mails -- does that prove that those scientists were faking climate change?

I wouldn't mind the Fed opening up all its books, but I also don't support a witch hunt.

> the system is designed first and formost for the benefit of the banks

Begging the question. Please show me a credible, historical source that supports your claim. It'd also help if you can explain the long history of Fed actions that would've been against the interests of its private shareholders that you claim completely control it. Let's start with the Crash of '29 and the Fed's efforts to prevent it, for starters.

> or at least a 2.5 Trillion dollar 'gift' to private banks by the central bank is only to the 'benefit' of the people of the US to the extent that the entire banking system doesn't come down and crash - but in a real capitalist system - most of those banks should have had 100% of their shareholder value wiped out.

I agree there are issues regarding moral hazard and who should be paying for the mess the bankers got us all in. But do you really think that the optimal solution is for the US to nationalize every insolvent bank, and that they could've done it without causing market panic and worsening the crisis in the process?

Anyway, the Fed could be explicitly nationalized without any real-world effect, precisely because it has been the textbook example of how to run a central bank for the last 60 years. You seem to think that all other countries' run their central banks better, but the truth is that those banks look to the Fed for leadership and guidance.

> So - the Fed - allowed banks to put those mortgages on the banks balance sheet at _face value_ - for a period of time. Ex: ABC banks has a a crap mortgages on a house with a market value of $100K, but the mortgage is for $200K (it's worthless) - they exchange them with the Fed for a full $200K.

Really doubt that--credible source please? Open Market Operations by definition are done at market prices; the Fed does not buy assets for twice their market value. I agree it would be pretty criminal if they did, but it would also be blindingly easy to find the evidence: just look at the free money flowing into each bank's balance sheets and cashflow statements.

If you think the Fed did this, and then everyone conspired to hide the evidence, then we are certainly far into conspiracy theorist territory.