RE: Who owns the CB or 2 +2 = 11 (Our response to Chamberlain)





Some "Malchish-Kibalchish" in his blog with 1,200-mi subscribers had the imprudence to assign us with a colleague the honorable title of "banksters lawyers." Thank you, of course. That’s only if we have paid in the same size (smile).

Along the way, the author has managed to accuse of plagiarizing his ideas of all who have ever touched on the idea of the Central Bank. Including Starikova and co. Several hysterical worrying about their copyright, it also had the imprudence to become personal. Well to the delight of the audience, demanding "bread and circuses" we decided to give an answer to Chamberlain.

First and foremost, to crucify his article in 2006, "Who owns the Central Bank," on which he so heavily relied.

By the way, who does not like a lot of bukff or settling personal scores, close the offer page (smile).

And yes. We will not be in the scope of this article to discuss the "toxicity" of dollars of paper and printing facilities the Fed’s printing press. This was touched on in a note earlier.

So, "The Empire Strikes Back" or Tony, Tony old dupe.

"After the publication of materials that prove the private nature of the U.S. Federal Reserve is often a similar question on the Central Bank of Russia. To whom belongs the printing press of the Russian Federation? Really? In the study of the law on the Central Bank, in which the issue even though it has a trivial answer any clear understanding of the situation does not arise. There are other questions. Chief of which is — and whether we have any such public body — the Central Bank? A commercial bank "Bank" we, of course, and he is even able to print rubles, but its function is slightly different from the ones that are usually attributed to the central banks of Independent States. "

Studying the law of the Central Bank, the author has created a lot of issues that have called into question the fact that the functions our CB, as that differ from those that are commonly attributed to central banks Independent States. After that, the seed of doubt prompted the author to further analysis of the legislation.

"But first, back to the main issue. Yes, the authorized capital of the bank and the property are federal property "

It is interesting that the author agrees with the indisputable determination that the Russian federal property — property owned by the right of ownership of the Russian Federation, and from this it follows that the Central Bank of the Russian Federation owns. And then our point of view are the same.

However, on reading the author or the law inattentive, or else wants to interpret it the way he wanted to interpret it (CB does not belong to the Russian Federation). It strangely does not deign attention earlier regulations of the State Bank of the USSR, which regulated the activities and opportunities of our predecessor of the Bank of Russia.

Quoting the article 2 of the Law on the Central Bank, the author draws attention to existing one, in his opinion, due to the inconsistency of the law, that the state is not liable for the obligations of the bank, and the bank — for the obligations of the state. It, whether through ignorance or for some other reason, do not mind the fact that such a phrase, with minor variations occurred in the laws of the State Bank of the USSR from 1990, 1960 and even 1923.

Let’s see historical documents. "The Law on the State Bank of the USSR" by 11.12.1990 N 1828-1
Quote: "Article 3, Part 2 The USSR is not liable for the obligations of the State Bank of the USSR except when he took over this responsibility.

State Bank of the USSR is not liable for the obligations of the USSR except when he took over this responsibility. "

Whoops! Yes, here is the same as in the current law on the Central Bank of the Russian Federation! The State Bank shall not be liable for the obligations of the USSR except when he took over this responsibility! Time to shout "Help!" Since on the author’s logic is already in the 90s the State Bank was not a statesman! But this is only the beginning. Fasten seat belts. Our time machine goes on.

Quote: "Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR 29/10/1960 N 1146
Approval of the Charter of the State Bank of the USSR "
Article 5 of the General Provisions:
"State Bank of the USSR is not liable for the obligations of the USSR and the Union Republics, as well as their central and local government, except where such liability imposed on it by the Government of the USSR or when he accepts this responsibility in accordance with the guarantee or acceptance. "

Thus, in 1960 government could impose on the State Bank liable for the obligations made by them do not. But that’s good or not for the economy? To PLANNED, that existed in the Soviet Union — more or less. To MARKET — definitely not, because it may interfere with the banking strategy of the Central Bank and, as a consequence — result in additional losses.

To close the question of the necessity of the existence of such a phrase in the law of the state-owned bank, is to say, why it is needed.

You can use it to carry out a selective default, as was done in the 98-year, without fear that the debt of the government will be selected as direct ownership of the Central Bank (as part of its share capital), and the state, which is in its management. Well, the opposite is also true. In the case of total crisis the central bank may go bankrupt, without losing any public property other than its authorized capital. So there!

Now that there was no talk of that law on the Bank of Russia "obviously copied from similar legislation by the U.S. Federal Reserve" let us compare the structure of the submission of the State Bank in 1960, 1990 and 2012 based on laws. It will be a little boring, but clearly and consistently.

In 1960, the structure of the State Bank and its subordination regulated parts XI-XIV of the statute.

Statutes of the State Bank of the USSR from 29.10.1960-

Summarizing, it is seen that the dependence of the State Bank in 1960 from the Council of Ministers is large enough, however still presides appointee of the Supreme Council. To PLANNED Soviet economy scheme is useful because adjust monetary relations within the country quite easily. Pricing controlled, hACTH sector is virtually absent, small proportion of individual savings.

In 1990, the somewhat reformed. See Chapter VII (Articles 42-47) of the Law on the State B
ank of the USSR USSR —

In 1990, the The Council of Ministers has ceased to exist, becoming the Cabinet of Ministers, subordinate to the President of the USSR. The old structure of subordination of the State Bank could not provide adequate control of the banking system, greatly complicated by the time. Recall that the already hard a struggle for power. The first commercial banks under the guise of Perestroika emerging market economy.

Without restructuring the banking system if left in the same format, control it would have received the President of the USSR, almost single-handedly. To prevent such a dangerous centralization of the State Bank became independent from the executive branch, that in general it is logical, because for the implementation of executive functions of the existing budget, which must be adhered to.

Another cause of such restructuring is to retreat from the principles of a planned economy, to which we will point out later. Now, let’s just say, that the presence of commercial banks and regulated by the market price makes the former system of the 60s is extremely inefficient.

However, here it is in the law of 1990 that is perceived as a blueprint of American law can be seen the most. In any case, let us recall:
The governing body of the U.S. banking system — the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, whose members are appointed by the President of the United States, a 14 year period (we have — 6 and 4, but with the possibility of re-election, in which the States are not formally provided). But in fact it is even a choice most of the Central Council of the President, the only nods in the direction of the U.S. banking system. Just because our realities differ too much from shtatovskih, the size of private banks are small, and their activity is highly dependent on the state central bank that is not divisible by 12, reserve, etc.

Did not work in our American-even if only because the system initially had to be calibrated against the abuses and attempts to pull the blanket over himself from the President, the Government, the Ministry of Finance and the State Duma.

As a result, the system has been improved. Instead of Central Board of the Bank of Russia Board of Directors has appeared and the National Banking Council.

The first has the direct operational control of the bank — it includes the Chairman of the Bank of Russia and the 12 members of the Board of Directors, appointed by the State Duma. I believe that everything has structural similarities with the Fed must fall away. Directors of banks in the Congress as the Fed would not appoint …

The main thing — control strategy of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. And here we have a The National Banking Council in which two — the Council of the Federation, three — of the number of deputies, State Duma member, three — of the Government of the Russian Federation, the three — are appointed by the President of the Russian Federation. Plus — the Chairman of the Bank of Russia. Not a single individual, all except for the judicial branch of government!

Furthermore "Reviewed by members of the National Banking Council is the organ of state power, has sent them to the National Banking Council" and "Members of the National Banking Council, with the exception of the President of the Bank of Russia, do not work with the Bank of Russia on a permanent basis and do not get paid to do this work."

The scheme according to the current law on the Bank of Russia —

That is, no one branch of government has a decisive advantage in the NBS. Where in the American system at least something similar?

Well, yes — I will stress it again — no one individual in the management bodies, only officials and employees. After that, it is necessary to say that the modern law copied from a similar U.S.? I think in terms of the structure of the Central Bank is already irrelevant.

We proceed to the next part of the author’s claims. The functions of the Central Bank.

The author does not like the dependence of the Russian Government on the policy of the Central Bank … determined by the NBS in which comprises, as already mentioned above, already three of the same Government. Yes, there is a definite relationship — on how to solve the NBS representatives of the Duma, the Federation Council and the President. Democracy, however, (Smile). Is the Fed system, where such mutual control does not exist, like the most? (Grim smile).

Also the author, according to the text, does not understand how the form of gold reserves, why it should be an essential part of the untouchable and kept abroad. This, as it turned out, many do not understand — apparently being hypnotized by the term. Especially for the author and those who are not too familiar with the gold reserves of the next information block.

Gold and foreign currency assets — it is a form "External assets under the control of monetary authorities, and which, by law, can only be used for direct financing of payments deficit or indirect impact on its size by adjusting the exchange rate" (Quote from a letter from the Ministry of Economic Development of 27 August 2010 number D06-2904).

The author "Who owns the Bank" expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the government can not manage money, which already has a clear function. One example of this function is to neutralize the danger of foreign influence on the exchange rate (And through it — for our economy) through the manipulation of international debts.

Recall on April 26, 2012 the amount of international reserves in Russia is 513,491 billion (Just in case clarification — in dollars, it all just calculated — the structure of reserves, a separate conversation) and the volume of international debt (as of April 1, 2012 — total — 565, 247 billion The data are taken HERE.

Difference 51.75 billion. In this case, directly National debt in this sum is not so much — only 36 billion (Including 2.5 million former Soviet debt, payments on which are strictly bound to the terms).

The remaining mass — so-called corporate debt, loans taken by our businesses and banks abroad. Of course, not for the beautiful eyes and not for the sake of a beautiful life. At interest, secured by real estate and business development.

One may ask — why give credit to foreign countries, and not our own Central Bank? Elementary, my dear Watson! For several reasons.

First, a sum of our Central Bank simply did not and do not. Remind about the GCR? We remember ab
out him. But here again the whole gusto and turns.

Obtain $ 500 billion, to give a credit to our privates Russia can only from a positive trade balance. But then — a small thing — even in 2011, when we were already quite considerably strengthened, trade surplus for the year was just — 210.7 billion dollars. This means that, even now, for the lending of the state would take at least three to four years (absolutely not to mention the fact that such a balance is itself a consequence of the previously taken loans).

Second, our economic system is a tunable — support the increased risks. Lending to private traders in Russia, especially in the beginning, it was dangerous. With extremely limited resources the state, represented by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, on a just could not go.

Third, the credit system presupposes the existence of a developed Institute for Risk Assessment, the value of collateral, as well as a realistic business plan, under which loans are taken. We have that, for obvious reasons, did not exist, while in the West it is established system, operating with virtually no misfires.
And finally, fourth, (though not in-the-past), foreign loans are to some extent protected the use of credit mechanism in corrupt schemes.

Without them, unscrupulous entrepreneurs, especially in the early years of development of our economy, it would be so very strong temptation to bribe officials of the Central Bank, to get a big loan secured by the fact that the loan is not necessary.

Some might ask the question — why do loans if you can just type the desired amount? The benefit of a printing press — print any amount, and for non-cash transactions just driven into the computer as much noughts after edinichki much as your heart desires.

However, any issue — a complex process with far-reaching consequences. The sharp increase in the money supply regulation complicates the whole payment system, stimulates the growth of inflation and devalues all made by nationals or companies of ruble savings.

If the Central Bank instead form a mechanism of foreign lending began to print virtually self-ruble and typed all the required amount all available in our hands Ruble depreciated to three times! And this is now the current prices, we pay attention.

And yes. The most important. We can not get out of there, then to start from scratch. None of the global economy button reset, unfortunately. And we are part of the global economy with a bunch of already dialed and handed out loans.

Thus, we see that the state is beneficial to our companies received credits from abroad. As if this is not terribly sound.

However, Loan fact raises some problems, the solution of which is the appearance of gold reserves. The fact that dollars and other currencies in the territory of the Russian Federation does not work — they can buy goods, services, equipment with the technology, but abroad.

We have all this "wealth" to spend it, it is necessary to change the ruble. And the Central Bank, of course, exchanges, and although this must print (Or a lot more, enter bak) the appropriate amount of rubles. Now the company, which has taken a loan at 7.8% per annum, in the currency of the Russian appearing money that could pay salaries, to build factories and so on. §

Central Bank during the exchange earned little, but it is in fact little things. The main thing is that he has on his hands appeared dollars, which — as mentioned above — on the territory of Russia are not working. And the Central Bank there is a need to keep those dollars as long as the company begins to repay the loan.

What to do? Keep the Bucks in the safe? Inefficient. Buy equipment, technology, etc. both offer online fans to speculate about the economy, with no idea about the mechanisms of its work?

Since the Central Bank firstly, has no right to do so, second whence then the currency will be taken to return the loan private traders? The only acceptable way out — to put the currency in highly securities of the country in which the credit was taken. It will bring some interest income, the money will be perfectly safe, and that happen — you can always arrange for the exchange obligations.

In addition, if the company has not been able to repay the loan, and the mortgage is too valuable and desired state — the Central Bank may pay the missing self-, the benefit of the money you need to find just to pay the interest. And then the company will need to have No overseas uncle, and the native state, in more severe conditions.

A consequence of this mechanism is the appearance of gold reserves, lying on the accounts in foreign banks, securities of other countries, etc. These are the "$ 500 billion mentioned by Brzezinski and the myth that so readily repeated in the network. It comes down to that in the election program of the Liberal Democratic Party could read the requirement to return the gold reserves in Russia that this money working at home! But how can we work something else that is already running, as the provision of some of our money?

The author believes that if the account with the gold reserves are, figuratively speaking, computers, the Fed, the Federal Reserve controls our gold reserves and thus has power over Russia. Needless to say that GCR structure is more complex and only U.S. currency is not limited.

For the sake of clarity, go to the distorting simplification and deem, that all the gold reserves in the accounts of the Federal Reserve. But it gives them and how it limits us? And we are not in any way limiting. If these accounts are suddenly be blocked, the Russian Federation in response to convert all dollar-denominated debt of our companies to the Central Bank. And turn ethen abroad, where large losses, than for us.

For Russia, this debt relief, simplifying management of the payment system and currency regulations, increasing dependence of private companies and state and partial nationalization (through gaining control over the mortgaged property) of their property.

So all the talk about the subordination of our financial structure of the West, based on the myths of the gold reserves have no reason other than ignorance talking about the structure of our economy. Dissatisfaction with the lack of opportunities to dispose of the government gold reserves, the actual debts of private companies — also speaks of weak familiarity with the mechanisms of formation of gold reserves.

Summing up the same list of objections and critical abstracts have to say that the author uses the paradigms of the planned economy in order to describe the market. It is only natural that he now and then I get very strange conclusions conflicting federal laws, there are paranoid version of the subordination of the domestic financial system to our geopolitical opponent itp

Approximately the same confusion may occur in the mind of Mathematics, who is used to the ternary number system, and is force
d to look at the expressions in decimal. If the ternary 2 +2 = 11, and only four decimal
, then here, and icons appear suspicious strangers, and not understanding the end, you can declare that everything was fine before, but now with this new system, one for each addition of twos steals 11-4 = 7 SEVEN units. (In the ternary system, it is generally written as 21)

No, we do not argue, a system in which the Central Bank reports to the Government and in fact it is a puppet, is quite efficient. But only in a planned economy, where the prices of goods and services determined by the state, and all the foreign economic activity goes through the state organization. The first owner-driver, carrying on their trade prices or working with foreign partners — destabilizing the whole system.

Looking around, we can see that the planned economy as we would not smell. From this it can be concluded that all of the author’s claims that it does not run into the common public myths, inappropriate and untimely.

Resent could be at the end of 1990, when the USSR produced the restructuring of the State Bank, and even then it did not make sense in view of the fact that all the changes were forced. Now the hype about the "nationalization of the Central Bank" — a blank informational noise, full of myths and retrograde nostalgia for Soviet times.

Strictly speaking, this is all that can be said about the text and expressed in it the author’s position.

The following article will attempt to answer to the author of "Who Owns Bank" crush our article on poker Club Fed. Accordingly, there will be written and about the assets of the Central Bank and colored paper dollar.

According to the current article, the same questions are welcome.

PS I hope no one will dispute the fact that it is better planned or market economy, because I do believe the best combination of them with a control in the form of AI.

Lernor & Sabaytis

Like this post? Please share to your friends: