Topics: More refutation of the ignoramuses on central banks. They misinterpret “independent” to mean “private” because they don’t understand basic civics. Many wholly state-owned central banks are “independent” from other branches of government, just as the judicial branch is independent and makes its own decisions. That’s not the same thing as “private”. All it means is that it’s independent from politicians to chart its own course, like the Supreme Court is as well. Even if a central bank were technically “private” in the sense of having private shareholders, the state still has control over it via taxation and regulation powers, as they have over all private business in general, so it makes little difference here. But that’s not even the case here, it’s just independent not private.

FOLLOW ON RUMBLE

Topic: I look at whether or not “central banks” are privately or publicly owned. Truth is that most central banks are wholly state-owned and state-controlled non-profits who have a monopoly on money printing powers. Even the ones that have a private dimension, like the US Fed and Bank of Italy, are little more than public-private partnerships that are also publicly controlled non-profits who deliver the vast bulk of their profits back to the government. Some of these state-controlled banks are “independent,” meaning their power is separated from other branches of the state, which is not the same thing as private. The judicial branches of most states are also independent from other branches of the state, that doesn’t make them “private”. The people who falsely believe these banks are “private” demand something we already have (state-run central banks). Socialists and Keynesians support central banks, not free marketers.

TIPS / KICK / TWITTER / TELEGRAM

If you liked this content, consider a contribution or becoming a member.