Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has become the quirky candidate embraced by the fringe groups. He campaigns as a stop the war libertarian. What rankles me about his position is his view that the Fed should be abolished.
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has become the quirky candidate embraced by the fringe groups. He campaigns as a stop the war libertarian. What rankles me about his position is his view that the Fed should be abolished. Take a listen at the video below:
There is so much to disagree with here. His biggest argument is that because the Fed is an independent institution, it lacks the proper transparency and oversight to properly function. Well, that was the whole idea. The Fed needed to be removed from politics so that Fed Chairmen didn't succumb to political pressure to print money and help politicians stay in office. Independence is essential. George H Bush wanted Greenspan to lower interest rates in 1991 so that he could stay in office. Imagine what would happen if Presidents and Congress had more influence?
They do by the way have influence. Every four years the President chooses a Fed Chairman who must be approved by the Senate. If a Chairman isn't doing well or lacks the public trust, he can be removed after his four year term expires. This is unlike a Supreme Court justice who serves for life.
In the video he also says that the United States has only grown via a $800 billion yearly accounts deficit. This is wrong. The United States enjoys one of the highest rates of productivity growth in the world and this, more than anything has contributed to the country's growth in wealth.
He also makes the point that the wealthy were the main beneficiaries of the Fed's low rate policy from 2000-2007.� This ignores the millions of middle and lower class consumers who benefited from lower rates on mortgages, credit cards, etc.� The rate of home ownership in the country has soared.� While some took on more debt than they could afford, whose fault is this?� As a libertarian, Paul should realize that responsibility rests with the individual.�
I realize its fun and a bit hip to get on the Ron Paul bandwagon. But remember what happened the last time we didn't have a Federal Reserve - The Great Depression. Things may sometimes get a bit off-kilter with the Fed, but they can sure get a whole lot worse without it.
Actually, the one area I do agree with Paul is on inflation. I think the definition of core inflation employed by the Fed is flawed. But there is nothing blackbox or shrouded about it. Everyone knows how the Fed calculated inflation. We can agree that it is wrong and debate changing it. That doesn't mean the Fed should be abolished.
Posted: Sep 27, 2007
sbb (Unregistered)
You need to educate yourself a bit more about the Federal Reserve that was enacted in 1913 (16 years before the 29 crash) and was complicit in the Depression by contracting the money supply.
Posted: Sep 27, 2007
Author/Submitter Response:
Yes, I know. I confused the Fed and the FDIC in terms of charter dates. My apology. It doesn't change my opinion though. I'd take the economy in Fed days versus pre-Fed days anytime.
dooglio (Unregistered)
Thanks sbb for setting the record straight. Milton Friedman reported that the chairman of the Fed at the time of the depression confessed to him on his deathbed that indeed, the Fed had actually *caused* the depression. We would so be better off without the Fed and a hard currency.
Posted: Sep 27, 2007
dooglio (Unregistered)
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
Even the current Chairman agrees:
"Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, later acknowledged that Friedman was right to blame the Federal Reserve for the Great Depression."
I thought I read that the Fed was enacted after but you appear to be right. It doesn't change my opinion that Paul is wrong about abolishing it. At the very least he is wrong in his reasons for wanting to abolish it.
@ dooglio - I'm curious. What would you put in place of the Fed and a hard currency. What would you replace a "hard currency" with?
By the way their are plenty of countries that lack a strong Federal Reserve system or a system at all and their records for inflation and steady economic growth are pretty poor. Look at South America and Africa as an example.
Posted: Sep 27, 2007
Mickey (Unregistered)
"But remember what happened the last time we didn't have a Federal Reserve - The Great Depression."
What in the... look, I'm not very good at recognizing satire, but this is absurd. The Fed was very much in existence during TGD and helped *cause* it, along with serious blunders on the fiscal policy side. Ben Bernanke actually apologized for TGD.
Like I said, I'm not good at recognizing satire, but that statement is not at all funny to me. You have no idea how much the Fed has hurt people.
Posted: Sep 27, 2007
Author/Submitter Response:
I admit I made a mistake. For some reason I thought I had read the Fed was chartered after the depression. My fault. It doesn't really change my argument though that overall it has helped the economy. For those that want to eliminate the Fed, what's the alternative?
Andrew (Unregistered)
Sam, can you tell me where the President gets the list of candidates to select from? Oh, that's right, the Federal Reserver supplies the list.
You also need to realize that even though the Federal Reserve returns a portion of the interest to the treasury as specified in their charter, the Fed still makes a huge profit off a function our own government is responsible for and could do for free.
Most of all, the US Constitution does not grant the federal gov't the power to transfer it's authority to "coin and print money" to anyone else. For the federal reserve to be Constitutional, an Amendment would need to be passed.
Take a look at this chart:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/cpi-1800.gif
Approx 125 years of zero inflation and prior to 1913, a period of pretty stable prices, there was no Federal Reserve Bank. This chart calls into question the stated purpose of creating a Federal Reserve in 1913 to assure price stability, when thereafter prices soared instead of becoming more stable. This chart makes it seem that the Federal Reserve was created for the purpose of generating inflation. Just since 1950 alone, the dollar has lost about 90% of it's purchasing power. If you're wondering, this data comes from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank and includes data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Posted: Sep 27, 2007
Author/Submitter Response:
I wonder what Hamilton said about this. Going to look it up when I have more time :).
@Andrew - I may be wrong but the chart doesn't seem to correlate the Fed and inflation, but rather the gold standard and inflation. Once the country was taken off the gold standard, that's when inflation seems to have picked up significantly. I don't think we're aiming for zero inflation either since that can be just as harmful. Japan has had near zero inflation for almost two decades and I wouldn't want that economy.
Posted: Sep 27, 2007
vsync (Unregistered)
Here's another great video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeHWW5gbc0w
He campaigns as a libertarian, but primarily as the only candidate arguing for the rule of law. Follow the law of the land, or change it, but don't ignore it.
Economists agree: the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression.[1]
Productivity has skyrocketed but wages simply haven't kept up.[2] The inflating dollar adds insult to injury. The dollar is inflated while the minimum wage stagnates. Yet executive salaries, buoyed by the resulting stock price increases, grow, further reducing the economic mobility of the poor.[3]
As for who the benificiaries are, you either get to play the "how can we help the people game" or you don't. If you want to be socialist with the money supply and talk about how many have homes now, come back in a month when all the foreclosures have gone through.[4] The principled approach lets one see the symptom and the root cause simultaneously; I condemn the unstable currency, the resulting unwise speculation, and any bailouts equally.
Finally, with regard to secrecy: deliberations aside (although we disagree on the wisdom of keeping those secret) what about the fact that as they pushed dilution of the money supply to ridiculous extremes, they simply stopped publishing the M3?[5] Again Ron Paul was there to take issue with that.[6]
I saw that someone quoted Jefferson and you want to find a Hamilton quote in response. If you want to chide people on their libertarian cred, I'd be wary of that, since Hamliton got a lot of play out of "implied powers" when others wanted to follow the law.[7] Hamilton was an elitist[8] and a strong Federalist (although he took it for granted the states would always have an advantage versus the national government[9]; little did he know). But Hamilton did demand a commodity standard[10], repayment of debts[11], and tried hard to keep the bank from printing money beyond its capitalization[12].
References:
1. B. S. Bernanke, "On Milton Friedman's Ninetieth Birthday", presented at the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 8 November 2002. [Online]. Available: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/default.htm. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
2. S. Greenhouse and D. Leonhardt, "Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity", The New York Times, 28 August 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/business/28wages.html. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
3. L. Mishel, "CEO pay-to-minimum wage ratio soars", Economic Policy Institute, 27 June 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060627. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
4. Default Research Inc., "California Foreclosures Increase 300 Percent in August 2007", PR.com, 27 September 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.pr.com/press-release/53905. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
5. NowAndFutures.com, "Some key statistics as prediction aids". [Online]. Available: http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
6. "jp", "One Congressman's Fight to Save M3", The Capital Spectator, 10 March 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.capitalspectator.com/archives/2006/03/one_congressman.html. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
7. American Experience, "The Battle Over the Establishment of a National Bank", PBS. [Online]. Available: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/hamilton/sfeature/scenes_02_trans.html. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
8. A. Hamilton, remarks at the Constitutional Convention concerning the United States Senate, 18 June 1787. [Online]. Available: http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/alexander_hamilton_quote_7233. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
9. "Loud Mime", "Founder's Quote - (Alexander Hamilton's Big 'OOPS')", Free Republic, 24 September 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1901293/posts. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
10. A. Hamilton, "Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Subject of a Mint", Congress of the United States. [Online]. Available: http://www.coinfacts.com/mint_history/mint_history_1781_1791/alexander_hamilton_report_1791_page1.htm. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
11. Ron Chernow, "Alexander Hamilton": The Penguin Press, April 2004. Excerpted by BusinessWeek, "Alexander Hamilton, Economic Prophet", 3 May 2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_18/b3881113.htm. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
12. Wikipedia contributors, "First Bank of the United States", Wikipedia, 27 September 2007 01:52 UTC. [Online]. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Bank_of_the_United_States&oldid=160605605. [Accessed: 28 September 2007].
Posted: Sep 28, 2007
Mick Russom (Unregistered)
Why are they hiding M3?
Posted: Sep 28, 2007
Archie (Unregistered)
The Fed has much less power than you think. They can influence short term rates but longer term rates are controlled by the purchase and sale of T-bonds, which the Fed can't control. Global markets, foreign countries (China) are increasingly what drive capital flows and interest rates. Don't believe it? The Fed cut interest rates last week by 50 basis points and the rates on 30 year mortgages have actually gone up. Sure, we could get rid of it, but the Fed does a bit more than just raise an interest rate here or there. It can serve as a lender of last resort to banks and has at times stepped in to stop potential global meltdowns (remember the Mexican economic crisis, LTC, and the Asian currency crisis). It's worth talking about additional oversight but that's like saying we should all know GEs earnings before they report it to the market. Financial information often requires discretion and can't be revealed prematurely without unduly influencing the markets.
Posted: Sep 28, 2007
Amanda P. (Unregistered)
"We would so be better off without the Fed and a hard currency."
This was already done. It's called the gold standard and it was a disaster. It led to chronic unemployment and regular boom and bust cycles. What's the unemployment rate now? The present Fed system really didn't come into play until after WWII and the Depression with the creation of the IMF.
Since that time, the global economy has boomed, living standards have soared, and Americans are richer and better off than they have ever been.
Abolishing the Fed is a draconian step that ignores the data and the indisputable fact that as a society we have done better with the Fed than without it.
Here's some info about the failures of the gold standard from the University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development - not Wikipedia.
Amanda P., that's why Alexander Hamilton in [10] above advocated a bimetallic standard. Have you read him? Ron Paul doesn't advocate a gold stardard; he does advocate a gold and silver standard because that's what's allowed according to his reading of the Constitution. However if you actually watch his interviews and debates, he has advocated that we look into commodity baskets and other such instruments.
"Indisputable" is a strong word. Economists agree: the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. You may argue as Bernanke does that they have learned since then, but you still have someone trying to be clever and manually run something they don't completely understand.
Many argue credibly that the policies of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government are leading inevitably toward a huge crash. The response of the Federal Reserve was to simply stop publishing data key to that concern. Not behavior that engenders trust, in my view.
Posted: Sep 28, 2007
Amanda P. (Unregistered)
vsync - Indisputable is a strong word and perhaps not the best choice in a discussion such as this. The argument against a metallic choice as far as I can understand is that using it to level balance of payments is a pretty blunt instrument that often lags market forces. This is what led to chronic high unemployment and boom and bust cycles in the past.
Yes, the Fed may have been one cause of the Great Depression but what about the depressions that have been avoided by the Fed. What would the last 80 years have looked like? Surely you can't imagine it as more prosperous?
What evidence is there that the Fed is setting us up for another big bust? I remember my grandfather always saying things were bad and another depression was just around the corner. That was 30 years ago and he died during one of the biggest bull markets in history.
Posted: Sep 28, 2007
vsync (Unregistered)
Amanda P., I'm arguing with facts and analysis, providing citations; you respond with charming anecdotes and emotions. It's not worth my time to continue this discussion. Best wishes.
Posted: Sep 29, 2007
Amanda P. (Unregistered)
vsync - You state:
"Many argue credibly that the policies of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. government are leading inevitably toward a huge crash."
I looked through your citations and don't see a single one that backs up this point of view. The views of Alexander Hamilton are interesting but hardly relevant. Nor does the disparity in CEO to average worker pay make the case or the lag in worker pay to productivity gains. These may be distributive issues but they are not proof of an impending collapse engineered by the Fed.
My anecdotes are also conventionally accepted knowledge. As Archie above states the Fed did prevent the collapse of the Mexican economy, it did help bail out LTC, and it did help end the Asian financial crisis. I can point you to a hundred sources that would confirm this.
If you are going to accuse the Fed of working to engineer a massive depression than the proof is on you Buddy to proove it. And you haven't done so. So please, skip the lecture on facts versus emotions.
Best,
Amanda
Posted: Sep 29, 2007
paul (Unregistered)
the Money Masters shows how the FED is the source of almost all our problems, with a solution at the end.
I just spent 40 minutes watching part of the that video Paul. I have to admit, I don't really agree with its central thesis: central banks and money changers are responsible for all of the world's ills. Let's take a couple of its contentions:
The Federal Reserve is a totally private bank not beholden to the US government. This is the central thesis of the entire video and it is false. The Federal Reserve is a part Federal, part private bank. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, which runs and oversees the Fed's activities, is an independent federal government agency. The Board is required to report to Congress and members can be removed for probably cause. In addition, the Chairman of the Board must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Banks themselves also have featured of both Federal and private institutions. The video selectively mentions that in the case of Lewis versus the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." But what the video neglected to mention is that the opinion also stated that "the Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes."
So, once this basic fact had been distorted by the video I had a hard time digesting the rest of it. A lot of the video seemed like propaganda that purposely mis-stated or omitted facts for the purpose of proving a point.
Posted: Oct 2, 2007
Manq (Unregistered)
You are paying Yahoo to put this blog on to a sponsored search result?
You really want to keep paying for this government bureaucracy with our federal income taxes? You must be joking!
I would love for him to get rid of the IRS! More than a third of my paycheck goes to what? 45% or so goes to the wars, 32% pays interest to the Chinese who are keeping us "afloat", and the remainder pays for our current government system. What a joke.
Posted: Oct 4, 2007
Author/Submitter Response:
I am not paying Yahoo anything. I assume the site is doing this to promote itself and posted articles.
I never said anything about the IRS. I personally feel that the tax code should be simplified and am in favor of a flat tax or even a consumption tax. But that doesn't change my opinion that his view of the Fed is wrong. Thank you for commenting.
John (Unregistered)
If more people viewed history form the forensic angle, rather than their opinion, or gut feelings about what "really happened", our society would have a clearer view of our future. Ron Paul speaks in these forensic terms far more than other candidates. It would only make since for the United States to make our next president a liberal. "Why?" you say? Look at the role of government in our lives in comparison to the times of founding fathers. Every angel of our lives is affected by the government in some way. Free speech? Look at Andrew Meyer. Right to bear arms? If a police officer finds a handgun in your trunk, you are immediately arrested until a permit is presented. Guilty until proven innocent. Department of homeland security? what is this? Don’t we have the CIA, FBI, army, navy, and police? Just like at my job, when more work is put on our plates, the more hats we have to put on.
It is no secret that ALL of our money is controlled and value determined by our fed gov. Free market? Well, it is TECHNICALLY non-existent if you consider everything is balanced on the macro scale just as a puppet would be maneuvered.
Would it make since for me to give my neighbor $100 unconditionally, when I can't even make my mortgage payment? That is how some of our foreign policy works.
by the way, what price should our leaders pay for lying abour WMD's? in earlier times these people would have been evicted like Richard Nixon. Today, the media controls the people of the US like dogs on a leash. We have been tought not to focus on misconseptions, but to follow a the leader unconditionaly simlilar to a dictatorship.
The book 1984 has more and more meaning every day in our society. Look at our flat monitors, all connected with video cameras attached to them. Sound familiar?
It feels like a paranoid conspiracy theory today, and it really is, as far as I am concerned. however the tools of ultra socialism, controlled thought, and big brother are coming in to view. It may not be in our lifetimes, but if we keep letting the government grow and be responsible for the weak, we will fall into this scenario for sure. A mild liberal would delay this, or turn our society around a bit.
Posted: Oct 4, 2007
Author/Submitter Response:
In my opinion people have never had more opportunity to express themselves and read non-governmental controlled media. The Internet has opened up a whole new world. I don't think the government can control things. That being said, someone should pay for the Iraq fiasco and I agree with Paul on this issue.
Get rid of useless goverment, I'm all for that. But keep the parts that work and no one has proven that the Fed isn't better than any of the alternatives.
Mark (Unregistered)
Amanda,
What could possibly go wrong with giving a private institution, the Federal Reserve Corporation, sole right to print money and set discount rates? You agree with giving a private company the right to regulate what we use as a means of trade? They control the supply of money in our country. They can print as much as they want, inflating the hell out of the dollar, all backed by IOU's, make loans on that money at whatever interest rate they deem appropriate. Have you ever heard of fractional reserves? Dollar hemegony? Please, don't be so naive. I realize you would like to give the Federal government the benefit of the doubt, but you should be more diligent. What other options you ask? Tie the currency to something real, anything besides an IOU.
Posted: Oct 5, 2007
John (Unregistered)
"The Internet has opened up a whole new world. I don't think the government can control things."
I partially agree with you, however, i feel that MOST Americans are NOT internet savy, AND by the time that the majority become internet savy, there will be far more gov control of the internet. for example, the rise in prosecutions for "illegal" downloads.
imagine "Department of Internet Security", its not that far off, would you agree?
I would bet that 99% of Americas getting news still get it from Fox, Cnn, ABC, NBC, PBS and Pop radio.
Remember, as much as you or i would like to believe that the general public is capible of out of the box thinking, they are not. they never will be. Thats a fact.
Now, Ron paul is the new knight in shining armor when it comes to solving this issue i stated above. he cares about our freedom and the well being of the american people. However, he is not one of the "good ol' boys", meaning he will not "play ball" with the major corporations out there including Fox, Cnn, ABC, NBC, ect. Unfortunatly, this is his down fall.
If I ever ran for president (waka waka!.. i know, just humor me)( i would get fried right away for my spelling) i would be a snake in the grass, i would appear slick like the rest of the candidates and keep the truth quiet, rather than out in peoples faces like Ron Paul, then when elected i would execute the plans of Ron Paul, and fuck over all the corporations that i promised fruitfull contracts and breaks, for the good of the country and longevity of our freedoms.
A leader such as this would be a hero, rather than a "liar for capital gains and war", "beat around the bush" president that we have now.
Name 1 good thing that Bush has done.
Free market will always work, its the government's job to step in and break up the monopolies rather than create them.
"What could possibly go wrong with giving a private institution, the Federal Reserve Corporation, sole right to print money and set discount rates?"
But the Fed is not a private institution. It is a quasi-private, quasi-federal institution. This has been upheld by the courts. What other private institution has to have its chief executive nominated by the President and approved by the Senate? What other private institution has to submit a yearly report to the Speaker of the House? The Fed IS NOT A PRIVATE INSTITUTION as you seem to mistakenly say. It is independent to a degree and this was done on purpose to prevent it from being used as a political tool.
What's amazing to me is that all of you libertarians actually advocate for the government taking more control over the Fed. If the government gains more control over the Fed then you realize that gives the politicos in office even more power. They'd be able to print money and raise rates at will. That's what banana republics in South America and Africa do. That's how dictators seize control and stay in power.
Look at the facts. Educate yourself and don't parrot discredited ideas just because they sound anti-establishement.
XOXO,
Amanda
Posted: Oct 8, 2007
Max (Unregistered)
What if we don't want to be the slaves of usurers and thugs. The End is nigh! Can't stop the freedom train! Vote RON PAUL!
Posted: Oct 11, 2007
Stephen (Unregistered)
Why should anyone have to pay money to the Federal Reserve??..I'll stick with Ron Paul, we have had enough!!!..Ditto to Max!!!
Posted: Oct 11, 2007
Jay Henderson (Unregistered)
Paper money backed by nothing allows governments to print all they want. This dilutes the money supply and the value of every new dollar is less than the old ones. The people who get it first (bankers, military industrial complex, government mandated monopolies) grow richer and richer, why prices rise for everyone else. Inflation is 100% a monetary phenomenon. Actually, with gold and silver or "sound money", prices would decrease not increase. This is the theft that is taking place under our noses and has been for almost 100 years. Keynsian economists think this can continue forever, but every paper currency in history has eventually become worthless. This is the doing of a central bank. Unless you want our money to continue it's steady decline down into oblivion, we must stop inflating the supply and return to a sound money policy. If not, we will all "pay" for our debt by losing everything we've saved. That's why Ron is correct.
Posted: Oct 11, 2007
Rye (Unregistered)
Amanda P,
You paint a pretty picture of the Fed, but I just don't buy it. Your claim that the fed is "quasi private" is true, but I don't want the people that quite literally determine the worth of my money to do so in private! The Fed controls the rate at which new currency is created, which directly affects (devalues) my (and everyone else's) savings. No matter what you tell me about the nature of the Fed, there is no way that you will convince me that this is ethical by any stretch of the imagination. The only ethical way to pursue this is to allow *everyone* to determine the value of the currency, and the only way to do that is to allow for a sound (commodity-backed) currency. Why in the hell does my government think it is A-OK to bail out foreign markets at the cost of the value of my dollar?! "the Mexican economy, it did help bail out LTC, and it did help end the Asian financial crisis" [sic]
Here's another point: if you want to keep your dollar, what do you have against me using a currency that IS backed by gold? If nothing, then why must I pay taxes on the interest earned when my gold inevitably grows in value versus the dollar? That is not ethical, either.
The constitution provides for the control of the currency by the legislative branch. It does NOT allow for the transfer of that power to some "quasi private" entity. It is unconstitutional, whatever the courts have said thus far.
Finally, a frequently cited argument by supporters of the Fed is the following: "Look at how wealthy we are now!" That wealth is due to a rapid increase in the level of our technology, not because of the fed "staving off" financial crises. We would be far better off today never having had a Fed.
I feel confident that all the little bumps in the road that the Fed allowed us to avoid through monetary inflation are going to bite us in the ass someday, and I suspect sooner than later.
Enjoy your paper money while it lasts.
"Gold standard? I want the paper standard!" -Amanda P
Does everyone forget that we had a very long period in this country without a central bank and with a commodity-backed currency. It was called the gold standard and it was replaced because it didn't work. Sorry boys, but those are the facts. The US on the gold standard was hit with chronic unemployment and lots of up and down cycles. There were several depressions in the 1800s that brought a lot of economic pain and misery. Economists (most of whom are not rich and feeding off the supposed trough of the Fed) have repeatedly studied the issue and found no sound reason for returning to a commodity-backed system. You may wish it would work. You may want it to work. You may think it's cool and anti-establishment to say it will work but there is no proof that it will. The only proof that we have is over 100 years on a gold standard that created a lot of misery for everyone except the rich. That's right, there were still plenty of wealthy people and bankers under a commodity-based system - Rockefeller, Carnegie, Chase, Vanderbilt, etc. Nothing changes.
I'm all for improving the system and making it more fair and equitable. But I need to hear facts and see the proof. If someone came and said let's become Communists I'd laugh in the same way someone wants to bring back the gold standard. Take me forward, not backward.
Posted: Oct 15, 2007
American (Unregistered)
Commie.
Why do you want a centrally planned economy? That's totally against the idea of "free market".
Posted: Oct 16, 2007
steviee (Unregistered)
Federal Reserve Fraud. Fleecing America. http://www.google.com/search?q=federal+reserve+fraud&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Posted: Oct 19, 2007
DC (Unregistered)
ANYONE WHO ADVOCATES THE FED IS A PUPPET,THE CENTRAL BANKS OF THE WORLD IS ONE MONOPOLY.HAVE YOU REASEARCHED
THE DEATHS (ASSASSINATIONS)OF PAST PRESIDENTS???HOW ABOUT jfk proposition 11110 HIS DEATH WARRANT.I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW F------ IGNORANT THE CITIZENS OF THE USA ARE OUR FORE FATHERS WOULD PUT PUPPET POLITIANS AND SOCIALIST PRESIDETIAL CANDIDATES UNDER ARREST FOR TREASON YES TREASON A SADDENED PATRIOT.MY FAMILY MEMBER WAS INVOLVED IN CREATION OF THE BILL OF
Posted: Oct 21, 2007
DC (Unregistered)
WAKE-UP AMANDA P. YOUR SO NAIVE.REASEACH LINCOLNS ECONOMY(GOV. ISSUED PAPER)WHY WAS HE KILLED????HIS CONCERNS WERE THE ENEMY IN FRONT AND THE MONEY MEN BEHIND.LOOK AT MONEY TIGHTNING 1.8 BILLION TO .4BILLION A DECADE LATER.THE FED IS PRIVATELY HELD.OR CAN YOU SHOW US THEIR ANNUAL REPORT???? AMANDA.BESIDES I BET YOU TKINK THE CIVAL WAR WAS ABOUT SLAVERY.LOL
Posted: Oct 21, 2007
DC (Unregistered)
PLEASE DON'T DISCREDIT ME FOR MY GRAMMER ERRORS THESE TOPICS GET US ALL GOING.AMERICA STARTED PAPER CALLED SCRIPS,AND WORKED.HAMILTON WAS A PUPPET,THE 1ST BANK OF THE USA,AND THE 2ND BANK OF THE U.S. AND THE FED.WERE AND ARE STILL CONTROLED BY THE SAME ENTIDY.THE 1ST BANK ABOLISHED MONEY MEN AFTER THEIR 20YR CHARTER ENDED.THE MONEY MEN WERE VERY MAD,AND STARTED THE WAR OF 1812 TO ENDEBT AMERICA SO WE NEEDED THEIR HELP ONCE YOU NEED THEIR HELP YOUR'E A JUNKY.LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO ENGLAND IN THE EARLY 1800'S.THE MONEY MEN BACKED BOTH SIDES(BRITAN A JUNKY
@DC - these are the same ridiculous assertions that have been out there for years. the money men, code word usually for the Jews btw) have started all of the wars, including the revolutionary war, the war of 1812, the civil war, ww1, ww2, the korean war, the vietnam war, the first iraq war, and now the current iraq war. they are looking to enslave the world, because you are simply not smart enough to escape their clutches. right? isn't that what you are saying? no more beating around the Bush.
Now let's ignore the fact that without these "money men" the US wouldn't exist. That's right, money men supplied the funds to fight the revolutionary war and hire France. Without French help and the French Armada Washington would have lost the war.
But let's ignore that for now. Who forces you to go out and get a loan? Who forced you to buy more than you should on your credit card? Who forced you into protecting your social security benefits and your Medicare - the true cause of the country's debt. No one, not the Fed, or the money men, or anyone. If you don't believe in borrowing money, then don't. But I bet everyone on here who has posted a comment has a mortgage, or car loan, or a student loan. The bankers don't put us in debt, we put oursevles in debt. Don't try to blame other people for your problems. If you don't want to borrow don't buy, or save up your money and wait. Getting rid of the Fed isn't going to solve it.
I'll also say this one more time. We tried a commodity based currency. It was called the gold standard, and it failed. If anyone can show me any real, empirical evidence (not evidence from some pseudo-economist) supporting the benefits of a commodity based system then we can have a discussion. Until then, it's just rhetoric.
One last thing DC. The Fed does not issue an annual report because it is not a corporation. You can though, access information about the Fed, like all government agencies via their website. If you need additional information you can get it via a Freedom of Information request, once again, the standard way for getting information from FEDERAL AGENCIES.
amandaPWHO'S ADVOCATING A GOLD STANDARD?? WHO SAID THE JEW MONEY MEN? WITHOUT MONEY LENDING THERE WOULDN'T BE AN ECONOMY.NO EDUCATION FOR LONELY SMART-ASS BRATS LIKE YOU.NOW TAXES SSI ARE CASH-FLOW FOR DEBT SERVICE.IN A SSI PLAN PEOPLE ARE CONTRIBUTING ABOUT 15% OF GROSS INCOME UP TO 80K. THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE UNDER SERIOUS EXAMINATION.THESE YOUNG WORKERS ARE LOSING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS EACH AT RETIREMENT.ANYTHING YOU BUY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF GROCERIES IS TAXED AND CASH FOR A LOAN OF SOME SORT.
Posted: Oct 24, 2007
JIM (Unregistered)
AMANDA;ARE YOU LITTLE SLOW???WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING MORE FROM YOU.I'M A REPUBLICAN ALSO BUT YOUR A BABBBBLING IDIOT,WE ALL KNOW HISTORY 101 AND CAUSES&EFFECTS BUT AN IMPERMEABLE MIND IS THE LAST THING ANY ONE NEEDS.
Posted: Oct 24, 2007
ANDY J (Unregistered)
WE (USA) FINANCE EVERY WOE IN THE WORLD,ANYONE AGAINST THE USA FINANCING OURSELVES IS A LITTLE SKEWED.AND MAYBE NOT AS SMART AS THEY THINK THEY ARE??
Posted: Oct 24, 2007
firehorse (Unregistered)
he who controls the money,controls the economy. he who controls the economy,controls the government. he who controls the government,controls the country. the fed is run by unelected men who control the money of the this country. if you think only politicians are corrupt then you are naive. policy has nothing to do with it. merits of a system have nothing to do with it . its about power. here one for you when a bank waste its money and goes under who pays fdic? nope the taxpayer. when inflation goes up who suffers the most? not rich people when the fed increases the money supply where does it go? not to you or me. it goes to the banks. to secure their credit. these people do not give a shit about any of us!
I read the data. It's hard to pin our problems on the Fed. The problems start with our own greed and lack of desire to save. Easy money just fuels the problem.
The Fed was too accommodative over the last 15 years. Greenspan thought that tech productivity allowed interest rates to stay allow without inflation. He was partially right but the low rates fueled some massive bubbles. Too little cash is bad and we've not learned that too much cash is equally bad.
Posted: Mar 12, 2008
ray b (Unregistered)
Amanda , trace the roots of the organization. read The Creature from Jekyll Island by e. griffin keep an open mind to ALL information, and see who always comes out ahead. figure out who the lender of last resort is, the look who guareentees that loan. you dont have to look far, 2 dollars a share for bear stearns with someone elses money?
Posted: Mar 18, 2008
ho hum (Unregistered)
He doesn't seem so crazy this week does he?
Posted: Sep 23, 2008
Author/Submitter Response:
Well, it's something to consider. Would the country be better off without the Fed? Remember, the research is clear that boom and bust cycles were actually worse before the Fed came into existence, when the US was on the gold standard.
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul has become the quirky candidate embraced by the fringe groups. He campaigns as a stop the war libertarian. What rankles me about his position is his view that the Fed should be abolished. Take a listen at the video below:
Add to reading list
