Should the US abolish the Federal Reserve?

[event8horizon]

legend-why dont u form coherent arguements against the greenback...interest free...and why u support paying interest on "borrowed" money. mandell house had much influence on woodrow wilson. poor guy didnt know what he was getting into in the beginning.


"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated
in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no
longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and
duress of small groups of dominant men." --President Woodrow Wilson

 

[event8horizon]

hell, im against ron paul on this. i think he might have some other motives in pushing for the gold standard.

 

[Capitalizt]

forget Ron Paul, I'm with Greenspan on this one..

GOLD AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense-perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire -- that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.

In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.

Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.

The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.

In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.

Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.

A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.

When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth.

When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one -- so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World Was I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline-argued economic interventionists -- why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely -- it was claimed -- there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates.

The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market -- triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.

With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form -- from a growing number of welfare-state advocates -- was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which -- through a complex series of steps -- the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

- Alan Greenspan, 1967

 

[event8horizon]

nice article, greenspan and bernanke are geniuses. so it would be good, as he described to be on a gold standard. does this mean we need the fed for this???


heres an interesting video of greenspan when asked the question about if we need a central bank.

http://video.google.com/videop...&type=search&plindex=0

at the end, he goes into the gold stanard before the central bank and said it worked "well".....interesting.

 

[Theb]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
OP, you are essentially correct. There is some federal involvement, but the fed does create money out of thin air and pump it into the system to prevent economic downturns. When the government can't tax and borrow enough, they basically just print more and spend that money on what they want. This new money "crowds out" the money already in existence which drives prices up. It's not that things have suddenly become more valuable...It's that the currency already in existence (your savings) has gone DOWN in value. This is inflation.

Here is a good article:

http://www.jbs.org/node/1064

and of course...some true wisdom 🙂

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo...w/archives/014693.html

1. The Fed is *not* a private company. It operates under Congressional mandate and is owned 100% by the member banks within the system. *Every* bank that is part of the Federal Reserve system, which is more or less every bank in the country, ownes shares in that system. This includes Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of New York Mellon, Wachovia, Washinton Mutual, LeSalle, TFC, Wells Fargo, Bank Atlantic, Commerce Bank, 5/3rd, or any other bank you can think of. Since those banks are *PUBLIC* companies, the Fed is essentially owned by *EVERYBODY* in the country.

People think that the Fed should be abolished and that Congress should take over managing the currency. Sure. Perhaps 200 years ago when we didn't vote in dipshits. However, the short-term nature of Congressional "worries" (aka, getting re-elected) and the long-term concern of managing the economy, are not congruent. Thus, the two should absolutely be delinked.

The Fed is also very secret because, if it weren't, then the markets would be extremely volatile. Looking into the Fed on a minute basis would be akin to allowing people direct access to *every* board of directors of *every* company for *every* meeting. That would introduce tremendous problems, as people tossing around ideas, problems, solutions, and long-term projections would then be prone to conjecture in the market. The financial markets would be so stutter-stopped and jagged by the news that risk would skyrocket. Asking for a lot more transparency would stifle the Fed's ability to manage thigns on a long-term basis.

The Fed pays the government more than 80bn in revenue per year. *ALL* profits go to the government. Profits are from revenues on lending money to all banks, that money is from member banks and the government. The interest charged by the Fed, from banks, is then dividended out to the member banks (they deserve return for their lending), the remainder goes to the government.

2. Get a clue about the "government". WE spend the money the way WE want it. People try to pretend that the government is not representative of us, yet we vote them in. The Fed acts in accordance with the needs of the government, which passes laws to spend. WE vote in those who pass the laws. As soon as WE learn that WE need to either cut spending or raise taxes, then WE will not have to borrow.

3. Inflation doesn't occur just because currency circulation increases. If that were the case then we'd be facing drastically increasing inflation. Money can and should grow with the economic growth of the country. The more goods, services, and wealth in the country, the more currency should be circulated. Otherwise you are in a deflationary system.

Inflation occurs for several reasons. That includes growth resulting in wage increases which then floats into the system. It's also caused by the input of foreign goods into the system, which may be increasing in price (importing inflation). There are dozens of other reasons.

4. The problem with the Fed is that it has the problem of trying to balance short-term movements with long-term projections using historical events. Anybody who is a quantitative person involved in statistics knows that history is a very imperfect predictor of the future. You are always behind the curve. When inflation finally rears it's ugly head, it's too late and you are trying to play catch-up. AFAIK the only time the Fed was able to head off inflation was the mid 90's when they did pre-emptive rate increases, which turned out to be very accurate. However, those were gut feelings, not exact data driven events.

Furthermore, economics, at it's heart, is still an art, not a science. It is impossible to gauge human psychology when it comes down to these events. Thus, managing the growth of an economy that is unpredictable and un projectionable is more or less an impossible task.

Thus, the movements of the Fed are imperfect. Additionally, they will never be popular because everybody wants growth to be predictable. However, irrational exuberance, irrational pessimism, and the bubble mindset make it impossible to predict exactly how to stimulate or reign in the economy.

Additionally, the very nature of the Fed is to try to be as hands-off as possible without letting the economy run rampant. However, the ability of the economy to go through boom and busts have led to some of the greatest inventions and times of innovation and genius this country has ever seen. This destructive creativism is essential to continuing a modern country.

Blame the Fed all you want for the problems. However, until you come up with a viable and implementable solution, then shut the fuck up. I am sure some dipshit will go on and on about gold. But guess what? Gold is a commodity that is prone to speculation worse than a currency. It's deflationary in nature. It's inflexible, as the 1930's proved since *ALL* countries still o nthe gold standard took, on average, about 5 more years to even begin to recover.

Our currency is backed by something a lot less problematic, the US economy, the US military, and US innovation. It may not be fungible like gold, but is sure as hell gives you a vested interest.



In conclusion, let me ask people this. If the Fed, with a Fiat currency, were so evil and the root of all inflation, then how was inflation caused in the 1960s and 1970s when the Fed had far less control over rates. It had far less power to put bills into the market. The government had essentially no debt and the amount of currency into circulation. How then, was the Fed able to raise rates and get inflation under control so quickly? I thought the Fed was evil and wanted inflation?

What then, about years prior to that? When inflation was unpredictable, wild, high, low, inflationary, deflationary, and the economy was much more difficult to manage? Was that such a great time then? Additionally, you are talking about 100 years ago when managing an economy 1/200th the size was relatively easy. Now, using the same system, woudl be impossible and would lead to our collapse.

You people are so f'ing ignorant of the facts of the Fed, it's purpose, economcis, and above all, HISTORY and HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY, that you are nothing more than blind fools running around the internet trying to act knowledgable as you link to ridiculous websites that have just as little knowledge as you do. It's worse than the blind leading the blind.

It's the blind, dumb, deaf, stupid, crippled, armless, legless, slugs trying to lead other slugs over a cliff.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[Rickten]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Fed or no Fed, the dollar is going down .. HARD. I hate to say it, but Soros was right, it seems.

pft, we'll just print some more money.
LegendKiller has it all figured out no one should worry. 😀isgust;

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eits
yeah, the fed is a private company... not federally run. it has nothing to do with the federal government.

it's ridiculous for our government to get a loan from the federal reserve, with interest. how the hell do you pay it back?? you can't.

Ohhh for fucks sake. The Fed is owned by *PUBLIC* companies for the most part. EVERY bank in the entire US that belongs to the Fed system OWNS THE FED. Can you f'ing read?

The government shouldn't own the Fed, you do *NOT* want politicians deciding how the economy should go.

The government doesn't get a loan from the Fed, it gets loans from investors, other people who have money to give it. Go back to finance class.

This is where I get absolutely disgusted, when people, despite having all of the facts presented, just go on and think their silly little theories. It's amazing that they can even live in a society where dissenting opinions, facts, and ideas are presented on a daily basis, which overturn long-held beliefs. They refuse to learn and listen and keep to ridiculous theories and notions.

People like you are used by politicians and others with an agenda. You're nothing more than a tool for their purposes.

Your condescending words, snide remarks, holier-than-thou, smarter than anyone on this board attitude is disgusting. How anyone stands to have a reasonable discussion with you bewilders me.

You say "*PUBLIC*" but what you really mean is private. Its not owned by you, me and joe bob down the street. And no, every bank in the fed system doesn't own the FED, you have it backwards, the FED own the banks. Nice twist.

Our government by the Constitution should be printing its own money without interest to itself. But you want to say its "investors money". Entirely true, however, this is only because the government (as of 1913) gave up its independent right to discretion with the production and control of the monetary system through a back door vote during a holiday. Yes that can be argued. FED control over our own money is indeed why the debt keeps climbing (interest). The FED does as it wishes, is accountable to no one and will continue this without regard for you or me.

Now I expect you to come back with some lame ass retarded statement about how dumb I am, how I don't know anything and that I should study more. 🙂

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Rickten

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Fed or no Fed, the dollar is going down .. HARD. I hate to say it, but Soros was right, it seems.

pft, we'll just print some more money.
LegendKiller has it all figured out no one should worry. 😀isgust;

Because you are so wizened...

You have a lot of answers posted here. Glad you've added so many awesome ideas and debateable points.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: eits
yeah, the fed is a private company... not federally run. it has nothing to do with the federal government.

it's ridiculous for our government to get a loan from the federal reserve, with interest. how the hell do you pay it back?? you can't.

Ohhh for fucks sake. The Fed is owned by *PUBLIC* companies for the most part. EVERY bank in the entire US that belongs to the Fed system OWNS THE FED. Can you f'ing read?

The government shouldn't own the Fed, you do *NOT* want politicians deciding how the economy should go.

The government doesn't get a loan from the Fed, it gets loans from investors, other people who have money to give it. Go back to finance class.

This is where I get absolutely disgusted, when people, despite having all of the facts presented, just go on and think their silly little theories. It's amazing that they can even live in a society where dissenting opinions, facts, and ideas are presented on a daily basis, which overturn long-held beliefs. They refuse to learn and listen and keep to ridiculous theories and notions.

People like you are used by politicians and others with an agenda. You're nothing more than a tool for their purposes.

Your condescending words, snide remarks, holier-than-thou, smarter than anyone on this board attitude is disgusting. How anyone stands to have a reasonable discussion with you bewilders me.

You say "*PUBLIC*" but what you really mean is private. Its not owned by you, me and joe bob down the street. And no, every bank in the fed system doesn't own the FED, you have it backwards, the FED own the banks. Nice twist.

Our government by the Constitution should be printing its own money without interest to itself. But you want to say its "investors money". Entirely true, however, this is only because the government (as of 1913) gave up its independent right to discretion with the production and control of the monetary system through a back door vote during a holiday. Yes that can be argued. FED control over our own money is indeed why the debt keeps climbing (interest). The FED does as it wishes, is accountable to no one and will continue this without regard for you or me.

Now I expect you to come back with some lame ass retarded statement about how dumb I am, how I don't know anything and that I should study more. 🙂

It's only condescending and snide when people like you run around telling half-truths or outright lies you read on some other whackjob website or book, but you're completely ignorant to reality. For example, somebody posted a list of the banks that own the NY Fed, yet you ignore that. WHy? Because you don't give a shit about the truth, you just want to run around calling me snide and condescending, post some RonPaulBot tripe, and then exit the thread.

Wow, so BAC, which is a publicly owned company, owns shares in the regional Fed branch, but isn't a public company? Hmmm, OK. Perhaps you should go read what stocks are. The Federal Reserve as a whole, is owned by the branch banks, which are owned by the banks within the reserve system, those are largely public banks. They are issued shares.

How does the Fed's control over the money dictate spending? Is it not our politicians that spend? Ohh wait, that's right, the Fed governors pass the bills too! Yup, they set the budget, incur the public debt, and put us deeper into debt.

Good job sparky, you just blamed them for what Americans want, services, wars, and low taxes. Please, go read how money is raised and spent by the government.

The printing of FRNs does create interest charged, which is pretty much all refunded, as others have shown. Audited financial statements shown to the GAO prove that. The part that doesn't is overhead, which the government would pay regardless, so net-net, it's a level position.

You sit around waving the Constitution, saying that there's no oversight. Sorry, but Congress does have oversight and has spoke nwith them regarding their actions many times before. The last thing we want or need are politicians controlling the economy. You had that many man times in history, where politician's short term agendas were fitted to the long-term agenda of an economy to create a f'd up situation where they screwed the economy to get re-elected.

It's funny that so many people complain about some positions saying the Constitution strictly forbids this or that, but then are more than willing to accept other non-Constitutional items.

As far as Greenbacks, again, putting currency policy in the hands of politicians is a horrible idea. Go take a look at the South American debt crisis to get a good idea.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

It's only condescending and snide when people like you run around telling half-truths or outright lies you read on some other whackjob website or book, but you're completely ignorant to reality. For example, somebody posted a list of the banks that own the NY Fed, yet you ignore that. WHy? Because you don't give a shit about the truth, you just want to run around calling me snide and condescending, post some RonPaulBot tripe, and then exit the thread.

Wow, so BAC, which is a publicly owned company, owns shares in the regional Fed branch, but isn't a public company? Hmmm, OK. Perhaps you should go read what stocks are. The Federal Reserve as a whole, is owned by the branch banks, which are owned by the banks within the reserve system, those are largely public banks. They are issued shares.

How does the Fed's control over the money dictate spending? Is it not our politicians that spend? Ohh wait, that's right, the Fed governors pass the bills too! Yup, they set the budget, incur the public debt, and put us deeper into debt.

Good job sparky, you just blamed them for what Americans want, services, wars, and low taxes. Please, go read how money is raised and spent by the government.

The printing of FRNs does create interest charged, which is pretty much all refunded, as others have shown. Audited financial statements shown to the GAO prove that. The part that doesn't is overhead, which the government would pay regardless, so net-net, it's a level position.

You sit around waving the Constitution, saying that there's no oversight. Sorry, but Congress does have oversight and has spoke nwith them regarding their actions many times before. The last thing we want or need are politicians controlling the economy. You had that many man times in history, where politician's short term agendas were fitted to the long-term agenda of an economy to create a f'd up situation where they screwed the economy to get re-elected.

It's funny that so many people complain about some positions saying the Constitution strictly forbids this or that, but then are more than willing to accept other non-Constitutional items.

As far as Greenbacks, again, putting currency policy in the hands of politicians is a horrible idea. Go take a look at the South American debt crisis to get a good idea.

This is why arguing against Paulbots accomplishes nothing. They refuse to listen, they will never learn, and their argument consists of snide remarks. Attempting to argue using facts and logic is useless in face of people simply spamming out talking points. If you show proof that doesn't agree with their point, they either disappear or go wildly off tangent.
For instance, how do people reconcile that our economy is worth more then all the gold that has been mined? How do you bases you money on that?
I think that Paul wants the gold standard for the simple reason that he has a lot of money invested in companies that deal with precious metals. Greed is such a wonderful motivation tool.
Paul loves gold He loves GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD

 

[nonameo]

I think we should go to the harry potter standard, with knuts, sickles and galleons.

I also think we should adopt magic. That could be very useful.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
It's only condescending and snide when people like you run around telling half-truths or outright lies you read on some other whackjob website or book, but you're completely ignorant to reality. For example, somebody posted a list of the banks that own the NY Fed, yet you ignore that. WHy? Because you don't give a shit about the truth, you just want to run around calling me snide and condescending, post some RonPaulBot tripe, and then exit the thread.

Just as I expected you to do. Insults. I find it rather simplistic of you to insult others in attempt to make yourself look good (or others bad). Sad really. Maybe one day you can make a point without being condescending or arrogant.

You bring up points that may need to be researched further. I'm not beyond reason, no matter how far gone you may think I am. I do approve of abolishing the FED until it is proven to me without a doubt it is better to have it, then not to.

The government shouldn't own the Fed, you do *NOT* want politicians deciding how the economy should go.

What is this about you saying "in the hands of the politicians"? It already is. Politicians already decide how our economy is going to go through their insistent spending. Spending at the whim of supposed danger or anything in our "national interest". The way you make it sound is that the FED curbs spending. HAHAH. Come on man, that is a silly argument at this point.

The value of the dollar is propped up by foreign investors and taxes on the people. By having our monetary system financed by foreign investors we become financially a servant to them. What if China told us "no more money" as they have threatened (albeit only a political statement)? The repayment by taxpayers is binding all citizens to be slaves, property of the state. We are bound to the spending of our politicians and having a FED with no hard assets backing the dollar, frees them to essentially "print money out of thin air". There is no limit to spending as has been seen the last 6 years. All of this you already know I'm sure. You do seem more knowledgeable about the FED than I am but I am also sure that you can do that without being condescending.

Other than that, if you can't hold a reasoned discussion, count me out of your flame fest free for all. 🙂

Monetary policy reform is wanted by WallStreet and Forbes.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

It's only condescending and snide when people like you run around telling half-truths or outright lies you read on some other whackjob website or book, but you're completely ignorant to reality. For example, somebody posted a list of the banks that own the NY Fed, yet you ignore that. WHy? Because you don't give a shit about the truth, you just want to run around calling me snide and condescending, post some RonPaulBot tripe, and then exit the thread.

Wow, so BAC, which is a publicly owned company, owns shares in the regional Fed branch, but isn't a public company? Hmmm, OK. Perhaps you should go read what stocks are. The Federal Reserve as a whole, is owned by the branch banks, which are owned by the banks within the reserve system, those are largely public banks. They are issued shares.

How does the Fed's control over the money dictate spending? Is it not our politicians that spend? Ohh wait, that's right, the Fed governors pass the bills too! Yup, they set the budget, incur the public debt, and put us deeper into debt.

Good job sparky, you just blamed them for what Americans want, services, wars, and low taxes. Please, go read how money is raised and spent by the government.

The printing of FRNs does create interest charged, which is pretty much all refunded, as others have shown. Audited financial statements shown to the GAO prove that. The part that doesn't is overhead, which the government would pay regardless, so net-net, it's a level position.

You sit around waving the Constitution, saying that there's no oversight. Sorry, but Congress does have oversight and has spoke nwith them regarding their actions many times before. The last thing we want or need are politicians controlling the economy. You had that many man times in history, where politician's short term agendas were fitted to the long-term agenda of an economy to create a f'd up situation where they screwed the economy to get re-elected.

It's funny that so many people complain about some positions saying the Constitution strictly forbids this or that, but then are more than willing to accept other non-Constitutional items.

As far as Greenbacks, again, putting currency policy in the hands of politicians is a horrible idea. Go take a look at the South American debt crisis to get a good idea.

This is why arguing against Paulbots accomplishes nothing. They refuse to listen, they will never learn, and their argument consists of snide remarks. Attempting to argue using facts and logic is useless in face of people simply spamming out talking points. If you show proof that doesn't agree with their point, they either disappear or go wildly off tangent.
For instance, how do people reconcile that our economy is worth more then all the gold that has been mined? How do you bases you money on that?
I think that Paul wants the gold standard for the simple reason that he has a lot of money invested in companies that deal with precious metals. Greed is such a wonderful motivation tool.
Paul loves gold He loves GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD

Oh great, Mr. Half-Quote-Half-Truth himself crapping in the thread

 

[event8horizon]

to legend and citizen (legends in their own mind)...im glad we have another freethinker to add to the limited singular points of view of the adepts that read so many "books" that they know everything. surgeon, well done calling them out. now legend, i asked for u to present a logical arguement that deals with why u would rather pay interest on "borrowed" money instead of the interest free greenbacks. lets even throw in greenspans gold backed currency that dosent involve the federal reserve which he said worked "well". remember that ole verse in the bible where jesus kicked out the money changers. thats is exactly what we are going to do......follow spartacus.....the slave revolt is gaining momentum and the establishment is terrifed. we as the people are paying for this interest on this "borrowed" money. we the people have been reduced to slaves as the surgeon has stated.
now boy (legend and citizen), bring out the avatars to speak to the surgeon and i. lets dable in alitte hegelian dialectics....you the thesis....me the antithesis. lets see if a more intelligent pro-establishment, pro-national identity card avatar can put up a more intelligent arguement. by the way, i have read some of your posts saying i let the conversation, i have kids...a wife....a job.....im a good slave, i didnt leave, i have shit to do. concerning this thread, ill never back down or retreat from my arguements. follow spartacus. a brighter future....a more moral future awaits. i see your arguements as hezbollah sees is..ra..el.
Like a spider web, Israel looks impressive from afar, but touch it and it will fall apart. (i do not support hezbollah). as the federal reserve is like the spider web, kill the fed (like adrew jackson did) and the temple of mammon will be spread to the winds.....and the new world order....for the people...a moral world order will be created afer all the central banks are "killed".

 

[SSSnail]

What are you guys arguing about? Money? Third world countries?

Man, to be honest, i couldn't distinguish the differences between downtown LA, its metro and that of Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Bogota, etc... Everywhere I go, my money is worth less and less, and the economic status in those aforementioned places mirrored that of the US. Cost of goods are sky rocketed, balance of class is nonexistence, there are only the haves and have-nots. Hey, pretty much like the US.

I can't believe that there are people sitting there and still saying that our economic status is not degrading. Yes, I do have a roof over my head; yes, I drive a car, albeit not fancy; yes, I can put food on my family (sorry, can't help myself), but the kicker is that I alone make more than the majority of the families in this country, and I barely get by. I don't live lavishly like you think I should be able to, so through my personal observation and experience, I can say that middle class is dead.

One of these days, we should all wake up and see the truth for what it really is, and that's this country, while *still* is an economic power, is fast on the decline. Blindfolds anyone?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
to legend and citizen (legends in their own mind)...im glad we have another freethinker to add to the limited singular points of view of the adepts that read so many "books" that they know everything. surgeon, well done calling them out. now legend, i asked for u to present a logical arguement that deals with why u would rather pay interest on "borrowed" money instead of the interest free greenbacks. lets even throw in greenspans gold backed currency that dosent involve the federal reserve which he said worked "well". remember that ole verse in the bible where jesus kicked out the money changers. thats is exactly what we are going to do......follow spartacus.....the slave revolt is gaining momentum and the establishment is terrifed. we as the people are paying for this interest on this "borrowed" money. we the people have been reduced to slaves as the surgeon has stated.
now boy (legend and citizen), bring out the avatars to speak to the surgeon and i. lets dable in alitte hegelian dialectics....you the thesis....me the antithesis. lets see if a more intelligent pro-establishment, pro-national identity card avatar can put up a more intelligent arguement. by the way, i have read some of your posts saying i let the conversation, i have kids...a wife....a job.....im a good slave, i didnt leave, i have shit to do. concerning this thread, ill never back down or retreat from my arguements. follow spartacus. a brighter future....a more moral future awaits. i see your arguements as hezbollah sees is..ra..el.
Like a spider web, Israel looks impressive from afar, but touch it and it will fall apart. (i do not support hezbollah). as the federal reserve is like the spider web, kill the fed (like adrew jackson did) and the temple of mammon will be spread to the winds.....and the new world order....for the people...a moral world order will be created afer all the central banks are "killed".

I have never claimed to know "everything", in fact, I fully admit that I know only but a little of what I will eventually know by the time I die, that is because I am always seeking new information and rarely get locked into one position, since that shuts you out from further knowledge as you are unable to logically include new information and alter your perspective. That is why I read all sides of an argument and read a lot, not to mention that these areas are of particular interest since I live by them. So, in your zeal to attempt to insult me, all you do is actually end up having me agree with you.

What "borrowed" money are you speaking of? Are you speaking of the small amount of collateral that the Fed puts up upon the issuance of FRNs? As a link provided before showed, the interest paid on that amount is refunded every year, to the tune of 97%. The 3% overhead cost, which would have to be paid whether it's the government, or anybody else. These results are audited annually and overhead costs are monitored by the GAO. There is complete oversight over this process. Thus, the idea that we pay interest on the small amount of debt is completely false.

The key point is that if the US government issued currency, that 3% would still be a cost for the government, since they'd have to hire 3% overhead people. You could make the argument that the government would pay them less, however, attracting people of that calibre are not cheap. Additionally, once the US government issues USNs it would do so under the auspices of the government. That means that a new UST governor would be elected every 4-8 years. That means that Congress could force the policy of the UST to be exactly what they want. That means that instead of having a 10+ year outlook, it would have a 2 year outlook.

People like PC Surgeon say that having the UST issue notes would be preferable and we are already "enslaved" by the debt our politicians have issued. However, what you forget is that politicians were behind the Wiemar Republic's decision to release far more notes than needed. You see, debt itself doesn't destroy countries, provided purchasers of such debt believe that the debt will be repaid. However, releasing multiples more currency into the market than is needed will cause immediate and dramatic influences upon the country.

People complain about the dollar falling and the amount of currency in the market has eroded the dollar significantly. However, the amount of currency now in the flow is only a smidgen of what the Wiemar put out. If, what we are doing to drop rates, is a 4 on a scale of 1-10, then the Wiemar, whose policy was set by politicians, scale a 50.

Having short-term politicians in control of our currency is a *HORRIBLE* idea, since it would be a short-term thinker, in charge of something that changes very quickly. There is no one person who abhors our federal debt more than me. I am completely disgusted by it and I do, in fact, think it will ruin this country in the long-term.

We do pay interest, a significant amount, on the debt that foreigners, the US public, and everybody else own. That debt is issued by *US*, through our *representatives*. That debt funds the goods and services of the US government.

I hate the idea that our spending is so out alignment with our income and I think our income is too high as it is. However, you are barking up the wrong tree when you blame the FR for this country's problems.

This is why I will support Ron Paul and will certainly vote for him at this point. However, I will strongly oppose *ANY* and *ALL* ideas of allowing the same morons who put us into this debt situation from getting anywhere close to manipulating the one thing that can sink us within a year.

As far as Greenspan's position in 1967, Greenspan is an interesting guy who probably still holds some fondness of the gold backed currency. He has even said that he was changed after seeing the proceeding 40 years, but he still has some fondness of the simplicity and elegence of the gold backed dollar. However, he also admits that not being gold backed allows for the flexibility that is essential for a modern economy. However, as time has shown, the gold backing is a deflationary backing and is no more a greater way of doing things than just having our economy back the currency. On average, those that stayed with the gold system after the GD were in their depression for a half-decade longer. The Fed did screw up with the system during the GD. However, they did what they could and what they thought was correct.

As I said before, enacting monetary policy is difficult and is not a science. Thus, to fault their actions in hindsight is incorrect. Additionally, saying that our economy without the Fed would be better off than with the Fed, is an incorrect argument. You never know. However, you can use other historical items to show that an independent Fed, such as the Wiemar. Why you shouldn't have a gold system, like the GD and other events in the past 70 years. Why you should have a Fed, such as the massive growth achieved. Why you should keep it independent, from the debt we currently have.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
What are you guys arguing about? Money? Third world countries?

Man, to be honest, i couldn't distinguish the differences between downtown LA, its metro and that of Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Bogota, etc... Everywhere I go, my money is worth less and less, and the economic status in those aforementioned places mirrored that of the US. Cost of goods are sky rocketed, balance of class is nonexistence, there are only the haves and have-nots. Hey, pretty much like the US.

I can't believe that there are people sitting there and still saying that our economic status is not degrading. Yes, I do have a roof over my head; yes, I drive a car, albeit not fancy; yes, I can put food on my family (sorry, can't help myself), but the kicker is that I alone make more than the majority of the families in this country, and I barely get by. I don't live lavishly like you think I should be able to, so through my personal observation and experience, I can say that middle class is dead.

One of these days, we should all wake up and see the truth for what it really is, and that's this country, while *still* is an economic power, is fast on the decline. Blindfolds anyone?

So you have been to those other countries and seen the differences? You want to compare LA to the average US city? I hated LA myself, in fact, I hated all of CA save San Diego.

I love how people think the US is so horrible and then go on to compare them to 3rd world countries. Please, I have been to SA several times and I have seen how their countries are. Things are more expensive here because, on average, things are better here. Yes, our goods are more expensive, but so are our incomes. Consider both before you make any comparisons.

There will always be haves and have-nots, don't be a fool to think that htere won't be.

You "barely get by" how so? I knew a family that made less than 20k but they managed to own a house, send their kids to school, put food on the table, and live a decent life. Don't bullshit me with your "barely getting by" because even the most "barely getting by" person in this country lives a far superior life to anybody in a 3rd world country.

You want to see blindfolds? Try looking in the mirror next time you want to talk about them. You think you have it so f'ing hard but have no fricking idea. When you want to go to the doctor next, or your kids are sick, or get in that car you drive even if it isn't "lavish", think about some person who lives in a Mexico City shanty town with corrugated steel for a roof and barely a pot to piss in. I *have* been there, two times, for my church when I was younger.

You want to know why a lot of international people despise us? Partly because we think we have it so hard, but we don't. Don't bitch about haves and have-nots when this country is the perfect "have" and the majority of the world is a "have-not".

 

[SSSnail]

Well, I see where you're coming from LK, let's strive to be more like them then. That settles it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Well, I see where you're coming from LK, let's strive to be more like them then. That settles it.

Yes, because things are getting that much worse. Please, try not to exaggerate as much as Dave.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Well, I see where you're coming from LK, let's strive to be more like them then. That settles it.

Yes, because things are getting that much worse. Please, try not to exaggerate as much as Dave.

Exaggeration is not even close in this case, and if there were any, it's to balance out the rose colored glasses that you're trying so hard to get everyone to wear, but nobody bought.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Well, I see where you're coming from LK, let's strive to be more like them then. That settles it.

Yes, because things are getting that much worse. Please, try not to exaggerate as much as Dave.

Exaggeration is not even close in this case, and if there were any, it's to balance out the rose colored glasses that you're trying so hard to get everyone to wear, but nobody bought.

Nice try at polarization. At no point have I said things were great, if you look at any post in this thread or any of my other posts, you would see otherwise. Simply, you're full of crap if you think I am wearing rose colored classes and your attempting to minimize my moderated positions, which is quite a petty way of doing it, since you're not even attacking the argument, but you are attacking me. If anything, at least I do both, now if you want to at least try to attempt to do that, go ahead.

I think things aren't bad, but I don't think they will get horrible, or that we'll be a 3rd world country. I do think things need to change, but to blame it on the Fed is nothing but transference. The government and thus, ourselves, are at fault.

Now, I can see where people are fighting the good fight in this thread and I don't fault anybody for it. However, they are fighting it the wrong way. Pointing out assasinations, wars, or conspiracy theories is a horrible way of convincing any J6P of your issues with things happening. Taking a moderated approach where you simply state facts, provide some analysis, but differentiate the two. People want to hear opinion and fact, but they don't want you to portray opinion as fact.

If anything, this is one reason why I am very good at my job. I clearly delineate between opinion and fact and *never* try to categorize, or at least I don't try to, one as another.

Yes, having the debt as we going is will drag us down, I have said that many many many many times. Yes, I think we need to decrease the size of the government dramatically. I also think that there need to be some changes at the Fed. However, I put blame where it needs to be.

Personally, I am beginning to think that the only way out of this situation is the exact reason why the 2nd Amendment is in place. That sounds a bit odd to people, but Thomas Jefferson's quote about the Tree of Liberty is true. The government is becoming the new-age aristocracy and I do firmly believe that it will only get worse as they feel they are entitled to more.

I wonder, every day, what happened to the real Republicans and where this country went so wrong. However, it wasn't the Fed, I can tell you that. I think that the general apathy and poor education is what caused the situation. People just don't care anymore. It doesn't help that people like you, capitalitz, PC Surgeon, or others try to recategorize the argument and then attempt to polarize it, on top of conspiracy theories.

Put the argument where it belongs, we no longer have a government that is representative of its population. We either change that government by voting it out, or remove it forcefully.

 

[DasFox]

Look at History people and see what Woodrow Wilson said when he handed over the Federal Reserve and created the Act!

The richest elite of the world own the Federal Reserve!

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: bamacre
From what I gather, and please correct me if I am wrong, the Federal Reserve is a private company, independent of our government. We don't even know who all owns it. And, it basically prints money, loans it out, and profits off the interest. Am I correct? If so, this is nuts. Well, not for those who own it, I mean for them, its freaking ingenious. But, it is constitutional?

They can't abolish it, but it would be nice, and one hell of a fight...

Is it constitutional, hell no, since when is being owned considered constitutional?

As long as Americans continue to believe our system has no corruption, watch News coverage from the BIG news media, and papers, and believe in our system, then we'll never wake up.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: DasFox
Look at History people and see what Woodrow Wilson said when he handed over the Federal Reserve and created the Act!

The richest elite of the world own the Federal Reserve!

Every bank in this country owns the Fed, do you read? You wonder why this country is in trouble? Gross ignorance such as your own.

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: DasFox
Look at History people and see what Woodrow Wilson said when he handed over the Federal Reserve and created the Act!

The richest elite of the world own the Federal Reserve!

Every bank in this country owns the Fed, do you read? You wonder why this country is in trouble? Gross ignorance such as your own.

You shouldn't lash out and call ignorance to anyone...

Do you know anything about the history of the Rothchilds?

Every bank owns the Feds that's funny, you do not know the history of the Federal Reserve Act and who President Wilson signed it over to, and what he said, because if you did, then you wouldn't of made that statement.

The only ignorance here is what the media and system has fed you...