End the Fed.... and replace with what?

[Young Paleocon]

If you allowed competing currencies that would defacto mean the destruction of the FED and we would have a transition to free-market currency led by....guess who? The free market. You don't have to end the FED and then decide who will be the central planner. You let competition happen and you will have your answer.

 

[He Who Pawns]

So what would competing currencies look like?

Isn't there already like an E-Gold dollar or whatever that you can trade online, pegged to gold?

 

[Alawn]

No, it would not be any better than the Fed. They would still have the ability to print money. If you didn't notice, congress is every bit as wreckless as the fed, in fact they ignored the people when 95% of us were against the bailouts. Why would they be any different when given control of the money supply? It may even be WORSE with congress in charge.

If we did somehow end the fed, it would likely be done by the government and they would pretend to be "giving the power back to the people", but meanwhile, they would create a "Dept of Currency" equipt with a "currency czar" and all. Bernanke would likely be ousted but they would have a new and "improved" criminal to take his place.

The deck would be shuffled but nothing will have changed.

No you are wrong. Sure it would be still really bad if congress was in control of a fiat money system. But it would be a huge step in the right direction and a million times better. That isn't my choice of the best option. But it is way way better than what we have now. We can make steps in the right direction even if they don't fix everything right away in one step.

 

[Alawn]

So what would competing currencies look like?

Isn't there already like an E-Gold dollar or whatever that you can trade online, pegged to gold?

First get rid of legal tender laws. Then get rid of sales tax and capital gains on gold and silver. These are huge barriers to competing currencies.

 

[MPN]

I don't think Bono's busy, maybe he is up to it.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Who would have assets to be able to create a competing currency? That would be people who already have lots of money and assets. Goldman Sachs. Bank of America. Do you have enough money/ gold/ silver to be able to create a "competing currency"? Who does? Whomever that is will be concerned about their own interests- not the economy asa whole so would competing currencies be any better?

It would be very difficult to get a new currency started. First you have to get people willing to use it. All their assetts and purchases and incomes are already in dollars- what could you do to get them to change? What about a business? How can you get them to be willing to accept more than one currency- they would have to carry both (or more) as well as do their accounting in both (or all). This adds to their costs of doing business.

Lastly what would you use for your competing currency? It would have to be something valuable enough to encourage businseses to accept it (it would have to be of a higher value than a dollar to get primary acceptance due to the increased transaction costs I mention above) but not so valuable that people want to horde it and not spend it.

Competing currencies sounds nice but is very difficult to implement. We had a lot of different currencies when this country was founded but it was confusing and restricted trade so they eventually went to a single currency which we have today. We already went through the competing currency phase and the dollar won out.

 

[Brian Defferding]

Nothing would be best. But congress would be a thousand times better than the fed. At least people would know what is going on. And the people responsible for messing things up could get removed from office.

Bingo.

I don't trust government as much as the next Libertarian, but at least that way we have more power as voters, and a little more transparency. What we have now is less of both those things.

 

[acptulsa]

We can make steps in the right direction even if they don't fix everything right away in one step.

But you get the benefits so much sooner and expose yourself to so many fewer opportunities for further corruption if you do everything right away in one step.

 

[MyLibertyStuff]

lol

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Here's a suggestion: Independent Auditor

Keep it away from the politicians, keep it away from the US TREASURY (which is now another branch of the mafiaso theives). Maybe legislation of TREASON upon any entity that tries to manipulate, bribe, corrupt, conspire, steal... well you get the general idea.

http://www.gao.gov/


GAO's 2010 plan... did you know, that the GAO has to audit the entire country, most departments, plans and procurements, yet their annual budget is about half of the SEC!
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-304SP

EXACTLY! I've been saying this. It does us NO GOOD to end the fed if Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are then going to be put in charge of our money. That's just handing the power off from one criminal group to another.

If we are a free country, why would we have a centrally-planned (communized) money system? Makes no sense. We need a free market in currency just like everything else.

 

[TheTyke]

Wow, great quote!

 

[evilfunnystuff]

turn the power over to congress while at the same time allow competing currencies

 

[Zippyjuan]

You think Congress in charge of the money supply is a good thing- compared to the Fed? They can't even balance the check book. Now you want to give them a printing press? (and see my comments earlier about how you could create competing currencies).

 

[fj45lvr]

replace with actual MONETARY FREEDOM (no more "legal tender" law).....then the people can decide for themselves which banks are good or not and what they want to contract for payment with.

The governments currency can compete with the private currencies.

 

[talent scout]

Still have banks

Each would be an independent business just like they used to be before the central banking system under the FED.

Which is down right illegal, actually

 

[Jace]

...

 

[CUnknown]

I think most people here are advocating an end of the Fed and replacing it with sound money, e.g. with gold-backed currency. With sound money, it would not matter who has control of the printing press, because you can't print gold. There would be a limit on the amount of printing -- the amount of gold you can back it with. So, it's not like Pelosi would have any more control than she has now.

However, even still remaining in the fiat world, having Congress control our money would be much better than the Fed. For the reasons that have been stated already in this thread -- greater transparency being prime among them. Also, it says in the Constitution that Congress has control over minting and coinage, so giving Congress control over our money is more in line with the Constitution, so it's better for that reason as well.

The Fed is a secretive, unconstitutional banking cartel. As long as what you replace it with isn't secretive and is Constitutional, that's what we're aiming for here.

 

[DamianTV]

Im not! We should give all the poweh to the Private Banksters!


(read my sig...)

 

[Kraig]

So what would competing currencies look like?

Isn't there already like an E-Gold dollar or whatever that you can trade online, pegged to gold?

They would likely all be different, competing currencies is the only answer and the only way to have a truly free market. Giving congress the power to coin money was a mistake from the beginning.

You really should watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ll4HS1QW9M

 

[DamianTV]

I disagree. The problem didnt come from giving the power To congress to coin money, the problem came when they gave it away.