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

[Kraig]

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

There were some legitimate complaints with the gold standard before the fed was created. It was also this power that gave them the power to give it away. Even under a government backed gold standard, there is no motivation for the government to manage the gold standard efficiently. This is always going to be true when you have a monopoly created by force. Ultimately the government should have no hands in the currency for it to best serve the market, the free market is always more efficient. Currencies are not immune from this truth.

 

[talent scout]

Even under a government backed gold standard, there is no motivation for the government to manage the gold standard efficiently. .

misunderstanding of the gold standard.
The gold standard needed no controls, it was it's own boss once its value was standardized.

Congress did set the value of an ounce of gold as was their job, and coined money, but they never tried to manage the economy other than through Tariffs.

The Government was not and had not ever been in the banking business.
Not for the general public, just for their own use for the Governments banking needs.
Which was the same for all of us, deposits and withdrawals.




The problem was independent banks and fractional reserve banking.
Banks would make loans 10 times over what they had deposits for. (edited to add, they still do but the FED does it)



Before the Central Bank was created, the Federal Government was not in banking other than what everyone else used banks for.

Deposits and withdrawals.


Business and Government was separated back then.

All Congress did was kept to a minimum as spelled out for them in the Constitution.
To coin money, regulate the value thereof.

Not to run the economy of free enterprise.

Interesting read between Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan:

July 1998

PAUL: Mr. Greenspan, someone quoted you as saying you would welcome a downturn in the economy to compensate for the surge and modest growth we’ve experienced. Is it not true that in a free market with sound money, you never welcome an economic downturn? But what we’re hearing now is, when is the Fed going to intervene and turn down the economy?

Wouldn’t a free market operate a lot better than the market we use today?

GREENSPAN: When you have a fiat currency, which is what everyone in the world has—

PAUL: You don’t have a free market.

GREENSPAN: You don’t have a free market. Central banks determine the money supply, not the market. If you are on a gold standard, then the system works automatically.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/smith/smith4.html

 

[talent scout]

Let this sink in, its obvious the FED is incompetent to manage money.

February 2000

PAUL: Good morning, Mr. Greenspan. ......

We have talked a lot about prices today, but for the sound money economist the money supply is the critical issue. If you increase the supply, you create inflation.

If we aim at a stable price level, we’re making a mistake. Technology and other factors can keep prices contained, but if you’re increasing the money supply we still have malinvestment, excessive debt and borrowing.

Someone mentioned that the Fed might be too tight with money. I disagree. The last quarter of 1999 might be historic highs for an increase in Fed credit. Over the last three years the Fed has not once been in the target range for M3. You went over it, in fact, by $690 billion. Everyone likes it now because the bubble is still growing. But what happens when it bursts? Can you reassure me it won’t? Will M3 shrink?

GREENSPAN: Let me assure you we believe in sound money.

We believe if you have a debased currency you will have a debased economy.

As I’ve said earlier, the difficulty is defining what money truly is.

We have been unable to define a monetary aggregate that will give us a reliable forecast for the economy.

Until we find a reliable “M” we will go light on the use of monetary aggregates for monetary policy purposes.

PAUL: So it’s hard to manage something you can’t define.

GREENSPAN: It’s impossible to manage something you cannot define.


http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/smith/smith4.html

 

[talent scout]

J P Morgan
A monopolist who believed the best business of all was politics.

The further back one looks, the further ahead he can see.

The Pujo Committee was a congressional subcommittee which was formed between May 1912 and January 1913 to investigate the so-called "money trust", a small group of Wall Street bankers that exerted powerful control over the nation's finances. After a resolution introduced by congressman Charles Lindbergh Sr. for a probe on Wall St. power, Arsène Pujo of Louisiana obtained congressional authorization to form a subcommittee of the House Committee on Banking and Currency. J. P. Morgan, George F. Baker, and other financiers testified.

 

[Ozwest]

Whenever someone asks Schiff about ending the Fed, his usual response is, "And replace it with what? I don't want to turn the printing presses over to Nancy Pelosi."

Unless we move to a gold standard, what good does ending the Fed do? Handing the printing press to the people who are actually spending the money, the congress, might be an even worse idea, it seems. Although, I guess, in theory, there would be more transparency than with the Fed.

So assuming we are still a long way from returning to the gold standard, if we End the Fed, who gets to print the money?

Open and accountable business practice open to tax-payer scrutiny would be a start.

Any problems with that?

 

[Ozwest]

I got audited a couple of times. Not a good experience.

Why shouldn't taxpayers know where their hard-earned is going/

 

[Kraig]

misunderstanding of the gold standard.
The gold standard needed no controls, it was it's own boss once its value was standardized.

Congress did set the value of an ounce of gold as was their job, and coined money, but they never tried to manage the economy other than through Tariffs.

The Government was not and had not ever been in the banking business.
Not for the general public, just for their own use for the Governments banking needs.
Which was the same for all of us, deposits and withdrawals.




The problem was independent banks and fractional reserve banking.
Banks would make loans 10 times over what they had deposits for. (edited to add, they still do but the FED does it)



Before the Central Bank was created, the Federal Government was not in banking other than what everyone else used banks for.

Deposits and withdrawals.


Business and Government was separated back then.

All Congress did was kept to a minimum as spelled out for them in the Constitution.
To coin money, regulate the value thereof.

Not to run the economy of free enterprise.

Interesting read between Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan:

Competing currencies are sill much better. Regulating the value of money is running a portion of the economy. You cannot separate money from the economy. Have you watched Lew Rockwell's lecture "The Gold Dollar"?

 

[talent scout]

Competing currencies are sill much better. Regulating the value of money is running a portion of the economy. You cannot separate money from the economy. Have you watched Lew Rockwell's lecture "The Gold Dollar"?

No, sounds as something worth watching though.

I like him well enough.


I have looked long and hard at how it was done right here in America from 1791 to 1944-71 though.

Gold standard worked so well, Americans had been able to build wealth until we went Keynes in 71 and Richard Nixon changing Constitutional money by-passing the Amendment process.

Gold standard is the best there is and nothing will ever be able to out do it.

The bankers have hated it from the beginning cause it limited their massive profits of fractional banking, and quite frankly, counterfeiting

 

[talent scout]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=9764


I looked it up and enjoyed watching it.


Very good

 

[DFF]

The bankers have hated it from the beginning cause it limited their massive profits of fractional banking, and quite frankly, counterfeiting

Given the banks, for all intents and purposes, are broke, their mighty fiat wielding fist has been dealt a serious, and perhaps fatal blow. As such they might not have a choice but to accept the return of a gold or silver standard.

Regarding replacing the Fed, here's a radical idea: don't replace it with anything. Just make it significantly more transparent, and subject to audits.

As far as personal, save a few of our elected officials, like Ron Paul, the majority are economic whom, and don't possess the skills to regulate a central bank, or manage our money utilizing any other mechanism.

Bernanke and Co. however are the creme de le creme of MIT and Harvard university - they're the experts.

The ostensible problem is they're using the "dark side" - Keynesian economics.

If they could just come around and integrate Austrian economics into their Keynesian computer models, I think we'd be just fine.

 

[Athan]

Whenever someone asks Schiff about ending the Fed, his usual response is, "And replace it with what? I don't want to turn the printing presses over to Nancy Pelosi."

Unless we move to a gold standard, what good does ending the Fed do? Handing the printing press to the people who are actually spending the money, the congress, might be an even worse idea, it seems. Although, I guess, in theory, there would be more transparency than with the Fed.

So assuming we are still a long way from returning to the gold standard, if we End the Fed, who gets to print the money?

1st - End the criminalization of competing currencies. If people want to trade in Gold and Silver, so be it. It is their business.

2nd - Create new hard money currency that is backed by US gold, silver, and even platinum.

3rd - Let private banks issue their own backed credit.

4th - See the fed die on its own.

 

[fj45lvr]

Bernanke and Co. however are the creme de le creme of MIT and Harvard university - they're the experts.

The problem is that they are "experts" at the wrong things for the benefit of most citizens....I firmly believe that the banks doing well for themselves doesn't mean much to the people that are supposed to be the "sovereigns" and rulers in Liberty (instead of the slaves that they really are).

 

[Zippyjuan]

1st - End the criminalization of competing currencies. If people want to trade in Gold and Silver, so be it. It is their business.

2nd - Create new hard money currency that is backed by US gold, silver, and even platinum.

3rd - Let private banks issue their own backed credit.

4th - See the fed die on its own.

Where are you going to get enough gold to create a currency to compete against Federal Reserve Notes? If somebody paid you in gold for something, would you spend it again or keep it? Money is not useful if it is not respent on other things.

You need portability, freely exchangeable,, and to strike an important balance between it haveing enough of a value that people want to and are willing to use it but not so valuable that people horde it.
The theory is fine but the execution in reality is quite a difficult task.

 

[The_Orlonater]

No, sounds as something worth watching though.

I like him well enough.


I have looked long and hard at how it was done right here in America from 1791 to 1944-71 though.

Gold standard worked so well, Americans had been able to build wealth until we went Keynes in 71 and Richard Nixon changing Constitutional money by-passing the Amendment process.

Gold standard is the best there is and nothing will ever be able to out do it.

The bankers have hated it from the beginning cause it limited their massive profits of fractional banking, and quite frankly, counterfeiting

33', 71' was when we ended the gold exchange standard. That's not something were suppose to love, but it was better than this.

 

[The_Orlonater]

I'm sure Ron Paul will tell us his thoughts on this when his new book comes out.

I'll take Congress over the Fed any day. We can vote them out, or at least try to educate people about what they are up to and try to mobilize voters to change things. The Fed, however, is a dictatorship that operates behind closed doors without accountability. It is totally corrupting this country and has been a disaster. It's corrupted Congress.

I'm not totally sold on the gold standard, but it seems like the best option out there. Maybe Ron will give us other options to think about in End The Fed.

I'm not a fan of most people I've met in my lifetime.