Who owns the FED?

[jon_perez]

Also, gold coins from the Roman empire are still worth their metal value (plus a numismatic value). Roman coins were still used as money after the Roman empire fell. Metal coins keep their purchasing power after the issuing empire falls; paper money is worthless after the issuing empire falls. For example, US quarters have a metal value equal to 22% of the face amount.

Sure.

It would be interesting to compare the price level of food stuff vis-a-vis an ounce of gold.

How many bushels of wheat does an ounce of gold buy today? What about 100 years ago? What about 500, 1000 years ago? I'm sure it fluctuates but I'm if the production of wheat has improved in efficiency much faster than the efficiency in mining of gold, an ounce of gold is likely able to buy many more bushels of wheat than it did 1000 years ago.

Metals, used as currency, will tend to produce deflation as the rate of their production/mining lags behind that of the increase in goods and services in a high-tech civilization. Unbacked paper money is so easy to create, thus, its general tendency cannot help but to inflate.

Deflation is biased towards savers (hoarders).
Inflation is biased towards the risk takers (e.g. pirates of industry), since they depend on an easy money supply.

The savings mode and risk-taking mode each have their own pros and cons. Clearly, Americans have not been in savings mode for a long long time and thus we see the momentum looking to swing back to this mode.

Both hoarders and pirates are out to enrich themselves (e.g. they are not socialists). If you are a free market believer (like I am) self-interest is but the natural state of things and trying to inculcate artificial morality (socialism) will just not work.

I think today's central bank doctrine that price stability is of paramount importance has a LOT of going for it. This has been the lesson learned from the [eventual] failure of Keynesianism. Thus, central banks today realize and outwardly say that their #1 goal is price stability. That is to say, monetarist-wise, they aim to match the rate of increase in the money supply to the rate of increase in goods and services.

Whether central banks sincerely work towards that goal or let political expediency and greed color their policies is the real question. Moving towards non-centralized banking and so-called free market money is certainly a means to remove all such questions. The later will, of course, also entail a lot of difficult adjustment and restructuring because centralized banking has pros which won't be around anymore.

 

[jon_perez]

Guns have intrinsic value.

Even though the Federal Reserve Notes are intrinsically worthless, government violence demands that I use them as payment for taxes. Whenever I work, I must give Federal Reserve Notes to the IRS in exchange for permission to work. Government violence demands that other sound forms of money are not used.

That's certainly one way of putting it, and which serves as Libertarian propaganda (which I happen to subscribe to more or less... )

But a Devil's advocate for the socialist point of view would say: Government is a social contract between the State and the governed. The State provides communal services to the population in exchange for the right to set and enforce laws. As part of that Social Contract, it accepts for taxes the same fiat currency that it issues. Another important part of that contract is that it is committed to maintaining the value of that fiat currency by not abusing its power to create it.

One could well muse that it is the people under a socialist regime (Americans for the last 30 years?) who do not understand this dynamic and social contract that are responsible for the failure of such a regime. The lazy think that a welfare state will endlessly provide them benefits, but do not understand that you can't get something for nothing and the only thing such a freeloading attitude will lead to is that more and more people will choose to become lazy and unproductive and bring down the society as a whole.

Both good government and bad government depend on the attitude of the governed. Less government only means that you lessen the ability of bad government to do harm. But less government will not automatically lead to a better society if the [lightly] governed populace act like jerks. The more mature the citizenry is, the less restriction of freedom there needs to be. The more chaotic and barbaric a citizenry is, the more laws and enforcement people will clamor for.

 

[jon_perez]

As much gold lust as you may have, it has no value. I won't exchange my labor for it. I won't exchange my home for it. It has no value.

But you would exchange them for paper and electronic digits?

 

[cjhowe]

But you would exchange them for paper and electronic digits?

Yes, because it has as much intrinsic value (read none) but others accept it for exchange.

 

[jon_perez]

Yes, because [gold] has as much intrinsic value [as paper and electronic digits] (read none) but others accept it for exchange.

I'm quite sure just about everyone out there will also happily accept gold as a medium of exchange in lieu of paper money...

 

[Electric Church]

It is government force that backs up the Fed's decisions. If you decide to boycott FRNs, it is the IRS that cracks down on you, not the Federal Reserve.

The government has unconstitutionally delegated its money printing authority to a private corporation. It is government violence that makes that money have non-zero value. It is government violence that prevents competing monetary systems from emerging.

Also, gold coins from the Roman empire are still worth their metal value (plus a numismatic value). Roman coins were still used as money after the Roman empire fell. Metal coins keep their purchasing power after the issuing empire falls; paper money is worthless after the issuing empire falls. For example, US quarters have a metal value equal to 22% of the face amount.

So when the government backs up the Fed they abandon their constitutional powers and become subservient to the Fed and use violence (through the IRS) to get its citizens to comply with the Fed’s decisions. So the Fed determines the value of FRNs enforced by the government (their enforcement arm) who have abandoned the constitution. So as long as the government is subservient to the Fed and has abandoned the constitution the government is the Fed.

Therefore it would seem to me that in reality the government does not decree the value of the currency because through subordination to the Fed and their abandonment of the constitution they no longer exist as the people’s government but in reality are the Fed.

 

[Bossobass]

Ponder this statement: Gold has NO intrinsic value.

Confederate dollars have no intrinsic value.

Gold most certainly always has and always will have intrinsic value.

1. It's rare. one ten millionth of the Earth's crust.
2. It's the most maleable substance on Earth. One ounce can be formed into a wire that stretches 50 miles. One ounce can be worked into a single sheet of filligree that covers 100 square feet, or plate a thread of copper wire over 1,000 miles long.
3. It is biocompatable, and therefore used in medical applications.
4. It's used in dentistry.
5. It has a high resistance to bacterial colonization.
6. It's used in jewelry.
7. It's an excellent catalyst in environmental applications.
8. It's used in anti-cancer drugs.
9. It does not corrode or tarnish.
10. It's used in airbags and most other critcal elctronic components.
11. IT'S USED TO MAKE COINS.

Comparing it to fiat paper is bullshit.

Bosso

 

[johngr]

Confederate dollars have no intrinsic value.

Gold most certainly always has and always will have intrinsic value.

1. It's rare. one ten millionth of the Earth's crust.
2. It's the most maleable substance on Earth. One ounce can be formed into a wire that stretches 50 miles. One ounce can be worked into a single sheet of filligree that covers 100 square feet, or plate a thread of copper wire over 1,000 miles long.
3. It is biocompatable, and therefore used in medical applications.
4. It's used in dentistry.
5. It has a high resistance to bacterial colonization.
6. It's used in jewelry.
7. It's an excellent catalyst in environmental applications.
8. It's used in anti-cancer drugs.
9. It does not corrode or tarnish.
10. It's used in airbags and most other critcal elctronic components.
11. IT'S USED TO MAKE COINS.

Comparing it to fiat paper is bullshit.

Bosso

All that's true but have you ever tried wiping your ass with gold? I think FRNs are much more useful for that purpose (and it might be more economical to do just that than to spend them coming up here shortly).

 

[Electric Church]

Confederate dollars have no intrinsic value.

Gold most certainly always has and always will have intrinsic value.

1. It's rare. one ten millionth of the Earth's crust.
2. It's the most maleable substance on Earth. One ounce can be formed into a wire that stretches 50 miles. One ounce can be worked into a single sheet of filligree that covers 100 square feet, or plate a thread of copper wire over 1,000 miles long.
3. It is biocompatable, and therefore used in medical applications.
4. It's used in dentistry.
5. It has a high resistance to bacterial colonization.
6. It's used in jewelry.
7. It's an excellent catalyst in environmental applications.
8. It's used in anti-cancer drugs.
9. It does not corrode or tarnish.
10. It's used in airbags and most other critcal elctronic components.
11. IT'S USED TO MAKE COINS.

Comparing it to fiat paper is bullshit.

Bosso

Right on

 

[cjhowe]

Confederate dollars have no intrinsic value.

Gold most certainly always has and always will have intrinsic value.

1. It's rare. one ten millionth of the Earth's crust.
2. It's the most maleable substance on Earth. One ounce can be formed into a wire that stretches 50 miles. One ounce can be worked into a single sheet of filligree that covers 100 square feet, or plate a thread of copper wire over 1,000 miles long.
3. It is biocompatable, and therefore used in medical applications.
4. It's used in dentistry.
5. It has a high resistance to bacterial colonization.
6. It's used in jewelry.
7. It's an excellent catalyst in environmental applications.
8. It's used in anti-cancer drugs.
9. It does not corrode or tarnish.
10. It's used in airbags and most other critcal elctronic components.
11. IT'S USED TO MAKE COINS.

Comparing it to fiat paper is bullshit.

Bosso

1. scarcity does not create value inherit of itself
2. all value described here is dependent on use and not on itself
3. all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
4. all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
5. all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
6. all value described here is dependent on perception and not on itself
7. all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
8. all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
9. all value described here is dependent on use and not on itself
10.all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
11.all value described here is dependent on perception and not on itself

Try again

 

[Bossobass]

1. scarcity does not create value inherit of itself
2. all value described here is dependent on use and not on itself
3. all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
4. all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
5. all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
6. all value described here is dependent on perception and not on itself
7. all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
8. all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
9. all value described here is dependent on use and not on itself
10.all value described here is dependent on relativeness to replacement items
11.all value described here is dependent on perception and not on itself

Try again

More bullshit. Try Webster's.

Bosso

 

[fsk]

In case anybody has forgotten, cjhowe is a troll who's intentionally trying to disrupt debate on this forum. His position on the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, and the IRS is the exact opposite of Ron Paul's position.

If anyone (that isn't a troll) has a question that they need answered about the Federal Reserve, the IRS, or the gold standard, you can post a question on my blog, PM me, or E-Mail me. This thread is getting out of hand.

I'm not really interested in posting in this thread anymore, because cjhowe has in fact successfully disrupted the discussion.

 

[Electric Church]

A few months ago he would copy and paste all these IRS tax codes. That was pretty rough. Kind of like walking into a Jewish wedding and throwing a roasted hog on the table.

 

[cjhowe]

In case anybody has forgotten, cjhowe is a troll who's intentionally trying to disrupt debate on this forum. His position on the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, and the IRS is the exact opposite of Ron Paul's position.

If anyone (that isn't a troll) has a question that they need answered about the Federal Reserve, the IRS, or the gold standard, you can post a question on my blog, PM me, or E-Mail me. This thread is getting out of hand.

I'm not really interested in posting in this thread anymore, because cjhowe has in fact successfully disrupted the discussion.

Disrupt debate? With the exception of D.C. Bradley's temperance replies, mine are the only contrarian viewpoints that have been offered. How do you hold a debate with a single viewpoint?

As far as the central banking, I agree philosophically and in conclusion with Ron Paul on this issue. However, academically I do not feel there is sufficient evidence brought by the Austrians (or any economic theory for that matter) that their model appropriately accounts for the psychological effect of deflation on the macroeconomic scale. In my conclusion of the issue though, I reject that the academic argument, and thereby the direct goal of prosperity, should be held superior to the philosophical argument of freedom.

As far as the IRS, I agree that we should eliminate the income tax and that we should reduce government spending by reconsidering the proper role of government in our lives. However, in the interim, there is indeed a law, it is constitutional and the income tax has absolutely no direct relationship to the founding of the Federal Reserve, despite what fanatical fauxumentaries may claim.

As far as the gold standard. Ron Paul no longer advocates for a gold standard, rather he advocates for allowing gold and silver to compete with federal reserve notes. A gold standard would mean the FRN would need to be backed by gold. While this is an interesting position, much of the world has lost it's 'gold lust' and thereby gold, silver and paper are all still fiat money. Money by the governmental declaration that they are money. Since it is still by decree, you gain little by way of freedom and so an academic evaluation should likely hold more weight in such a debate. A multi currency economy makes for a complicated manner for the government to raise revenues both at a federal level which should be limited to the functions enumerated in the Constitution and by the local government which should only be limited by the protections enumerated in the Constitution and by will of the local people.

You can continue to call me a troll, but you have yet to offer an argument that I can concede to.

 

[johngr]

So... who owns the Fed. Which banks own stock in each fed branch? What percentages of stock does each bank own? Who sits on the boards of these banks and their holding companies (to the ultimate level)? What are the nationalities of each of these people?