Does anyone think we need the Fed?

1. The Fed isn't necessary for the government to act as a lender of last resort (just read the Aldrich-Vreeland Act), it's just infinitely more effective.

2. If you think inflation is a problem, why the hell would you trust Congress to control the money supply?

Congress is more transparent than the Fed! Besides, I advocate commodity money, so the money supply doesn't actually change.

Yeah that worked real well in the 19th century.

Tool.

We didn't allow it to normalize. We had some downturns (market corrections) and the uninformed masses were panicked into allowing the unconstitutional formation of a central bank. Then the worst financial crisis we have ever faced in US history occurred 16 years later. In the century that followed the USD lost 96% of its value. Hmm... I don't think central banking really worked out all that well either. Do you? Tell me what's good about this picture.
 
1. The Fed isn't necessary for the government to act as a lender of last resort (just read the Aldrich-Vreeland Act), it's just infinitely more effective.

2. If you think inflation is a problem, why the hell would you trust Congress to control the money supply?

THey don't.
They want a return to an archaic gold standard that starves businesses of capital when they need it most. Why was the free silver movement so big?
But you are dealing with the dullest of the dull in this thread. Rubberdickhead and his sidekick are totally at sea here. If Wikipedia ever goes down they'll have nothing to add to the discussion.

This is one of the few threads in which you and I are going to be on the same side. I think that says a great deal about the nature of the argument.
 
1. The Fed isn't necessary for the government to act as a lender of last resort (just read the Aldrich-Vreeland Act), it's just infinitely more effective.

2. If you think inflation is a problem, why the hell would you trust Congress to control the money supply?

Congress is more transparent than the Fed! Besides, I advocate commodity money, so the money supply doesn't actually change.

Is transparency really that important? I would argue that while more transparency is ideal, it's not ideal if the result in bad policy. After all, we could make the CIA more transparent, but that wouldn't result in better intelligence gathering.
 
Congress is more transparent than the Fed! Besides, I advocate commodity money, so the money supply doesn't actually change.

Yeah that worked real well in the 19th century.

Tool.

We didn't allow it to normalize. We had some downturns (market corrections) and the uninformed masses were panicked into allowing the unconstitutional formation of a central bank. Then the worst financial crisis we have ever faced in US history occurred 16 years later. In the century that followed the USD lost 96% of its value. Hmm... I don't think central banking really worked out all that well either. Do you? Tell me what's good about this picture.

The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.
 
1. The Fed isn't necessary for the government to act as a lender of last resort (just read the Aldrich-Vreeland Act), it's just infinitely more effective.

2. If you think inflation is a problem, why the hell would you trust Congress to control the money supply?

Congress is more transparent than the Fed! Besides, I advocate commodity money, so the money supply doesn't actually change.

Is transparency really that important? I would argue that while more transparency is ideal, it's not ideal if the result in bad policy. After all, we could make the CIA more transparent, but that wouldn't result in better intelligence gathering.

Are you saying that the Fed is torturing people and overthrowing governments? Obviously, the CIA is very different in nature from the Fed. Come on, that's not an argument.
 
Yeah that worked real well in the 19th century.

Tool.

We didn't allow it to normalize. We had some downturns (market corrections) and the uninformed masses were panicked into allowing the unconstitutional formation of a central bank. Then the worst financial crisis we have ever faced in US history occurred 16 years later. In the century that followed the USD lost 96% of its value. Hmm... I don't think central banking really worked out all that well either. Do you? Tell me what's good about this picture.

The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.

Wrong. Since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, the authority to do so is delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. Check again.
 
Congress is more transparent than the Fed! Besides, I advocate commodity money, so the money supply doesn't actually change.

Is transparency really that important? I would argue that while more transparency is ideal, it's not ideal if the result in bad policy. After all, we could make the CIA more transparent, but that wouldn't result in better intelligence gathering.

Are you saying that the Fed is torturing people and overthrowing governments? Obviously, the CIA is very different in nature from the Fed. Come on, that's not an argument.

Of course it's an argument. Transparent policy does not necessarily mean good policy.
 
We didn't allow it to normalize. We had some downturns (market corrections) and the uninformed masses were panicked into allowing the unconstitutional formation of a central bank. Then the worst financial crisis we have ever faced in US history occurred 16 years later. In the century that followed the USD lost 96% of its value. Hmm... I don't think central banking really worked out all that well either. Do you? Tell me what's good about this picture.

The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.

Wrong. Since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, the authority to do so is delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. Check again.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to coin money and also gives them the power to take reasonable steps to exercise that authority.
 
Is transparency really that important? I would argue that while more transparency is ideal, it's not ideal if the result in bad policy. After all, we could make the CIA more transparent, but that wouldn't result in better intelligence gathering.

Are you saying that the Fed is torturing people and overthrowing governments? Obviously, the CIA is very different in nature from the Fed. Come on, that's not an argument.

Of course it's an argument. Transparent policy does not necessarily mean good policy.

Human nature dictates that opacity means corruption. Especially when it comes to mixing money and politics. I can't believe we're arguing this. The CIA has historically been corrupt for this very reason and similar ones.

Let me also add: how do you know that a black box has good policies? Maybe they seem good for a while but then eventually become dangerous or leave potential for abuse. Transparency may not always lead to the best policy but at least there's sunshine. Are you American? I thought this kind of stuff made sense to Americans.
 
Last edited:
The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.

Wrong. Since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, the authority to do so is delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. Check again.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to coin money and also gives them the power to take reasonable steps to exercise that authority.

Article I. Section 10. does not allow the money to be anything but Gold or Silver though. Check it out. Fiat currency is unconstitutional. If you think fiat currency is reasonable, well I can't help you with that.

Also, let me add that reasonable steps to coin money do not include deferring authority to a central bank. Coining money is coining money, it is not planning an economy. You're intepretation of the constitution is abusive. I suppose "general welfare" means that the government should take over the private sector so that they can provide everything for people also right? Pshh!
 
Last edited:
"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; "

Doesn't say anything about the currency needing to be backed by gold or silver.
 
The formation of a central bank is perfectly constitutional.

Wrong. Since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention it, the authority to do so is delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. Check again.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to coin money and also gives them the power to take reasonable steps to exercise that authority.

But the constitution doesnt give congress the power to delegate their responsibility to another party.
 
"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; "

Doesn't say anything about the currency needing to be backed by gold or silver.

Article 1. section 10.

No state shall, ... , make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

How can the federal government force the states to do something which is unconstitutional? You're wrong. Actually, you're wrong twice because the constitution actually prohibits paper money because it says nothing but "gold and silver Coin." So for the currency to be "backed" by gold and silver I assume you mean paper bills that could be exchanged for gold and silver. This is also prohibited.
 
Last edited:
You do realize the federal government and the individual states are the not the same thing, right?
 
Central banking was deemed constitutional by the supreme court in McCulloch v. Maryland on the grounds of the "necessary and proper" clause. Here's the wiki for your convenience:

McCulloch v. Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In my opinion this "necessary and proper" bullshit has been stretched far beyond its original intention. Ironic how are most opaque branch of government paved the way for the Fed.
 
You do realize the federal government and the individual states are the not the same thing, right?

Yeah, but you're avoiding the question. How can the federal government force the states to act against the constitution? Is that in there somewhere? Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution.
 
You do realize the federal government and the individual states are the not the same thing, right?

Yeah, but you're avoiding the question. How can the federal government force the states to act against the constitution? Is that in there somewhere? Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution.

How is the federal government forcing states to act against the Constitution?
 
You do realize the federal government and the individual states are the not the same thing, right?

Yeah, but you're avoiding the question. How can the federal government force the states to act against the constitution? Is that in there somewhere? Maybe I missed that part of the Constitution.

How is the federal government forcing states to act against the Constitution?

If they are forced to use fiat paper money or even commodity paper money (instead of gold and silver coins), they are acting against the constitution.

Also, getting back to the original point, central banking is hardly "necessary" and I would say even im"proper" to coining money. The arguments that were made in McCulloch v. Maryland rested on the judgment that central banking was both necessary and proper. If you look at what we have now it is not only unnecessary but it is extremely improper. So how is it also constitutional?
 
Last edited:
I believe the McCulloch v. Maryland decision was later reversed and then re-reversed. It was actually a very controversial decision. Yet, you act like this extremely difficult judicial decision was as easy as pie. How long have you been a judge? Constitutional lawyer maybe? It's definitely not as cut-and-dry as you're trying to make it out to be.
 

Forum List

Back
Top