Federal Reserve Should Become A Public Institution

KevinWestern

Hello
Mar 8, 2012
4,145
540
48
Chicago, IL
Why does the Federal Reserve – the body in charge of controlling the United States money supply – remain a private institution?

Wouldn’t it make common sense to have the Federal Reserve absorbed by the Treasury Department (perhaps), and become a public institution that is run (openly) by mostly elected officials? It just doesn’t make any sense to me why a private institution should be allowed to wield such extraordinary power without any solid checks and balances.

Thoughts?
 
It needs to be audited, dismantled slowly, abolished and then a gold standard re-instated.
 
Federal Reserve is a scam and should be abolished. It was created by Progressives the same time the 16th and 17th Amendments were foisted upon us.

I’m totally fine with abolishing it; what I’m saying is that if it has to exist, shouldn’t it at least be under control of a public office? Or at least audited every few years?
 
The Federal Reserve was established to be independent institution insulation from government and private sector influence, unfortunately it failed the test of time. The real question is, should it be a political tool? that concept has grave consequences associated with that move. I do feel it is time for a full fledged audit.
 
Federal Reserve is a scam and should be abolished. It was created by Progressives the same time the 16th and 17th Amendments were foisted upon us.

I’m totally fine with abolishing it; what I’m saying is that if it has to exist, shouldn’t it at least be under control of a public office? Or at least audited every few years?

We're working on the audit. You can thank Ron Paul for that. Should we get a full audit and the publicity matches the facts, it should show how bad it really is and move public opinion in the way of dismantling or at least severely limiting its powers. A it stands, we can thank almost every negative economic consequence since 1913 directly onto the shoulders of the fed. It is the moral hazard of our economics..
 
Wouldn’t it make common sense to have the Federal Reserve absorbed by the Treasury Department (perhaps), and become a public institution that is run (openly) by mostly elected officials?

Are you joking? Would you really want a politician's hands anywhere near the currency printing press in an election year?
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t it make common sense to have the Federal Reserve absorbed by the Treasury Department (perhaps), and become a public institution that is run (openly) by mostly elected officials?

Are you joking? Would you really want a politician's hands anywhere near the currency printing press in an election year?

No fiat money never works no matter who is at the print press. We need an anchor to our currency. Gold is the best one to date in history and it needs to be restored.
 
Why does the Federal Reserve – the body in charge of controlling the United States money supply – remain a private institution?

Wouldn’t it make common sense to have the Federal Reserve absorbed by the Treasury Department (perhaps), and become a public institution that is run (openly) by mostly elected officials? It just doesn’t make any sense to me why a private institution should be allowed to wield such extraordinary power without any solid checks and balances.

Thoughts?
It has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers and is subject to congressional oversight. Not sure whether I agree with you or not, however having monetary policy controlled by politicians doesn't seem practical.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t it make common sense to have the Federal Reserve absorbed by the Treasury Department (perhaps), and become a public institution that is run (openly) by mostly elected officials?

Are you joking? Would you really want a politician's hands anywhere near the currency printing press ON button in an election year?

Obviously, our political system is not working very well currently, but I consider it the lesser of two evils. AT LEAST politicians can be elected.

The people who are running the Fed now are accountable (practically) to no one. What would you rather have?
 
Wouldn’t it make common sense to have the Federal Reserve absorbed by the Treasury Department (perhaps), and become a public institution that is run (openly) by mostly elected officials?

Are you joking? Would you really want a politician's hands anywhere near the currency printing press in an election year?

No fiat money never works no matter who is at the print press. We need an anchor to our currency. Gold is the best one to date in history and it needs to be restored.

We had more frequent and longer financial panics on the gold standard than we do now.
 
Wouldn’t it make common sense to have the Federal Reserve absorbed by the Treasury Department (perhaps), and become a public institution that is run (openly) by mostly elected officials?

Are you joking? Would you really want a politician's hands anywhere near the currency printing press ON button in an election year?

Obviously, our political system is not working very well currently, but I consider it the lesser of two evils. AT LEAST politicians can be elected.

That's the whole point! Politicians would crank up the printing presses to get re-elected. Our currency would be much more devauled than it is now. Our elected politicians don't know shit about economics and you want them controlling the money supply!?!
 
What? The longest they list in here is 3 years. I could drone on endlessly about each of these case in point, but Im not gonna. We've been in one recession after another since 1913.

The only one I'll touch is the panic of 1797. Which was due to...wait for it...wait for it. debasement of the british money to fund the war and we were in their vulture claws at the time.
 
Why does the Federal Reserve – the body in charge of controlling the United States money supply – remain a private institution?

Wouldn’t it make common sense to have the Federal Reserve absorbed by the Treasury Department (perhaps), and become a public institution that is run (openly) by mostly elected officials? It just doesn’t make any sense to me why a private institution should be allowed to wield such extraordinary power without any solid checks and balances.

Thoughts?
It has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers and is subject to congressional oversight. Not sure whether I agree with you or not.

Flopper- Good points, and I understand that...

But, my issue is that although the Fed is subject to "congressional oversight", the truth is that neither the executive branch or the legislative branch have ANY say on the ultimate decision-making. The Fed is essentially running the show when it comes to our economy (and does so in relative secrecy), and is granted insane and extraordinary powers. Don't you think we ought to have some more checks and balances in place?



.
 
What? The longest they list in here is 3 years. I could drone on endlessly about each of these case in point, but Im not gonna. We've been in one recession after another since 1913.

Not nearly as frequently as before 1913. Facts are facts.


Gold also limits the money supply with the amount of gold you dig up. It does not keep up with a growing economy, is way too rigid, and is highly susceptible to speculators.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top