Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then the people who made the economic decisions would be held accountable to the taxpayers instead of a bunch of un-elected bankers.
Ha! That has sure stopped them from running up trillions in debt!
Better than a group of unelected bankers.
According to our constitution it IS OUR GOVERNMENT that IS suppose to control our monitary policies, not a private banking system with the Fed.
I think we already have your opinon on the Fed, thanks. What's your proposal for an alternative.
It's not an opinion that the Fed debases the currency and creates the business cycle, those would be facts. My proposal would be to return to the gold standard and allow the free market to operate.
No, facts are objective data. Your assetion that the Fed causese business cycles is an opinion, and a questionable one at that as business cycles existed long before the Fed was dreamed up.
As for a gold standard, right now people would be hording gold and the Fed would be raising interest rates to maintain the standard. Which would have the same effect now as it did in 1931.
Ha! That has sure stopped them from running up trillions in debt!
Better than a group of unelected bankers.
The Congress could certainly have done far worse than the Fed has done, and given its discipline on the fiscal side, it's certainly what I'd expect. Hyperinflation is an ugly thing.
Again, why anyone would want to give a politically beholden body that has not had the discipline to balance the budget in 39 of the past 40 years is beyond me.
It's not an opinion that the Fed debases the currency and creates the business cycle, those would be facts. My proposal would be to return to the gold standard and allow the free market to operate.
No, facts are objective data. Your assetion that the Fed causese business cycles is an opinion, and a questionable one at that as business cycles existed long before the Fed was dreamed up.
As for a gold standard, right now people would be hording gold and the Fed would be raising interest rates to maintain the standard. Which would have the same effect now as it did in 1931.
There were business cycles beforehand because of the national banks and the federal government getting involved in the market.
The Fed raising interest rates would be the antithesis of the free market. By "allow the free market to operate" I meant that I would get rid of the Fed.
No, facts are objective data. Your assetion that the Fed causese business cycles is an opinion, and a questionable one at that as business cycles existed long before the Fed was dreamed up.
As for a gold standard, right now people would be hording gold and the Fed would be raising interest rates to maintain the standard. Which would have the same effect now as it did in 1931.
There were business cycles beforehand because of the national banks and the federal government getting involved in the market.
The Fed raising interest rates would be the antithesis of the free market. By "allow the free market to operate" I meant that I would get rid of the Fed.
I think we were talking about your proposal and you dropped out of the discussion. At this point I don't have anywhere close to an understanding of your proposed alternatvie to the Fed to assess it whether it is a viable alternative or (as I've frequently see) an unrealistic solution to go along with a conspiratorial view of the monetary system.
But you've now suggested it has something to do with a gold standard. How "allowing the free market to operate" would create more gold to expand the money supply at a time when banks don't lend and people tend to convert currency to gold is beyond logic. Because in a free market, if there is a limited supply and demand increases, price goes up, and in this case, it means interest.
There were business cycles beforehand because of the national banks and the federal government getting involved in the market.
The Fed raising interest rates would be the antithesis of the free market. By "allow the free market to operate" I meant that I would get rid of the Fed.
I think we were talking about your proposal and you dropped out of the discussion. At this point I don't have anywhere close to an understanding of your proposed alternatvie to the Fed to assess it whether it is a viable alternative or (as I've frequently see) an unrealistic solution to go along with a conspiratorial view of the monetary system.
But you've now suggested it has something to do with a gold standard. How "allowing the free market to operate" would create more gold to expand the money supply at a time when banks don't lend and people tend to convert currency to gold is beyond logic. Because in a free market, if there is a limited supply and demand increases, price goes up, and in this case, it means interest.
I dropped out of the discussion? You must have me confused with somebody else.
If you have a lack of understanding of my proposed alternative I'd suggest you read up on the free market.
I didn't say the free market would somehow create more gold to expand the money supply, that doesn't make sense. The money supply would increase with an increase in the gold supply, but under a true gold standard the government would not be able to debase the currency and destroy the value of the dollar.
I think we were talking about your proposal and you dropped out of the discussion. At this point I don't have anywhere close to an understanding of your proposed alternatvie to the Fed to assess it whether it is a viable alternative or (as I've frequently see) an unrealistic solution to go along with a conspiratorial view of the monetary system.
But you've now suggested it has something to do with a gold standard. How "allowing the free market to operate" would create more gold to expand the money supply at a time when banks don't lend and people tend to convert currency to gold is beyond logic. Because in a free market, if there is a limited supply and demand increases, price goes up, and in this case, it means interest.
I dropped out of the discussion? You must have me confused with somebody else.
I did. I'm sorry. It was Mash107, who was also proposing a "free market" theory as an alternative. I asked a few probing questions and he disappeared.
If you have a lack of understanding of my proposed alternative I'd suggest you read up on the free market.
Because you can't defend your own proposal as an alternative to the Fed?
In a truly free market economy, money would not be monopolized by legal tender laws or by a central bank, in order to receive taxes from the transactions or to be able to issue loans.[citation needed] Minarchists (advocates of minimal government) contend that the so called "coercion" of taxes is essential for the market's survival, and a market free from taxes may lead to no market at all. By definition, there is no market without private property, and private property can only exist while there is an entity that defines and defends it. Traditionally, the State defends private property and defines it by issuing ownership titles, and also nominates the central authority to print or mint currency. "Free market anarchists" disagree with the above assessment they maintain that private property and free markets can be protected by voluntarily-funded services under the concept of individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism[14][15]. A free market could be defined alternatively as a tax-free market, independent of any central authority, which uses as medium of exchange such as money, even in the absence of the State. It is disputed, however, whether this hypothetical stateless market could function freely, without coercion and violence.
Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I agree with the text that there is good reason to dispute that such a system could possible work.
I still don't understand how the "free market" sets the money supply. Everyone who supports this theory seems to be coy about describing it in detail. It makes me suspicious.
I didn't say the free market would somehow create more gold to expand the money supply, that doesn't make sense. The money supply would increase with an increase in the gold supply, but under a true gold standard the government would not be able to debase the currency and destroy the value of the dollar.
No dollars?
I dropped out of the discussion? You must have me confused with somebody else.
I did. I'm sorry. It was Mash107, who was also proposing a "free market" theory as an alternative. I asked a few probing questions and he disappeared.
Because you can't defend your own proposal as an alternative to the Fed?
In a truly free market economy, money would not be monopolized by legal tender laws or by a central bank, in order to receive taxes from the transactions or to be able to issue loans.[citation needed] Minarchists (advocates of minimal government) contend that the so called "coercion" of taxes is essential for the market's survival, and a market free from taxes may lead to no market at all. By definition, there is no market without private property, and private property can only exist while there is an entity that defines and defends it. Traditionally, the State defends private property and defines it by issuing ownership titles, and also nominates the central authority to print or mint currency. "Free market anarchists" disagree with the above assessment they maintain that private property and free markets can be protected by voluntarily-funded services under the concept of individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism[14][15]. A free market could be defined alternatively as a tax-free market, independent of any central authority, which uses as medium of exchange such as money, even in the absence of the State. It is disputed, however, whether this hypothetical stateless market could function freely, without coercion and violence.
Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I agree with the text that there is good reason to dispute that such a system could possible work.
I still don't understand how the "free market" sets the money supply. Everyone who supports this theory seems to be coy about describing it in detail. It makes me suspicious.
I didn't say the free market would somehow create more gold to expand the money supply, that doesn't make sense. The money supply would increase with an increase in the gold supply, but under a true gold standard the government would not be able to debase the currency and destroy the value of the dollar.
No dollars?
In a truly free market you could have competing private currencies, and people would be able to use their currency of choice or multiple currencies if they wished. So long as it's backed by a commodity such as gold or silver, or is gold and silver themselves, then people would accept them.
I'm not sure what you're asking by "No Dollars?" Could you clarify that?
I did. I'm sorry. It was Mash107, who was also proposing a "free market" theory as an alternative. I asked a few probing questions and he disappeared.
Because you can't defend your own proposal as an alternative to the Fed?
In a truly free market economy, money would not be monopolized by legal tender laws or by a central bank, in order to receive taxes from the transactions or to be able to issue loans.[citation needed] Minarchists (advocates of minimal government) contend that the so called "coercion" of taxes is essential for the market's survival, and a market free from taxes may lead to no market at all. By definition, there is no market without private property, and private property can only exist while there is an entity that defines and defends it. Traditionally, the State defends private property and defines it by issuing ownership titles, and also nominates the central authority to print or mint currency. "Free market anarchists" disagree with the above assessment they maintain that private property and free markets can be protected by voluntarily-funded services under the concept of individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism[14][15]. A free market could be defined alternatively as a tax-free market, independent of any central authority, which uses as medium of exchange such as money, even in the absence of the State. It is disputed, however, whether this hypothetical stateless market could function freely, without coercion and violence.
Free market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I agree with the text that there is good reason to dispute that such a system could possible work.
I still don't understand how the "free market" sets the money supply. Everyone who supports this theory seems to be coy about describing it in detail. It makes me suspicious.
No dollars?
In a truly free market you could have competing private currencies, and people would be able to use their currency of choice or multiple currencies if they wished. So long as it's backed by a commodity such as gold or silver, or is gold and silver themselves, then people would accept them.
I'm not sure what you're asking by "No Dollars?" Could you clarify that?
This is the same thing Mash107 said. Why is it so much to ask to explain how this "free market" alternative to the Fed will work?
I'll make it simple. I go to Mcdonald's to buy a big mac. Or Walmarts to buy a hammer. What do I sue to pay for it? How is it priced?
If the answer is "with dollars" then: Who creates the dollars and controls the number of dollars in currency?
In a truly free market you could have competing private currencies, and people would be able to use their currency of choice or multiple currencies if they wished. So long as it's backed by a commodity such as gold or silver, or is gold and silver themselves, then people would accept them.
I'm not sure what you're asking by "No Dollars?" Could you clarify that?
This is the same thing Mash107 said. Why is it so much to ask to explain how this "free market" alternative to the Fed will work?
I'll make it simple. I go to Mcdonald's to buy a big mac. Or Walmarts to buy a hammer. What do I sue to pay for it? How is it priced?
If the answer is "with dollars" then: Who creates the dollars and controls the number of dollars in currency?
Well you could have dollars created by private entrepreneurs and so long as their currency remains sound then it would be in demand. Since a dollar would simply be a claim to some sort of commodity, i.e. gold or silver, then you could price your products in accordance with that commodity and accept that number of dollars instead of the actual commodity. What that commodity is would be decided by the market, but history shows that gold and silver are the best choice.
I'd recommend reading What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray Rothbard, which is available for free online at the Mises Institute.
What Has Government Done to Our Money? - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute
This is the same thing Mash107 said. Why is it so much to ask to explain how this "free market" alternative to the Fed will work?
I'll make it simple. I go to Mcdonald's to buy a big mac. Or Walmarts to buy a hammer. What do I sue to pay for it? How is it priced?
If the answer is "with dollars" then: Who creates the dollars and controls the number of dollars in currency?
Well you could have dollars created by private entrepreneurs and so long as their currency remains sound then it would be in demand. Since a dollar would simply be a claim to some sort of commodity, i.e. gold or silver, then you could price your products in accordance with that commodity and accept that number of dollars instead of the actual commodity. What that commodity is would be decided by the market, but history shows that gold and silver are the best choice.
How on earth could you possible have a sound currency when anyone can print up as many dollars as they want? That is utter nonsense.
If you are instead claiming a gold standard (with all its faults and limitations), then who decides how many dollars per unit of gold?
You can't have a market "system" where Iriemon bank can decide how many dollars to print or what the gold standard is.
It is simply unworkable. It is chaos. The end result would be just one or two super big banks would end up controllng the currency (because no one would want to trade dollars with anyone else) and if you thank the evil bankers control things now, yours is a recipe for real control by the bankers, who would have control over the currency, as opposed to the Fed, which is a quasi-government non-profit agency.
I'd recommend reading What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray Rothbard, which is available for free online at the Mises Institute.
What Has Government Done to Our Money? - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute
Dude, respectfully, I'm not going to spend 5 hours reading a 110 page report. If I had to take the time to read every book someone cited I'd never get anything done.
If you don't understand the system you are proposing well enough to explain it to discuss it, just say so and we'll move on. But I for one am not about to give up a system that has served us pretty damn well for the last 60 years for a system that someone can't even explain.
If they expected anyone to use their currency then they wouldn't simply print it into oblivion. Sound currencies would be in demand, and un-sound currencies would not. The market will decide how sound they wish the currency to be, whether it be 1 oz. of gold being equal to $20, $35, $135 or whatever. If you had competing currencies then there wouldn't be any kind of monopoly the likes of which the Federal Reserve has.
I understand the system well enough, I simply recommended the book because you seemed interested in the topic.
How on earth could you possible have a sound currency when anyone can print up as many dollars as they want? That is utter nonsense.
If you are instead claiming a gold standard (with all its faults and limitations), then who decides how many dollars per unit of gold?
You can't have a market "system" where Iriemon bank can decide how many dollars to print or what the gold standard is.
It is simply unworkable. It is chaos. The end result would be just one or two super big banks would end up controllng the currency (because no one would want to trade dollars with anyone else) and if you thank the evil bankers control things now, yours is a recipe for real control by the bankers, who would have control over the currency, as opposed to the Fed, which is a quasi-government non-profit agency.
Dude, respectfully, I'm not going to spend 5 hours reading a 110 page report. If I had to take the time to read every book someone cited I'd never get anything done.
If you don't understand the system you are proposing well enough to explain it to discuss it, just say so and we'll move on. But I for one am not about to give up a system that has served us pretty damn well for the last 60 years for a system that someone can't even explain.
If they expected anyone to use their currency then they wouldn't simply print it into oblivion. Sound currencies would be in demand, and un-sound currencies would not. The market will decide how sound they wish the currency to be, whether it be 1 oz. of gold being equal to $20, $35, $135 or whatever. If you had competing currencies then there wouldn't be any kind of monopoly the likes of which the Federal Reserve has.
I understand the system well enough, I simply recommended the book because you seemed interested in the topic.
Then please explain it:
How on earth could you possible have a sound currency when anyone can print up as many "dollars" as they want?
If you are instead claiming a gold standard (with all its faults and limitations), then who decides how many dollars per unit of gold?
You can't have a market "system" where Iriemon bank can decide how many "dollars" to print or what the gold standard is.
What are you going to have Walmart price every thing according to the "dollar" values of 100or 1000 different private entrepreneurs?
What if I have entrepreneur ABC dollars and Walmart won't take them? Or is everyone going to be forced to take whatever "dollars" are offered?
What if my ABC bank or private entreprenuer invested in subprime mortgages and suddenly those "dollars" are worthless?
It would at least be nice if a competing currency was allowed to exist and even prosper.
If it's backed by gold, then so be it. Liberty Dollar was, and look at what the government eventually decided to do about it in spite of their previous multiple statements about its legality, including statements from the US Treasury itself and also the Federal Reserve.
The government, and more specifically the elites who inhabit it and manipulate it, are scared of a competing currency, that much is obvious.
What are they so scared of if gold-backed currency would ultimately be a failure?
Gold should not be the basis of our currency for a few reasons.
1.) There's not enough gold in the world.
2.) The money supply should not be dependent upon the profitability of gold miners, especially since the mining industry has historically been one of the worst run industries on the planet.
If they expected anyone to use their currency then they wouldn't simply print it into oblivion. Sound currencies would be in demand, and un-sound currencies would not. The market will decide how sound they wish the currency to be, whether it be 1 oz. of gold being equal to $20, $35, $135 or whatever. If you had competing currencies then there wouldn't be any kind of monopoly the likes of which the Federal Reserve has.
I understand the system well enough, I simply recommended the book because you seemed interested in the topic.
Then please explain it:
How on earth could you possible have a sound currency when anyone can print up as many "dollars" as they want?
If you are instead claiming a gold standard (with all its faults and limitations), then who decides how many dollars per unit of gold?
You can't have a market "system" where Iriemon bank can decide how many "dollars" to print or what the gold standard is.
What are you going to have Walmart price every thing according to the "dollar" values of 100or 1000 different private entrepreneurs?
What if I have entrepreneur ABC dollars and Walmart won't take them? Or is everyone going to be forced to take whatever "dollars" are offered?
What if my ABC bank or private entreprenuer invested in subprime mortgages and suddenly those "dollars" are worthless?
I've explained it, and addressed many of those questions. I'm not going to sit here and repeat myself.
If Wal-Mart won't take some currency for some reason then that would be their choice, and their loss. However, since that currency would be a claim to a certain amount of gold or silver there should be no reason that Wal-Mart wouldn't accept that currency, unless the currency has in fact been debased and it isn't certain that they'd be able to claim their gold or silver with the "dollar."
Then please explain it:
How on earth could you possible have a sound currency when anyone can print up as many "dollars" as they want?
If you are instead claiming a gold standard (with all its faults and limitations), then who decides how many dollars per unit of gold?
You can't have a market "system" where Iriemon bank can decide how many "dollars" to print or what the gold standard is.
What are you going to have Walmart price every thing according to the "dollar" values of 100or 1000 different private entrepreneurs?
What if I have entrepreneur ABC dollars and Walmart won't take them? Or is everyone going to be forced to take whatever "dollars" are offered?
What if my ABC bank or private entreprenuer invested in subprime mortgages and suddenly those "dollars" are worthless?
I've explained it, and addressed many of those questions. I'm not going to sit here and repeat myself.
No there are a lot of things you have not explained.
How is Wal-mart going to price their products when there are a 1000 different "dollars"? You have not answered that.
If Wal-Mart won't take some currency for some reason then that would be their choice, and their loss.
Oh great. Now I a bunch of Iriemon bank dollars and no one has to take them. I gotta tell you, this system is sinking fast as a viable alternative.
However, since that currency would be a claim to a certain amount of gold or silver there should be no reason that Wal-Mart wouldn't accept that currency, unless the currency has in fact been debased and it isn't certain that they'd be able to claim their gold or silver with the "dollar."
What do you think Madoff "gold backed" dollars are worth these days? If you hold a million in Madoff dollars you're kind of screwed, aren't you?
Or is the Govt going to police every entrepreneur that decides to issue dollars?
