Should We Kill The Fed?

[Iriemon]

What does the Fed do that Congress and the treasury couldn't do with out them?

Operate without direct and short term political pressure. Congress did create the Fed.

Our founding fathers recognized that for some functions of government, it is better that they be able to act without the effect of short term poitical pressure of having to be elected, that they can make decisions they think is best for the long term even if not immediately popular with the electorate. Federal judges, for example, are appointed with life time tenure.

This same concept was in mind when Congress created the Fed. With rare wisdom, congress knew that it, a body with direct response to the electorate, could not be independent enough to be in charge of something as potentially devastating as the money supply. So they created a quasi-independent branch that was regularly appointed by the Govt but still had some independence from the political process.

It was very wise of them. We have seen in history the consequences of bad money policy. Many people here blame everything bad in the economy on the Fed. Look at a few examples of hyperinflation to see what really bad monetary policy can achieve.

 

[Iriemon]

Sure it would be fraudulent and illegal. When has that ever stopped shysters. How are you going to prevent the Madoff out there from ripping people off? What are you going to do with the people who have been stolen from and now have their life savings in worthless Madoff certificates?

BTW, I image with the pure gold standard, each certificate issue will have to have actual gold to back up its certificates. So they'll need vaults, like a bank. What are they going to do to compensate themselves for the service of creating money? Maybe print a bit for themselves?

Because some may abuse the system doesn't mean that it's not a good system.

Oh yes it does when you are talking about a money system!

Again, for you folks who think banks have too much control know because of the Fed, an independent not for profit government agency, your system would give private banks direct power to control and create money, unregulated apparently. Huge private banks would have far more power over the economy.

 

[editec]

The gold standard pretty much puts a stop to inflation. The only time prices go up is when more gold is put into the system.


The gold standard was right.

You gold bugs are idiots.

No offense dude but a gold standard insures continuous deflation in a thriving society.

The inevitable outcome of a gold standard (or silver standard, or diamond standard or any standard which confuses STUFF for money) is a very wealthy banking elite and an completely impoverished working class.

And that is why when nations were on gold standards few of them thrived UNLESS they suddenly found themselves with enormous amount so NEW gold to play with.

And even then, when Spain had a pefectly sound gold standard, inflation reared its ugly head when they suddenly got a LOT of it.

Study what happened to SPAIN's economy when they took over the new world and suddently found themselves with enormous amounts of gold in the treasury.

In the short run they were wealthy and powerful, but in the long run all that gold didn't help (because it did not encourage additional productivity), and their economy (and power) faded.

Neither money NOR gold is wealth

LABOR CREATES WEALTH.

Nothing else but labor creates wealth.

All money should ever represent is the aggregate ability of a society to create wealth.

The gold standard will replace the problem of fiat dollars with an even more deadly problem...DEFLATION.

We "gold bugs" have feelings too, ed.

At any rate, deflation isn't deadly. It means that your dollars gain value.

Kevin you simply do not understand economics.

Given that you are obviously a student of people who lie to you brilliantly, that's understandable.

 

[sealybobo]

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 should make this a debate and force the GOP to defend their position that all government is evil, that goverrnment is not the solution, it is the problem.

And these people, after what just happened, STILL want the bankers to have the power/control.

Forgive them lord, for they know not what they say.

Unless they are bankers themselves maybe???

Most people who think this way fear that change will negatively affect them. They may even know deep down that the bankers own this country, but they don't want to buck the corrupt system because it is working for them.

My union dad doesn't want universal healthcare. Wonder why? Oh yea, he has a great pension. So he's just afraid that doing the right thing might not help him.

People are greedy, and ignorant.

So I'm ALMOST glad Wallstreet/Bankers/AIG/Bear Stearns/Federal Reserve got so greedy and went so far, because it has made guys like me and Kevin Kennedy stop bickering over what is not important. Doesn't matter if Dems lead or the GOP leads. They are both being controlled by the shadow government (Bankers who own the Federal Reserve).

Now on top of the bankers, the corporations that send lobbyists to Washington are the second problem. Our system is designed so that we know these lobbyists are bribing our politicians to do favors for them. That has to stop. One person, one vote. Corporations should stay out of politics. I know that is impossible and an entire discussion on its own, but the bottom line is that the system is corrupt and we all know it.

 

[Iriemon]

Should We Kill the Fed? by Patrick J. Buchanan

And replace it with what exactly?

The free market and sound money.

Buzz words for "a pure gold standard where our currency is completely controlled by unregulated private banks and currency supply is at the whim of a commodity"

 

[Iriemon]

I went away on business.

We can go to McDonalds and use Visa or Mastercard or Discover card. We're given a choice there... why not with the currency we use? They'll probably price things for the few most used currencies, like Europe did when they had both the Euro and their local currency for a brief period. I was in fact in Germany when Euro was just taking over there, and it was pretty cool to be able to use different currencies at the same store.

I do rather agree that we need a State to enforce contracts are respected and property rights are ensured and fraud is caught and punished, however, they certainly do not need to monopolize and be in control of something as important as the money supply. Fraud does consist of making loans with money you don't have (i.e. leveraging), so bubbles would still be totally eliminated.

I think we figured out what you are talking about. If you are proposing a different system that what has been discussed in this thread you can let us know.

Boom and bust have existed regardless of the type of currency used. Its a function of greed and fear in free markets. I can't see how a pure gold standard replaces those incentives.

 

[sealybobo]

Because some may abuse the system doesn't mean that it's not a good system.

Oh yes it does when you are talking about a money system!

Again, for you folks who think banks have too much control know because of the Fed, an independent not for profit government agency, your system would give private banks direct power to control and create money, unregulated apparently. Huge private banks would have far more power over the economy.

Not for profit? What do you call the national debt? OMG!!!

I wish I would have saved the Wallstreet Journal I read the other day. There was an article on the Fed. Something about the NY Federal Reserve, or one of the Regional Fed's. Anyways, long story short, in the article it said something about the government not deciding who the bank presidents are.

Bottom line, the bankers have too much power. I don't believe you are taking this position. I love it!!! I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Henry Ford Quote: It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

You need to watch Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo.

We know the bankers got too powerful in Europe. When we became our own country, our founding fathers warned us about the bankers becoming too powerful here, but slowly over time they have gained more and more power here. In 1913 they started the Federal Reserve and right around there they finally started taxing our income. People are really stupid.

Mayer Amschel Bauer] (1744 -1812), Godfather of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe

"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."

Our government is the best government on the planet. It may have its flaws, but it is the best there is. If it is between letting industry rule this country or us, I choose We the People.

Why even have elections? Why not just let the most successful companies run the show?

And why couldn't these bankers get us out of this financial crisis? It took the government to save their sorry asses. And you want them to rule? Wow!!!! WOW!!!!

Are you a bank owner?

 

[Iriemon]

You gold bugs are idiots.

No offense dude but a gold standard insures continuous deflation in a thriving society.

The inevitable outcome of a gold standard (or silver standard, or diamond standard or any standard which confuses STUFF for money) is a very wealthy banking elite and an completely impoverished working class.

And that is why when nations were on gold standards few of them thrived UNLESS they suddenly found themselves with enormous amount so NEW gold to play with.

And even then, when Spain had a pefectly sound gold standard, inflation reared its ugly head when they suddenly got a LOT of it.

Study what happened to SPAIN's economy when they took over the new world and suddently found themselves with enormous amounts of gold in the treasury.

In the short run they were wealthy and powerful, but in the long run all that gold didn't help (because it did not encourage additional productivity), and their economy (and power) faded.

Neither money NOR gold is wealth

LABOR CREATES WEALTH.

Nothing else but labor creates wealth.

All money should ever represent is the aggregate ability of a society to create wealth.

The gold standard will replace the problem of fiat dollars with an even more deadly problem...DEFLATION.

We "gold bugs" have feelings too, ed.

At any rate, deflation isn't deadly. It means that your dollars gain value.

Kevin you simply do not understand economics.

Given that you are obviously a student of people who lie to you brilliantly, that's understandable.

You can see from the start of this thread, anti-Fed people usually come from a misunderstanding of how the Fed operates (usually generated from watching a few conspirasts type videos out there I've seen) and they have a believe that the Fed is a private company, owned by evil bankers who use it to control the world. Then they think that if we return to a gold standard, which has been tried for centuries and abandoned again and again because of its failures as an adequate money system for a modern economy, will somehow eliminate evil bankers.

The Govt isn't perfect, neither is the Fed. But why someone would want to put our money supply in the hands of folks like Bernie Madoff and for profit bankers is puzzling to me.

 

[editec]

I went away on business.

We can go to McDonalds and use Visa or Mastercard or Discover card. We're given a choice there... why not with the currency we use? They'll probably price things for the few most used currencies, like Europe did when they had both the Euro and their local currency for a brief period. I was in fact in Germany when Euro was just taking over there, and it was pretty cool to be able to use different currencies at the same store.

I do rather agree that we need a State to enforce contracts are respected and property rights are ensured and fraud is caught and punished, however, they certainly do not need to monopolize and be in control of something as important as the money supply. Fraud does consist of making loans with money you don't have (i.e. leveraging), so bubbles would still be totally eliminated.

I think we figured out what you are talking about. If you are proposing a different system that what has been discussed in this thread you can let us know.

Boom and bust have existed regardless of the type of currency used. Its a function of greed and fear in free markets. I can't see how a pure gold standard replaces those incentives.

Kudos to both you and Sealy are warranted.

Do we need something LIKE a fed?

I think we do.

Do we want to grant the authority to manipulate the money supply to people who can take that franchise and make it serve ONLY them?

Obvious not.

Is the government just as capable of being venal and destroying ourr economy as the current crop of bankers have obviously done?

Damned right they are.

There is NO SYSTEM that one can devise that will do anything to stop corrupt people from acting selfishly in their own interests.

The ONLY advantage of giving government control over the money supply (as opposed to bankers) is that we get to CHOOSE our leaders in government.

Given the corruption of our government by monied interests, given the fact that they have created a shamocracy, the complaint that many of you have have when people like myself of Sealy demand that we take back that franchise that fractal banking gives to banks is NOT WITHOUT merit.

It is just as likely that a FED run by a government will screw up, as it is that a FED dominated by monied interest will screw up IF the government itself is corrupt.

Nevertheless, the GOLD STANDARD will not solve that problem because the GOLD standard is a system with an inherent flaw that apparently many of you fail to understand.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You gold bugs are idiots.

No offense dude but a gold standard insures continuous deflation in a thriving society.

The inevitable outcome of a gold standard (or silver standard, or diamond standard or any standard which confuses STUFF for money) is a very wealthy banking elite and an completely impoverished working class.

And that is why when nations were on gold standards few of them thrived UNLESS they suddenly found themselves with enormous amount so NEW gold to play with.

And even then, when Spain had a pefectly sound gold standard, inflation reared its ugly head when they suddenly got a LOT of it.

Study what happened to SPAIN's economy when they took over the new world and suddently found themselves with enormous amounts of gold in the treasury.

In the short run they were wealthy and powerful, but in the long run all that gold didn't help (because it did not encourage additional productivity), and their economy (and power) faded.

Neither money NOR gold is wealth

LABOR CREATES WEALTH.

Nothing else but labor creates wealth.

All money should ever represent is the aggregate ability of a society to create wealth.

The gold standard will replace the problem of fiat dollars with an even more deadly problem...DEFLATION.

We "gold bugs" have feelings too, ed.

At any rate, deflation isn't deadly. It means that your dollars gain value.

Kevin you simply do not understand economics.

Given that you are obviously a student of people who lie to you brilliantly, that's understandable.

I'm pretty sure I understand economics fairly well, though I don't profess to be any kind of genius.

If you're looking for a more detailed explanation of why deflation isn't a bad thing, I'd suggest reading Deflation and Liberty.

Deflation and Liberty - Jörg Guido Hülsmann - Ludwig von Mises Institute

 

[Iriemon]

Oh yes it does when you are talking about a money system!

Again, for you folks who think banks have too much control know because of the Fed, an independent not for profit government agency, your system would give private banks direct power to control and create money, unregulated apparently. Huge private banks would have far more power over the economy.

Not for profit? What do you call the national debt? OMG!!!

It is certainly not the Fed's profit! LOL! Where do you get these ideas? Please explain how you could think the national debt somehow demonstrates the Fed is "for-profit". Thanks.

The National debt is the cumulation of the Govt (not Fed) spending more than its tax revenues year after year. It is an obligation of the Govt (not Fed).

I wish I would have saved the Wallstreet Journal I read the other day. There was an article on the Fed. Something about the NY Federal Reserve, or one of the Regional Fed's. Anyways, long story short, in the article it said something about the government not deciding who the bank presidents are.

The WSJ has sadly become Murdoch news outlet pap. But if you want to give me a cite I'll look at it.

Bottom line, the bankers have too much power. I don't believe you are taking this position. I love it!!! I look forward to continuing this discussion.

So your proposal is to give a giant bank or two unregulated power over the currency. That would solve the problem.

Henry Ford Quote: It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

Good for Henry.

You need to watch Freedom to Fascism by Aaron Russo.

We know the bankers got too powerful in Europe. When we became our own country, our founding fathers warned us about the bankers becoming too powerful here, but slowly over time they have gained more and more power here. In 1913 they started the Federal Reserve and right around there they finally started taxing our income. People are really stupid.

Mayer Amschel Bauer] (1744 -1812), Godfather of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe

"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."

So why on earth do you want to take control of the money supply from a govt agency (the Fed) and give it to private bankers?

Our government is the best government on the planet. It may have its flaws, but it is the best there is. If it is between letting industry rule this country or us, I choose We the People.

Why even have elections? Why not just let the most successful companies run the show?

Me too. Which is a major reason I prefer an independent non-profit govt agnecy to control the money supply than private banks.

And why couldn't these bankers get us out of this financial crisis? It took the government to save their sorry asses. And you want them to rule? Wow!!!! WOW!!!!

I can see we are not devolving back to square one.

Please explain, with citations to reliable sources, how private bankers rule by controlling the money supply.

Are you a bank owner?

LOL - not even close. Never even worked for a bank.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We "gold bugs" have feelings too, ed.

At any rate, deflation isn't deadly. It means that your dollars gain value.

Kevin you simply do not understand economics.

Given that you are obviously a student of people who lie to you brilliantly, that's understandable.

You can see from the start of this thread, anti-Fed people usually come from a misunderstanding of how the Fed operates (usually generated from watching a few conspirasts type videos out there I've seen) and they have a believe that the Fed is a private company, owned by evil bankers who use it to control the world. Then they think that if we return to a gold standard, which has been tried for centuries and abandoned again and again because of its failures as an adequate money system for a modern economy, will somehow eliminate evil bankers.

The Govt isn't perfect, neither is the Fed. But why someone would want to put our money supply in the hands of folks like Bernie Madoff and for profit bankers is puzzling to me.

I do not watch conspiracy theory videos, I do not for a second believe the Fed is a private company, and the gold standard has been abandoned throughout history because inflation allows the government to finance the welfare-warfare state.

 

[Iriemon]

Kevin you simply do not understand economics.

Given that you are obviously a student of people who lie to you brilliantly, that's understandable.

You can see from the start of this thread, anti-Fed people usually come from a misunderstanding of how the Fed operates (usually generated from watching a few conspirasts type videos out there I've seen) and they have a believe that the Fed is a private company, owned by evil bankers who use it to control the world. Then they think that if we return to a gold standard, which has been tried for centuries and abandoned again and again because of its failures as an adequate money system for a modern economy, will somehow eliminate evil bankers.

The Govt isn't perfect, neither is the Fed. But why someone would want to put our money supply in the hands of folks like Bernie Madoff and for profit bankers is puzzling to me.

I do not watch conspiracy theory videos, I do not for a second believe the Fed is a private company, and the gold standard has been abandoned throughout history because inflation allows the government to finance the welfare-warfare state.

So Kevin, if you understand that Fed is not a private company, then why would you say I'm "cuckoo" for saying the Fed does not operate as a for profit private company?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can see from the start of this thread, anti-Fed people usually come from a misunderstanding of how the Fed operates (usually generated from watching a few conspirasts type videos out there I've seen) and they have a believe that the Fed is a private company, owned by evil bankers who use it to control the world. Then they think that if we return to a gold standard, which has been tried for centuries and abandoned again and again because of its failures as an adequate money system for a modern economy, will somehow eliminate evil bankers.

The Govt isn't perfect, neither is the Fed. But why someone would want to put our money supply in the hands of folks like Bernie Madoff and for profit bankers is puzzling to me.

I do not watch conspiracy theory videos, I do not for a second believe the Fed is a private company, and the gold standard has been abandoned throughout history because inflation allows the government to finance the welfare-warfare state.

So Kevin, if you understand that Fed is not a private company, then why would you say I'm "cuckoo" for saying the Fed does not operate as a for profit private company?

I'm not sure that I've ever said that.

 

[Iriemon]

I do not watch conspiracy theory videos, I do not for a second believe the Fed is a private company, and the gold standard has been abandoned throughout history because inflation allows the government to finance the welfare-warfare state.

So Kevin, if you understand that Fed is not a private company, then why would you say I'm "cuckoo" for saying the Fed does not operate as a for profit private company?

I'm not sure that I've ever said that.

Damn I did it again, read someone else's post thinking it was yours. Sorry again, I'll try to be more careful making sure who I'm reading.

 

[sealybobo]

I went away on business.

We can go to McDonalds and use Visa or Mastercard or Discover card. We're given a choice there... why not with the currency we use? They'll probably price things for the few most used currencies, like Europe did when they had both the Euro and their local currency for a brief period. I was in fact in Germany when Euro was just taking over there, and it was pretty cool to be able to use different currencies at the same store.

I do rather agree that we need a State to enforce contracts are respected and property rights are ensured and fraud is caught and punished, however, they certainly do not need to monopolize and be in control of something as important as the money supply. Fraud does consist of making loans with money you don't have (i.e. leveraging), so bubbles would still be totally eliminated.

I think we figured out what you are talking about. If you are proposing a different system that what has been discussed in this thread you can let us know.

Boom and bust have existed regardless of the type of currency used. Its a function of greed and fear in free markets. I can't see how a pure gold standard replaces those incentives.

Kudos to both you and Sealy are warranted.

Do we need something LIKE a fed?

I think we do.

Do we want to grant the authority to manipulate the money supply to people who can take that franchise and make it serve ONLY them?

Obvious not.

Is the government just as capable of being venal and destroying ourr economy as the current crop of bankers have obviously done?

Damned right they are.

There is NO SYSTEM that one can devise that will do anything to stop corrupt people from acting selfishly in their own interests.

The ONLY advantage of giving government control over the money supply (as opposed to bankers) is that we get to CHOOSE our leaders in government.

Given the corruption of our government by monied interests, given the fact that they have created a shamocracy, the complaint that many of you have have when people like myself of Sealy demand that we take back that franchise that fractal banking gives to banks is NOT WITHOUT merit.

It is just as likely that a FED run by a government will screw up, as it is that a FED dominated by monied interest will screw up IF the government itself is corrupt.

Nevertheless, the GOLD STANDARD will not solve that problem because the GOLD standard is a system with an inherent flaw that apparently many of you fail to understand.

Ron Paul: I want to give you an update on H.R. 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve. We’re making great progress because a lot of you have helped encourage your member of Congress to co-sponsor the bill. We now have about 39 co-sponsors of the bill [44 as of 3/25/2009] and it’s been introduced in the Senate and we’re picking up a lot of momentum.

And to me, this is very, very important that we do this. The atmosphere in the Congress has definitely changed. It’s changed with their attitude about the Federal Reserve System, but overall there’s a tremendous push by the American people for the Congress to wake up and have more transparency.

They have heard about the stories of the Congress appropriating 700 billion dollars of TARP funds and nobody knowing where this money went, and it ends up paying huge bonuses to people who broke AIG… so the people are demanding more oversight and, fortunately, they’re putting the pressure on the Federal Reserve as well, and that’s why we’re getting so much support for this piece of legislation.

We still have a long way to go, because the special interests are very, very powerful and they don’t want this to happen and yet I think the momentum is in our direction.

In 1950 the law was changed and it exempted the Federal Reserve from any auditing procedures, and they have run wild since then. And what needs to be done is a certain portion of the code has to be repealed so that when we ask questions to the Federal Reserve, they have to answer these questions.

So, to me this is very, very encouraging and we have to keep the heat on. This has been a project of many groups around the country to get more co-sponsors, because ultimately the Congress will respond if there is enough pressure by the people.

Ron Paul: Audit the Federal Reserve! | Ron Paul .com

 

[sealybobo]

Kevin you simply do not understand economics.

Given that you are obviously a student of people who lie to you brilliantly, that's understandable.

You can see from the start of this thread, anti-Fed people usually come from a misunderstanding of how the Fed operates (usually generated from watching a few conspirasts type videos out there I've seen) and they have a believe that the Fed is a private company, owned by evil bankers who use it to control the world. Then they think that if we return to a gold standard, which has been tried for centuries and abandoned again and again because of its failures as an adequate money system for a modern economy, will somehow eliminate evil bankers.

The Govt isn't perfect, neither is the Fed. But why someone would want to put our money supply in the hands of folks like Bernie Madoff and for profit bankers is puzzling to me.

I do not watch conspiracy theory videos, I do not for a second believe the Fed is a private company, and the gold standard has been abandoned throughout history because inflation allows the government to finance the welfare-warfare state.

The Federal Reserve only appears to be under government control. Who gave the Fed the authority to bail out Bear Stearns the first time? Congress didn't vote on it and the President said nothing. And for those who think the Fed is a non profit, just take a look at the debt. That's all their money. They love us doubling the debt.

Anyone who blows off Freedom to Fascism as a conspiracy theory dvd is a god damn fool.

The Fed is a quasi-public (government entity with private components) banking system

The system was designed out of a compromise between the competing philosophies of privatization and government regulation.[22] While planning the design of the system, some people wanted the system to have generally private aspects whereas others wanted more government involvement. The system that resulted ended up being a compromise between these two philosophies. In 2006 Donald L. Kohn, vice chairman of the Board of Governors, summarized the history of this compromise:[25]

Agrarian and progressive interests, led by William Jennings Bryan, favored a central bank under public, rather than banker, control. But the vast majority of the nation's bankers, concerned about government intervention in the banking business, opposed a central bank structure directed by political appointees.

The legislation that Congress ultimately adopted in 1913 reflected a hard-fought battle to balance these two competing views and created the hybrid public-private, centralized-decentralized structure that we have today.

In the current system, private banks are for-profit businesses but government regulation places restrictions on what they can do. The Federal Reserve System is the part of government that regulates the private banks. The balance between privatization and government involvement is also seen in the structure of the system. Private banks elect members of the board of directors at their regional Federal Reserve Bank while the members of the Board of Governors are selected by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The private banks give input to the government officials about their economic situation and these government officials use this input in Federal Reserve policy decisions. In the end, private banking businesses are able to run a profitable business while the U.S. government, through the Federal Reserve System, oversees and regulates the activities of the private banks.


What an elaborate scam. When you look at all the facts, you can not escape that this is a very corrupt system without enough checks, balances and oversite.

Anyone who defends the status quo is a fucking fool. Iriemon, time to wake up.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can see from the start of this thread, anti-Fed people usually come from a misunderstanding of how the Fed operates (usually generated from watching a few conspirasts type videos out there I've seen) and they have a believe that the Fed is a private company, owned by evil bankers who use it to control the world. Then they think that if we return to a gold standard, which has been tried for centuries and abandoned again and again because of its failures as an adequate money system for a modern economy, will somehow eliminate evil bankers.

The Govt isn't perfect, neither is the Fed. But why someone would want to put our money supply in the hands of folks like Bernie Madoff and for profit bankers is puzzling to me.

I do not watch conspiracy theory videos, I do not for a second believe the Fed is a private company, and the gold standard has been abandoned throughout history because inflation allows the government to finance the welfare-warfare state.

The Federal Reserve only appears to be under government control. Who gave the Fed the authority to bail out Bear Stearns the first time? Congress didn't vote on it and the President said nothing. And for those who think the Fed is a non profit, just take a look at the debt. That's all their money. They love us doubling the debt.

The Federal Reserve is a government agency that is able to act of it's own accord and maintain it's secrecy because of a law preventing them from being audited. That's why H.R. 1207 is so important, it will at least allow our elected officials to look at what the Fed is doing.

 

[editec]

But only Sennholz did not flinch from praising deflation​

and depression when it came to abolishing fiat
money and putting a sound money system in its place.
By contrast, Mises and Rothbard championed deflation
only to the extent it accelerated the readjustment of the
economy in a bust that followed a period of inflationary
boom. But they explicitly (Mises) and implicitly
(Rothbard) sought to avoid deflation in all other contexts.
In particular, when it came to monetary reform,
both Mises and Rothbard championed schemes to
“redefine” a paper currency’s “price of gold” to restore
convertibility.5​

Okay, I'm still on board at this stage, Kev. Deflation can be a good thing when, as is happening now, it is destroying fiat wealth that exists in financial bubbles.​

I CAN sign onto that sentiment for sure. But as must be apparent that does NOT require a gold standard to happen.​

It's happening right now. ​

But there is also another issue that needs to be
addressed: what is actually wrong with deflating the
money supply, from an economic point of view?​

Okay, here we go...WOW me, please, I need a revelation​

David
Hume, Adam Smith, and Étienne de Condillac
observed that money is neither a consumers’ good nor
a producers’ good and that, therefore, its quantity is
irrelevant for the wealth of a nation.10 ​

Oh I don't know if I'd agree that the quantitity of curency in circulation is irrelevant It is ENTIRELY relevant to how much STUFF is in circulation. ​

This crucial insight would also inspire the intellectual battles of the
next four or five generations of economists—men such
as Jean-Baptiste Say, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill,
Frédéric Bastiat, and Carl Menger—who constantly
made the case for sound money.​

Sound money as in enough in circulation to facilitate an efficient market?​

I'm on board with that, for sure, too.​

David Hume believed that inflation could stimulate
production in the short run. ​

Yes, much like amphetimines give us more energy in the short run , I quite agree.​

Adam Smith believed
that inflation in the form of credit expansion was beneficial
if it was “backed up” with a “corresponding
amount” of real goods, ​

If it's backed up with increasing production it's NOT inflation of the money supply, it's aligning the money supply to the REAL WEALTH that has been CREATED​

Men such as Irving Fisher, Knut Wicksell, Karl Helfferich,
Friedrich Bendixen, Gustav Cassel, and especially
John Maynard Keynes set out on a relentless campaign
against the gold standard. These champions of inflation
conceded the insight of the classical economists, that
the wealth of a nation did not depend on its money
supply, but they argued that this was true only in the
long run. In the short run, the printing press could
work wonders. It could reduce unemployment and
stimulate production and economic growth.​

This guy does NOT understand Keynes. He is miststating the basic premise of Keynesian theory.​

Their NOT champions of inflation, they're champions of having a money supply that has something to do with productive capacity.​

BIG fucking difference.​

In the light of these long-term consequences of
inflation, its alleged short-run benefits lose much of
their attractiveness​

Okay this guy is boring me now, Kev.​

I'll tell you why..​

He isn't supporting deflation as a policy he's merely (and correctly, I'll note) explaining why INFLATION is bad.​

We ALL know that.​

Get to the part where you exxplain how DEFLATIOn is good, for God's sakes!.​

FROM THE STANDPOINT OF the commonly shared interests
of all members of society, the quantity of money is
irrelevant. Any quantity of money provides all the services
that indirect exchange can possibly provide, both
in the long run and in the short run.​

Okay his first mistake.

No, the quantify of money is NOT irrelevant.

It is ONLY irrelevant if the amount of money and the amount of goods and services STAY THE SAME.

Deflation
is a monetary phenomenon, and as such it does​

affect the distribution of wealth among the individuals
and various strata of society, as well as the relative
importance of the different branches of industry. But it
does not affect the aggregate wealth of society.​

And the above is his SECOND mistake.​

He is confusing WEALTH with money.​

IF in a deflationary cycle, it makes more sense for a person to hold onto his GOLD, rather than investing it into production -- becuse production cannot RETURN as much as it cost to produce, then DEFLATION prevents investment into productive activity.​

What part of this is hard to understand?​

If farmer need to 100 gold coins borrow to produce crops, and their return for those crops, ssix months later is 99 gold coins (because the value of produce is declining as the supply increases) , then guess what?​

The smart ones won't plant a fucking thing.​

Kevin the reason aman of you intelligence cannot easily explain to me why DEFLATION is a good thing is because it isn't a good thing.​

You scholar there aat the mises insituitue is not very smart.​

He spend inordinate amounts of time telling us why inflation is bad, and then begs the question about why DEFLATION is good.​

If you cannot sum up for me how the economy works in a DEFLATIONARY economy, why not?​

I defy YOU to show me how DEFLATION encourages production.​

If anything DEFLATION (thansk to gold standard) DISCOURAGES production.​

It discourage spending because the price of everything will be cheaper tomorrow,​

Us discourages investment into production, because the prices realized on investment will be declining incomparison to what it cost to make it originally.​

The argument against the GOLD standard is NOT an argument for inflation.​

It is an argument for having a money supply that is in STEP with proven prodcution.​

The money supply should FOLLOW changes in production.​

NOT lead it, but stay in step with it.

And in a thriving growing eeconomy, that requires and EXPANDING supply of specie.

In a failing economy, that requires a DECLINING supply of money.

Why are we going through DEFLATION now?

Because our productive capacity is declining NOW.

The bubbles we saw POP! popped because the monied class had too much money (in comparison to the production classes) and so their investments were chasing too FEW profits.

What we have just experienced is the market correcting itslef by DESTROYING FIAT money, amigo.

It didn't obviously destroy those diat dollars, but what it destroyed was the perception of wealth that was wholly artificial to begin with.

My house, which went up about 300% in the last twenty years is stil the same forking house, one which provides the same VALUE IN USE it always did.

Do you really GET that?





​

 

[sealybobo]

I do not watch conspiracy theory videos, I do not for a second believe the Fed is a private company, and the gold standard has been abandoned throughout history because inflation allows the government to finance the welfare-warfare state.

The Federal Reserve only appears to be under government control. Who gave the Fed the authority to bail out Bear Stearns the first time? Congress didn't vote on it and the President said nothing. And for those who think the Fed is a non profit, just take a look at the debt. That's all their money. They love us doubling the debt.

The Federal Reserve is a government agency that is able to act of it's own accord and maintain it's secrecy because of a law preventing them from being audited. That's why H.R. 1207 is so important, it will at least allow our elected officials to look at what the Fed is doing.

I just don't like it. This gives the bankers way too much power. I'm sure there are reasons for passing a law that protects the Fed from being audited, but I don't think I'll buy them. Seems pretty fishy to me.

Is the Fed the same as the FCC, , SEC, , NLRB, DOE & IRS? I would like to know the differences. Like, is there any private aspect to these other government agencies?

Most federal agencies are created by Congress through statutes called "enabling acts" which define the scope of an agency's authority. Because the Constitution does not expressly mention federal agencies (as it does the three branches), some commentators have called agencies the "headless fourth branch" of the federal government. However, most independent agencies are technically part of the executive branch, with a few located in the legislative branch of government. By enacting the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946, Congress established some means to oversee government agency action. The APA established uniform administrative law procedures for a federal agency's promulgation of rules, and adjudication of claims. The APA also sets forth the process for judicial review of agency action.