Thoughts?
Y no responses?
The federal reserve… well he surely explained where it came from >_>; Didn’t magically pop out of thin air to call it completely private.
I’d like to know how the guy hosting [“Ghost”] thinks of the Federal Reserve’s efficiency of monetary policy. He should meet Bernake xD
I don’t think the Federal Reserve had any role shifting the economic status of the 1900s from manufacturing to service thanks to improvement in technology (easier to produce cars through automative means etc).
EDIT: to be fair I doubt the guy posting and the guy making that broadcast don’t really know the true malice of the FED. They might as well be using the knowledge they learned in public education.
Well the issue is the audit of the Fed. Ron Paul audits the Fed, now what? Now the government has complete control over our monetary system.
Still only one response? COME AWWN, MEN!
I haven’t watched the video yet, but I think the most likely immediate outcome of the end-the-Fed movement is the government directly taking over the issuance of money and credit. Technically, it never gave up that power (per the US Constitution) - it just delegated it to the Federal Reserve. Ending the Fed would likely mean a return to “greenbackism” in the short term. This would probably lead to much higher inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation. In response, the government would first impose price and wage controls, then outright rationing.
Hyperinflation of the dollar would also mean a collapse of the world financial system, which still uses the dollar as its reserve currency. In an increasingly desperate effort to hold things together, the government would resort to outright violent appropriation of things it wants, including people (for labor). It would face resistance both domestically and overseas. If the latter is stronger than the former, then I think the government would go “all in” and launch an overt global war. It might even do this if domestic resistance is stronger.
Ultimately, as I see it, either human civilization perishes in a nuclear holocaust or the US global hegemony collapses beforehand, with hopefully nothing taking its place.
I think I left out an important piece of the puzzle in my previous post. I think the government will increasingly take an adversarial view against the Fed if the latter starts to resist requests to monetize more and more debt. If the Fed caves in, we essentially have the scenario I described, except for some cosmetic details; otherwise, a political case against the Fed will build until there’s enough political momentum to abolish it, at which point the exact scenario I described unfolds. That’s the way I see it, at least.
This guy is an ignoramus of epic proportions. Hans Hoppe on the economic situation in Europe prior to WWI. In Europe, America was known as “the land with streets paved with gold”. The idiot with the radio program describes the US prior to the Fed as an economic disaster zone. What a tool.
Clayton -
Does anyone consider the role of the Exchange Stabilization Fund? It is a part of the Treasury.
The ESF has just as much power (if not more) than the Fed. The Fed is actually legally forced to comply ESF wishes. The ESF is what funds the CIA black divisions, the IMF, etc. The ESF is where the Nazi plunder siezed by the US went. The ESF is where CIA deposits illegal earnings. You name it and the ESF is a heavy, albeit partially hidden, participant.
It kind of sucks because, Rothbard doesn’t really mention the ESF. The Austrians (because of the theory of central banking) place all of the blame on the FED, but it says in the 1934 Gold Act (w/e it was called) that the ESF is to be run by the SECTRS and is not legally bound to any of the laws of the United States. The ESF has been used over and over to fund other governments (foreign) programs, currency swaps, et al and the money doesn’t have to be officially recognized as spent.
So, a bunch of people chosen by the government have a monopoly over the emission of currency and you think that they are any better than a direct government control over your monetary system. Anyway, Ron Paul has specifically said that he wants different currencies to be allowed compete with the dollar. I believe that he wants to audit the FED in order to give people a more clear view of what those people in control of the currency are doing (evil things, no doubt) with their powers. That would give people clear facts, so people would listen to reason and agree to switch to gold/ silver/ anything else.
But that’s compared to the economic situation in Europe back then.
But what happens when he audits the FED? Even if some funny business is discovered, most likely all that will happen is that the Govt. will get more involved in our monetary system.
As for “competing currencies”, I doubt anyone except a tiny fraction of the population will actually print their own money, and don’t see how this is possibly even a serious issue.
Is that what you think it is about? Printing money? Or, rather, allowing other people to print money?
“Competing currencies” refers to the use of commodities as money. You should read up a little on it…
I doubt that many people will do that either.
Do what? Use commodities as money? Why would that be doubted? Would they instead issue their own notes with nothing ‘backing’ them?
Commodity money serves more purposes than simply trade. It is not a replacment of facilitation. It is allowing different forms of capital to accumulate and for that to be used as (a type of) collateral for credit. If loans can only be made by banks in the form of paper currency then it limits the people out there who have valuable record collections that can loan against with their own money to give people they know achance to start production in some way. And that is an obscure example.
Why are you referring to this as a hypothetical?
Clayton -
Most people in this country would probably stick with government money, as that’s what they’re most used to/comfortable with, imo.
Perhaps there would be some bozos that would rather hold 80c $'s than $1.00 $'s. Those concerned with their $'s however, would not.
Wut?