Shut Down the Federal Reserve?

Is the quotation from the article urging to Shut Down the Federal Reserve accurate? Why is there so little education about the Federal Reserve in the media, schools and universities?
Why is the Government Accountability Office not allowed a full audit of the Federal Reserve? The position that something is very wrong with the Federal Reserve is even supported by some courageous Congressmen. If their accusations are unfounded, then why aren’t the democratically elected Congressmen allowed to audit the Federal Reserve’s alleged private ownership and selfish activities? The US Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5, states that Congress has the authority to “coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”.
Why is the Federal Reserve so secretive?

http://thomaspainereturns.net/posts/sdfr.html
"The band aids will not help the economic crisis. There is a systemic problem. The Federal Reserve and all the central banks in the world that are designed on its model are defrauding the people of the world.

There is no rational reason why the U.S. Congress cannot print its own currency. The Congress was intimidated, bribed and blackmailed into creating and maintaining the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve was awarded a contract to manage the currency in America. The cost of that contract to the U.S. has been $10 trillion in national debt.

To try to cover for the Federal Reserve’s greedy fraud, many countries are being forced to pay into the Federal Reserve coffers to keep the world economy afloat. One of the ways they are being forced to pay is through devaluation of their currencies with respect to the U.S. dollar, which is a way of building up America at the expense of others in the world.

All of the band-aid measures will fail. The problem is the Federal Reserve, which concept is founded upon debt-based currency and fraud. It must be closed down or it will continue to suck the resources of the U.S. with its currency management contract. The American government could do the Federal Reserve’s job for virtually nothing, and save the U.S. taxpayers between $200 and $900 billion each year in interest off a debt that will never be paid off."

“McFadden is also remembered for his criticism of the Federal Reserve, which he claimed was created and operated by European banking interests who conspired to economically control the United States. On June 10, 1932, McFadden made a 25-minute speech before the House of Representatives[2] , in which he accused the Federal Reserve of deliberately causing the Great Depression.”

“Long was a staunch opponent of the Federal Reserve Bank. Together with a group of Congressmen and Senators, Long believed the Federal Reserve’s policies to be the true cause of the Great Depression. Long made speeches denouncing the large banking houses of Morgan and Rockefeller centered in New York which owned stock in the Federal Reserve System. He believed that they controlled the monetary system to their own benefit, instead of the general public’s benefit.”

“Paul opposes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve’s control of the nations money supply and interest rates. He wants to allow the free market to regulate interest rates, and supports congresses constitutional role of controlling the money supply. Paul endorses H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, a bill introduced by Congressman Ron Paul mandating an audit of the Federal Reserve. Although Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve, he supports transparency and accountability of the semi-private institution. Additionally, Paul opposes inflation and supports “restoring the value of the dollar that has devalued by approximately 95% since the Federal Reserve’s inception in 1913”.”

Because the federal reserve funds over 90% of monteray research. Because all the major journals of economics have (in)direct ties to the federal reserve. Because everyone in government benefits enourmously from being able to tax via inflation.

Even Milton Friedman, the father of the monetarist school who provided all the intellectual cover for the fed, wants the fed to be abolished; he thinks that while in principle it could do good it always makes the wrong choices.

Its so one sided that we’ve only ever heard Bloomj31 make an argument in favor of it, which was essentially that he liked the government and wanted them to continue extorting money in this hidden way.

“Even Milton Friedman, the father of the monetarist school who provided all the intellectual cover for the fed, wants the fed to be abolished; he thinks that while in principle it could do good it always makes the wrong choices.”

Source please.

This interview http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/best-of-both-worlds/4 he also says in the interview earlier that he would like to be a zero government libertarian.

Certainly.

Friedman is a little churlish though. He was quite rude to Block over the anarcho-capitalism in a series of letters. I bring it up only because the freaking guy who invented the idea doesn’t even think the fed should be kept around.

From an interview on October 28, 1994 on Book TV:

Brian Lamb: “What do you think of the Federal Reserve Board today?”

Milton Friedman: “Well, I’ve long been in favor of abolishing it. I think it - There is no institution in the United States that has such a high public standing and such a poor record of performance.”

Source.

Although Friedman wanted to abolish the Federal Reserve, his reasoning differed from that of the Austrian school.

“which was essentially that he liked the government and wanted them to continue extorting money in this hidden way.”

I said it is a means to an end that can’t really be accomplished as easily otherwise.

If there is no central bank, how can the government pay for defense without raising income taxes?

Did someone call for a run on the bank?(grimace)

When the evil rule over other banks and media of exchange has ended, we will all be better for it!

I don’t think many folks understand that under hard money, the standard of living increases for all classes over time. Perhaps more will find a methodology to enlighten their subjects of discourse on this?

To bloom, everything is a means to an end. Even ends.

Bloom, my friend, you’re ignoring inflation. I’ll run with your notions for the sake of argument. Let’s assume for a moment that we need the state and that the state must supply defense, and that the state can do that either through raising income taxes or printing money.

Now, let’s say the government pays for it with income taxes. Everyone has less money, thus slowing down the growth of the economy and the civilizing process of accumulation of capital. All in all: bad. On that I believe we can agree.

But with printing, things are worse. First you have the inflation itself, which not only destroys the value of money (thus lowering real wages at least as much eventually as you’d lose by being taxed, if not more) it also seriously throws off economic calculation. After all, with uncertainty as to how far a dollar will go in the future, businesses will be more prone to conservatism and will likely make more mistakes, thus further slowing down the forces of civilization. Not only THAT, but with the Federal Reserve system we currently have (that works indirectly, not simply printing money and giving it to government) the printed money distorts the distribution of resources (since the money isn’t actually backed by any deferred consumption). This does things like cause the business cycle and distort the economy in favor of those who receive the printed money (after all, they have a larger share of the supposed resources, which means greater demand, which means that suppliers will try and function more to get their money).

(By the way, any proper Austrians may feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on any of this–like I’ve mentioned, I’m still new to this.)

There is no question in my mind that taxes and inflation have an adverse effect on the economy. I suppose if the economy were my first and only priority, this would be the ultimate bad. But alas, the economy is not really my concern because I know that economies are resilient but not infinitely resilient.

Also, I have never said (in this thread, I know I’ve said it in others a long time ago) that we need the state to provide defense, I don’t think we do. I’m sure private defense and law could be done. I don’t see them as impossible.

Well, in the case of war, if there were very low taxes, growth would be encouraged. Because of this, there would be more to take even if you took less (so 1% taxes for 1,000,000 companies>50% taxes with 100 companies)

“Well, in the case of war, if there were very low taxes, growth would be encouraged. Because of this, there would be more to take even if you took less (so 1% taxes for 1,000,000 companies>50% taxes with 100 companies)”

Agreed. I’m all for lowering taxes.