I’m deeply troubled by both progressives’ as well as many white nationalists (of which I’m not, of course) desires to nationalize the Federal Reserve.
They seem to forget that giving Congress the power to set interest rates and issue “debt-free money” is still giving the cartels the power to set interest rates. The white nationalists and progressives need to get one thing straight–congress is not ever going to serve the people, as governments aren’t capable of serving people and that hard precious metallic 100% reservism is the only way to end the banking cartel .
The white nationalists cite all of this bogus (i.e. false) evidence/claims that JFK and Lincoln were friends of the people, when we know that Lincoln was pro-FRB and JFK didn’t really have any stance on the Federal Reserve. It’s funny how Lincoln, of all people, has become of a hero of White Nationalists now.
Are they going to prevail over the hard money 100% reservists?
Hard money 100% reservism is the only thing that’s ethical and will defeat the banking cartel.
Actually a Fed under the Treasury would be so monumentally mismanaged, roughly as a republic is mismanaged compared to a monarchy (and for the very same reason), that hyperinflation would come much, much sooner and all this farce would end.
Merlin, I think such a statement is not necessarily true, one has to first consider the ideology of those who run the Treasury. But given the ideology of this time, era, and place, then yes, your statement is correct.
It’s certainly not necessarily true, but I can say that the tendency, at all times and ages, would be that. The current model of “independent” central banks gives ownership to the baking cartel itself, which is the entity that will benefit primarily for the central bank. No elections, just ‘succession’. It’s close to private property, in short.
A CB under the treasury is managed by folks who are elected and won’t be there in 4 years time. Hence, all the problems that stem form such considerations. Would Volker have had his way had the Fed been under the Treasury?
I think Merlin is right. Under the control of private banks the fed has some sort of long term outlook. Under the control of democratic politicians, the fed would have little interest in long term consequences.
I’m not sure about these white nationalists, but many who argue for congress to control the fed do so under the argument for constitutionalism. Judge Napolitano holds this position out of a desire to remain consistent with regards to the constitution.
If the Fed were “nationalized” under the likes of Judge Nap and Ron Paul, I don’t think we’d have much to worry about, especially since they would allow competing currencies.
Before the Fed, we had two other central banks in the early 19th century: The First and Second “Bank of the United States.” The Second Back lost its charter under Andrew Jackson, and Martin van Buren (Jackson’s successor) brought the control of the government’s finances under an “Independent Treasury” system. The “Independent Treasury” survived in various forms till after the creation of the Fed, in 1921. Inflation wasn’t bad for most of this period.
Again, it’s all about the ideology of the people in power.
The first two banks and the subsequent system are no proper comparisons, as back than money was gold, and all a central bank could do was meddle with reserves, which is not as inflationary as printing. So, back than there was no way to inflate as much as we could now. If Van Buren’s system had given the treasury the right of print, rest assure that the US monetary system would have been wrecked, ideology notwithstanding. Ron Paul can do nothing to prevent that with a nationalized Fed.
The best route, seems to me, is to repeal legal tender and then to fully privatize the Fed along with its right of issuing dollars. This is what I advocate in my own country. It gradual, painless and effective.