Shared publicly  - 
Abolish the fed? Sure, as long as we don't replace it with something ridiculous, like gold, or congress.
Mike Smullin's profile photoWilliam Frazier's profile photoMichael Carey's profile photo
no, you won't be buying your happy meals with gold coins, or suddenly carrying leather pouches of precious metals. sound money just means the money is backed by gold; that we cannot issue more dollars than we have in the value of gold held in fort knox. nixon took us off the gold standard, and all we've seen since then is rapid inflation. this is why our parents can tell us how far a nickle, dime, and dollar used to go in their day. and congress is how we issued currency before we had central banks, and it worked better. we're going back to the way things used to be before it got all fucked up. its not ridiculous. the way things are today is ridiculous. 10:1, 30:1 fractional reserve banking leverage? toxic derivatives? unreliable debt rating "opinions"? gambling, cocaine, and prostitution all the way to the top of wall street? outrageous executive bonuses at public expense? this shit has to go.
Did you read the post? I am not commenting about the portability of gold. I am raising the issue of how well a given monetary system can respond to changes in the economy. The fed is not as agile as it needs to be. Congress is worse. The problem with gold is that the supply is not easily adjusted when there is a high demand for currency. Also, there is the problem that the supply can be affected by arbitrary events (look what happened when the Spanish started importing gold from the new world).
we're going back to the way it was before; the most stable period in united states history. this is not experimental, or ridiculous.
Jim Rogers on US Economy FED Ron Paul

Utah is the only state that makes it legal to spend gold without paying capital gains. They must have thought there was something to a competing currency to the dollar.

That's all Ron Paul wants is to offer the American people a legal tender alternative to the rapidly evaporating dollar's value.
Ron Paul: Gold Standard 1/30/09 Fox Business

look at the deficit chart since country's founding. notice over 120 years of no deficit. deficits only occurred in spikes until Nixon took USD off Gold Standard in 1971. The spikes = 1985 American Civil War, 1913 Federal Reserve chartered, 1929-1932 Great Depression, 1939-1945 WW2. Almost in 20 year scheduled intervals. This is important because...

The Central Banks--who assassinated Lincoln because of the greenback--who had been chartered and then disbanded 2-3x before in the U.S., were accused of engineering booms and busts to consolidate wealth and export it internationally. Since they could not print more dollars they had to do it with very catastrophic climactic events.

Since Nixon detached the dollar from gold in 1971, the Fed is able to spread it out over a 40 year period instead of a gigantic 20-year surprise. The only other time we've had a deficit like this was during WW2. If you stack the rolling deficit over the past 40 years you can see it is taller than the deficit during WW2.

Alex Jones warned that Obama worked for the internationalists, and his goal during his tenure was to blow out the U.S. economy, consolidate wealth, and prepare America to join the international economy in a subservient role. This is why Tea Party types get so up in arms about the birth certificate issue and now the hyperinflation + colossal debt to foreign former enemies like China.

I find it ironic that 1971 Nixon took USD off Gold, then surprised everyone with a 1972 visit to China "... an important step in formally normalizing relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China. It marked the first time a U.S. president had visited the PRC, who at that time considered the U.S. one of its staunchest foes"

Now China owns the vast majority of US debt, and we depend on their factories for exports to the point where our own factories have been abandoned. "As of May 2011 the largest single holder of U.S. government debt was China, with 26 percent of all foreign-held U.S. Treasury securities."

In WW2 we were able to recover so quickly because we had bombed the world's factories and they depended on us to export from our factories at home. Now the tables are very much turned. Except this time nobody had to bomb any factories. They killed us from within. The communists had threatened they would do this to us in 1960s. Ezra Taft Benson and John F. Kennedy both warned about it publicly.

Ezra Taft Benson excerpt from speech "STAND UP FOR FREEDOM" 1965:
Ezra Taft Benson-Warning
Ezra Taft Benson's Speech on Socialism - 1965

John F. Kennedy, Secret Society Speech Part 1/2, April 27, 1961
John F. Kennedy Secret Society Speech (Part 1/2)
John F. Kennedy Secret Society Speech (Part 2/2)

Kennedy and Lincoln were assassinated by the banking institution for the same reason; legitimate opposition to their international power brokering via economic booms + busts as well as world wars where they financed both sides.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower also offered a public warning speech in 1961
1961 speech Eisenhower Warns us of New World Order

the bottom line is fractional reserve banking is what has enabled us to spend beyond our means in all cases. it has enabled the insidious finance industry which earns profit from debt stacked upon debt which is essentially exponential usury. many of our cold-war era mathematicians and physicists have applied their knowledge into finance industry because they found it was more profitable to make debt instruments of mass destruction (as Warren Buffet put it) rather than actual weapons of mass destruction. our country has suffered greatly because of the dreams the financiers have built. why are financiers paid more than engineers? engineers build bridges. financiers build nightmares and the public pays for it.

the international banker is the scum of the earth:
Yet the question remains: what is the golden era of stability you were referring to?
roughly 1776 - 1913 aka the way things were before the USA consented to central banking for a long period of time. there were two other central banks tried in the US before the Federal Reserve and both were violently opposed for the same reason we oppose the federal reserve today; we know they engineer the booms and depressions.
Can you explain what evidence has led you to believe that booms and recessions have been more violent since 1913? I read the data as showing that the years 1945 to 2007 were the most stable in history (the frequency and intensity of recessions was drastically reduced in this period) Granted, the fed made some serious errors in the early half of this century, but even that period was not more volatile than 1776-1913.

Now, I am not necessarily defending the fed since I think we need some serious reform. But I don't want to go back to the boom and bust cycles of old.
I don't understand why gold is a bad idea, perhaps you could enlighten me.
Under a fiat monetary system, the inflation rate will depend on the actions of the central bank. In a gold standard, the inflation rate will depend on the rate of gold discovery. You may not agree with the central bank, but at least it is conceivable that a bank could make rational decisions. But gold production is largely arbitrary and we can't do much about it. For example, at the turn of the 20th century a big gold deposit was discovered in South Africa. Worldwide inflation went up by 4% almost overnight.

When inflation occurs there are winners and losers in the economy. Sometimes a bit more inflation is a good thing and the benefits outweigh the costs. Sometimes more inflation would be clearly a bad thing. There is a lot of disagreement among economists about exactly when it would be good and when it would be bad, but that doesn't mean we want it to be arbitrary. In general, I think we should try to avoid unexpected changes in inflation because it is hard to run an economy when people can't make decisions based on a reasonably good expectation of the likely value of different kind of investments. So it is certainly possible that a central bank can make decisions that are even worse than the arbitrary fluctuations of the gold mining industry, but ultimately I would rather adopt a system where there were clear rules about how the central bank reacts to the state of the economy.
Add a comment...