Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is interesting that it seems that there are more on the left than on the right who support maintaining the Fed as it currently exists. That's interesting because the Federal Reserve Bank has no more to do with the Federal Government than Federal Express does.
The Federal Reserve is actually a private consortium of banks that have been entrusted to enact regulations on the banking system and to issue Federal Reserve Notes, aka our currency. While I am not saying that this system doesn't have merits, why are those on the left so vehement about allowing a group of BANKERS such a large degree of control over something as important as our money supply?
Sure the Fed is subject to some Federal control, as its chairman is a Presidential appointee, but ultimately it's a private enterprise that is in control of our money. I would think those on the left would be outraged by this and would want full governmental control over money supply. Conversely, to those on the right (and it seems to be predominantly those on the right who oppose the Fed), why would you oppose the Fed? I thought privatization was a good thing?
I read the article and it doesn't seem to suggest Trump is thinking about ending the fed. Dissatisfied with the fed, but nothing about actually ending it. Has Trump ever spoke openly about auditing the fed? Amazing that no one from the R or D party every mentions this except for the "extremes" like Ron Paul. How about we audit the PRIVATE organization that hits a few keys on the keyboard to create money, gives created money to government, than demands interest back in return. Sort of a no brainer if you ask me, but perhaps we have more important things to think about?
Audit the fed, everyone Congressman should be voting yes on this.
"I read the article and it doesn't seem to suggest Trump is thinking about ending the fed."
" Told ya, Trump wants to END THE FED "
Do you mean someone with TDS would DISTORT the TRUTH.
I used to be right there with Bent on ending the fed but right here in this forum I learned from posters from the right and the left of why it is not reality or such a good idea. Back then the forum had quality posters from both sides that you could learn from instead of just partisan ranters like the forum has today.
Do I think the fed should exist? no, kind of late for that since they been at for 100 years.
Do I think the fed should be abolished? no, it is way too late and the U S is so far into the fed monetary system there is no good way out with out wrecking the whole country.
The reality is we are stuck with the fed and we could not end them if we tried. I mean were people expecting our spineless leaders to get on board to end the fed? Hell will freeze over first.
As we know the fed is our leaders piggy bank for welfare/warfare. Our leaders abolishing their piggy bank? how would the war mongers get their money for foreign interventionism? The voting public would not go for that idea, either.
I know some fools think that Obama was such a leader and his policies lead us out of recession. The truth is it was the fed. Where did the money come from to bail the auto industry? where did the money come from for Obama's infrastructure program? did the feds balance sheet balloon from 900 billion to 4.2 trillion? If the fed did nothing Obama or any other POTUS would have found themselves in a full blown depression.
The fed is not ending considering just about every country has a central bank, the bankers own us and nothing will change that, ever.
I used to be right there with Bent on ending the fed but right here in this forum I learned from posters from the right and the left of why it is not reality or such a good idea. Back then the forum had quality posters from both sides that you could learn from instead of just partisan ranters like the forum has today.
Do I think the fed should exist? no, kind of late for that since they been at for 100 years.
Do I think the fed should be abolished? no, it is way too late and the U S is so far into the fed monetary system there is no good way out with out wrecking the whole country.
The reality is we are stuck with the fed and we could not end them if we tried. I mean were people expecting our spineless leaders to get on board to end the fed? Hell will freeze over first.
As we know the fed is our leaders piggy bank for welfare/warfare. Our leaders abolishing their piggy bank? how would the war mongers get their money for foreign interventionism? The voting public would not go for that idea, either.
I know some fools think that Obama was such a leader and his policies lead us out of recession. The truth is it was the fed. Where did the money come from to bail the auto industry? where did the money come from for Obama's infrastructure program? did the feds balance sheet balloon from 900 billion to 4.2 trillion? If the fed did nothing Obama or any other POTUS would have found themselves in a full blown depression.
The fed is not ending considering just about every country has a central bank, the bankers own us and nothing will change that, ever.
Yep and one family controls most of the worlds central banks, only a handful that they do not (interestingly, its in countries the US sends military)...go figure?
Inflation is not the fault of the Fed, per se, but is necessarily a feature of a fiat currency. A fiat currency is one without any claim to any asset of value, as opposed to a gold-backed, silver-backed, or some other type of asset backed currency. Both the main feature and the main problem of a fiat currency is that the supply of that currency can be controlled by a central bank.
Ideally, in any economy, the supply of money will match the supply of goods and services that the economy produces. That's the problem with asset backed currencies -- there is no easy and predictable way to increase the supply of money if output increases. Suppose a country on a gold standard doubles its output over the course of some time period. Unless gold output also doubles, there's no way to increase the supply of money to match the supply of goods and services being produced.
So what, you might ask? Why not just keep the same amount of money in circulation when output increases? Well, we aren't used to considering things this way, but consider MONEY as something for which supply and demand exists. In a gold standard economy, we know what the supply of money is; it's directly linked to the supply of gold. What is the demand for money? Well, why do people need money in the first place? The reason we demand money is to buy things. Therefore, an increase in productivity results in an increase in the demand for money. What happens when demand increases for something while supply remains the same? The price of that thing increases. Therefore the "price" of money increases in such a situation. That's backwards thinking to most, though, and expressed in the normal way, it indicates that the price of goods goes down, i.e. the economy undergoes deflation.
Well, to those of us (which means everyone alive) with experience with inflation, we might well think that deflation would be a good thing. However, it's just as destructive, if not more so, as inflation. Think about how rational actors would behave in a deflationary economy. First of all, if you plan on buying a major purchase that you could avoid now and put off until later, you would do so. Why would you not? You are expecting prices to decline over time, after all. That puts negative pressure on consumer demand, and negative pressure on demand for most goods. This only exacerbates the price decline. Eventually, producers will stop producing so much; why should they when they won't get much money for what they make? This leads to a decline in overall productivity. Declines in productivity lead to unemployment, recessions, etc. A deflationary economy is certainly not a vibrant, growing one.
Of course, the opposite is true. A wildly inflationary economy is a destructive one too. The answer of course is balance. The central bank will try to match monetary supply to growth. This is imperfect, however, so it typically is the goal to not have completely stable prices, but rather a small amount of inflation. This is considered to be the least destructive course of actions since an actually deflationary economy would almost inevitably lead to contraction. Growth is only possible in a price-stable or inflationary economy.
Elimination of the Fed would change none of this. Whatever might replace the Fed would likely end up pursuing mostly the same policies in terms of monetary supply, and most likely we would end up with a mildly inflationary economy, just like what we have now.
Few have complained about the actions of the Fed more than me. That said, as bad as they are and as corrupt as they are, I trust them more than Trump.
YIKES!
TDS, has effected rational thought.
You want to end Fascism in the USA?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
