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.
The Fed was created because monetary policy prior to the Fed was politicized. The Fed is independent. If one reviews the number of boom/bust cycles before the Fed, they were more frequent and had wilder up and down swings than after the Fed's creation.
In other words, going back is a bad idea.
Having Ron Paul as President, who also believes that the U.S. should be on the gold standards, who doesn't believe in any regulations, and whose view of the complicated world is simplistic, is even a worse idea.
There is no option like "Anyone who believes in the federal reserve conspiracy theory needs to see a psychiatrist".
And exactly what would be the 'conspiracy theory'? That the Fed is a collection of privately owned banks who generate money from thin air and then lend it to our government with interest?
And exactly what would be the 'conspiracy theory'? That the Fed is a collection of privately owned banks who generate money from thin air and then lend it to our government with interest?
The stockholders in the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are the privately owned banks that fall under the Federal Reserve System. These include all national banks (chartered by the federal government) and those state-chartered banks that wish to join and meet certain requirements. About 38 percent of the nation’s more than 8,000 banks are members of the system, and thus own the Fed banks.
The concept of "ownership" needs some explaining here, however. The member banks must by law invest 3 percent of their capital as stock in the Reserve Banks, and they cannot sell or trade their stock or even use that stock as collateral to borrow money. They do receive dividends of 6 percent per year from the Reserve Banks and get to elect each Reserve Bank’s board of directors.
The private banks also have a voice in regulating the nation’s money supply and setting targets for short-term interest rates, but it’s a minority voice. Those decisions are made by the Federal Open Market Committee, which has a dozen voting members, only five of whom come from the banks. The remaining seven, a voting majority, are the Fed’s Board of Governors who, as mentioned, are appointed by the president.
The Fed is a little defensive about the question of ownership. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, the Federal Reserve Board says: "The Federal Reserve System is not ‘owned’ by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."
Are you saying Congress should have the keys to the printing press?
I don't know who that was directed at but if you've studied the history of the topic you would know that the main reason the Fed was created was to manage stability. Congress would be no acceptable substitute for the current system.
What would replace or take the role of the Fed if it was abolished?
The Treasury. Other than that there is NO NEED for a central bank. Our currency has done nothing but lose purchasing power ever since the Federal Reserve was established in 1914. Before that time we had 80 years of amazing prosperity which started after President Jackson got rid of the last Central Bank, The Bank of the United States. We'd have a LOT MORE prosperity without a central bank and without the IRS which has also only been around since 1914.
The Treasury. Other than that there is NO NEED for a central bank. Our currency has done nothing but lose purchasing power ever since the Federal Reserve was established in 1914. Before that time we had 80 years of amazing prosperity which started after President Jackson got rid of the last Central Bank, The Bank of the United States. We'd have a LOT MORE prosperity without a central bank and without the IRS which has also only been around since 1914.
We also had wild swings of inflation and deflation and financial manipulations in the times before the Fed's creation. The economy has been far better managed after 1913 than before.
Who cares about the dollar's purchasing power as long as wages keep pace with prices? I know that my standard of living is far better than my grandfather's, even though my grandfather could buy a loaf of bread for a nickel -- he had trouble earning the nickel. I see no evidence that "We'd have a LOT MORE prosperity without a central bank and without the IRS which has also only been around since 1914." Real GDP per capita has been rising:
Are you saying Congress should have the keys to the printing press?
You mean (gasp!) actually let OUR elected officials print OUR country's currency for US to spend, instead of letting private bankers print OUR money as their OWN, and then LEND it to us to spend WITH interest? - uh, yeah.
he will be older than reagan was when reagan LEFT office...he is older than mccain
and his foreign policy is just crazy
on the other hand,,,his son Rand would be the better choice
His foreign policy is crazy? What is crazy about it? The is the best thing about Ron Paul. This is where he crosses over to both parties.
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.
