Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Cons
video.google.com — Dec 5, 2006 This Award-winning documentary video, featuring presidential candidate RON PAUL, was inspired by the book, "The Creature From Jekyll Island" This explains it all in layman's terms anyone can understand.
AlwaysAwake- 1196 diggs
- digg it
- AlwaysAwake, on 05/08/2008, -39/+112Why The Fed ( The Federal Reserve System of Banks ) must be abolihed NOW. They control our worthless paper currency, and our lives. They literally own The US Government.
- imightbewrong, on 05/08/2008, -8/+44Why people should be forced to take more econ classes so they have a ***** clue what they are talking about
- logic07, on 05/08/2008, -9/+15Why US education system fails again
- Pake, on 05/08/2008, -9/+3Why the US is considered to have some of the best colleges in the world...
- sentime, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2By who the US? lol
- 3tcp, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3By pretty much every professional organization in the world. Pick a profession that requires a ph.d. and go find some lists of the best programs in the world... guarantee you that 3/4 of the top 50 are in the US.
- logic07, on 05/08/2008, -9/+15Why US education system fails again
- Marijuana, on 05/08/2008, -1/+21Excerpt from my cousins highschool economics textbook:
" The American banking system is a compromise between supporters and opponents of a central bank. As a symbol of this compromise, the Federal Reserve System is the privately owned, publicaly controlled central bank of the United States."
Privately owned, publically controlled? No wonder nobody has a clue. Just how they want us :]- Chandon, on 05/08/2008, -3/+20As usual, the US comes up with the worst possible compromise between a market solution and a socialist solution. A competitive market would self-regulate. A socialist solution would be regulated by democracy. But the US instead gives monopoly power to a single private entity and then then appoints a committee to "regulate" it - which the private entity immediately captures.
The best example of this is Telecoms and the FCC, but banking sounds pretty close too. In some other areas (Pharmaceuticals) the whole-area monopoly is replaced by a swarm of little monopolies (Patents).- robbiemuffin, on 05/08/2008, -5/+3what other compromise would you suggest?
a publicly owned, privately controlled system? So that, instead of the system being responsive to our needs, it is designed to be best-responsive to the private corporations —— not just that it is hijacked, but designed from the start to be that way??- Chandon, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1No compromise. Either privatize it and enforce anti-trust rules or nationalize it and enforce anti-corruption rules.
- Funkleft, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5personally I'd rather not compromise, the money of an entire nation shouldn't be privately controlled.
- petrodollar, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1Well you should be happy then, because it isn't.
- PeppermintPig, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3petrodollar must have a printing press in his basement.
- robbiemuffin, on 05/08/2008, -5/+3what other compromise would you suggest?
- Ratteler, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9This "compromise" is like how a house get split 50%/50% in a divorce settlement. The wealthy get the inside of the banking system, and the consumer gets the outside!!!
- 3tcp, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Ugh, high school economics book?
This isn't an example of a compromise, it's an example of a technocratic bureaucracy where experts determine policy instead of burdening politicians with making decisions that they're unqualified to make. Dick Armey was the best economist in congress since I can remember (was an Econ Professor) and he wouldn't have had a shot at getting on the federal reserve board. The Fed should be considered along the same lines as the FDA and the military - anything less than a total focus on knowledge, education and expertise will cause them to do their job less effectively.
- Chandon, on 05/08/2008, -3/+20As usual, the US comes up with the worst possible compromise between a market solution and a socialist solution. A competitive market would self-regulate. A socialist solution would be regulated by democracy. But the US instead gives monopoly power to a single private entity and then then appoints a committee to "regulate" it - which the private entity immediately captures.
- ralphthemagi, on 05/08/2008, -4/+4facepalm.jpg
- Amiga500, on 05/08/2008, -0/+10I use my worthless paper currency to snort coke.
- Sogui, on 05/08/2008, -6/+6Paper currency and central banks have never worked... ever.
- 3tcp, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2Yeah except for the last 30 years...
- sienar, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1i don't call building an ever larger bubble to burst working...
- 3tcp, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2Yeah except for the last 30 years...
- spawnfree, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5so, what system will you use during the transition? The banks have no problem sending their agents do do whatever it takes to remove any 'enemy' of their system
the banks have the planets economy by the balls, and even if one country gets the monkey off its back they will find themselves under constant military and economic attack from countries that are still under the banks control.
The situation needs to be well understood by a lot of people before we are ready to grow out of this horrible co-dependent situation. - hempydave, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Dugg for weird words and bad spelling
Dyslexic's of the world Untie
- imightbewrong, on 05/08/2008, -8/+44Why people should be forced to take more econ classes so they have a ***** clue what they are talking about
- tjClassic82, on 05/08/2008, -23/+133It amazes me how many people don't realize the Fed is not an actual government body. The dollar is backed by nada.
- jbur816, on 05/08/2008, -8/+51People don't even know what the dollar being backed by gold means. People in this country have absolutely no education in this subject matter. And there is a reason for that.
- bullhead2007, on 05/08/2008, -5/+27The only stuff people seem to give a ***** about is their favorite sitcom and celeb gossip. Of course the MSM doesn't help.
- fromonesource, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Like this: http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/200 ...
- bullhead2007, on 05/08/2008, -5/+27The only stuff people seem to give a ***** about is their favorite sitcom and celeb gossip. Of course the MSM doesn't help.
- onestrawplz, on 05/08/2008, -22/+10exactly, because when the dollar was backed by something in the past, it didn't work. bretton wood system-- they wanted to back money with gold, and keep the gold at a fixed rate. however, people kept offering more for the gold (causing it to lose value). fiat money works just fine.
seriously, take econ principles I.- Crabsinmypants, on 05/08/2008, -4/+8Economic Principles courses do not focus on the effect of currency being backed by gold, or being backed by nothing. To get a better understand of the gold standard one usually has to do the research on their own, not what is offer at universities classes. Although you can find most of these research books in a university library. So do not ask people to take principles of economics courses to learn more about the subject that the video speaks of.
- onestrawplz, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2i dunno what kind of school you went to, but that is not the case here.
- kemp34, on 05/08/2008, -3/+5My econ professors in college were trash. They wouldn't even answer my email questions about fiat currency and a commodity-based standard. It was a classic BLANK OUT.
- onestrawplz, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2that's not my problem. i go to a good university with good professors. educate yourself instead of trying to make everything into a conspiracy.
- lateralus, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1San Diego State?
- onestrawplz, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1no lateralus, NYU actually.
- onestrawplz, on 05/08/2008, -4/+2that's not my problem. i go to a good university with good professors. educate yourself instead of trying to make everything into a conspiracy.
- Akronos, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4Wrong. I'm not sure if your college is a joke or if you're just not that bright or maybe you just happen to have a poor understanding of the Bretton Woods system but talk like you understand it.
The price of gold was fixed while the money supply was inflated until the Bretton Woods system was dismantled. Then, of course, due to the Fed's actions of keeping an artificially low price on gold, it shot up in 1971. And how you came to your ridiculous conclusion that fiat money works just fine, I will never know.
Read this if you want to know about the Bretton Woods system: http://mises.org/story/1829- onestrawplz, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1if NYU is a joke, then sure.
i explained bretton woods just fine, and i think that fiat money works sufficiently enough because i'm not brainwashed by everyone who says the fed is evil. - Funkleft, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3are you brainwashed by the fed to think it isn't evil then?
I personally don't care, but you don't seem to be discussing this at much detail- onestrawplz, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2i'm not discussing it at much detail because apparently no one understands basic econ enough to realize why this is nothing more than propaganda. it's not my job to educate people who don't want to hear the unbiased facts.
- onestrawplz, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1if NYU is a joke, then sure.
- Crabsinmypants, on 05/08/2008, -4/+8Economic Principles courses do not focus on the effect of currency being backed by gold, or being backed by nothing. To get a better understand of the gold standard one usually has to do the research on their own, not what is offer at universities classes. Although you can find most of these research books in a university library. So do not ask people to take principles of economics courses to learn more about the subject that the video speaks of.
- suzywang3000, on 05/08/2008, -19/+5the dollar is backed by US gov't bonds and gold - the Federal Reserve's balance sheet plainly identifies this. read about the real bills doctrine here:
http://www.csun.edu/~hceco008/realbills.htm- mystcnurse, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3ROTFLMAO
- smagilly, on 05/08/2008, -10/+27Sorry, but you're wrong. The dollar is backed up by something: our faith in the US legal system. The following sentence is printed on every bill: "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private." This means that if you're selling something and I pay you in US currency, you have a legal obligation to fulfill your part of the bargain. By accepting my money, you are entering into a binding contract with me that is enforceable in a court of law.
Those who argue that money being backed by gold is somehow more secure than the paper money we use today never mention one crucial point: gold-backed dollars are only useful as currency if we all agree that gold itself is currency. But why should gold be so special? What magical powers does it have to make all contracts enforceable? If I take your gold and give no goods in return, who is going to defend your side of the deal? Gold won't -- only governments can.
Arguments against so-called "fiat currency" tend to come down to the evils of inflation. By giving the government (or, in this case, a non-government agency) the power to print money, we are them the power to control the rate of inflation. With gold, inflation is never a problem, right? Wrong. Supply and demand still applies. Only with gold our money is not valued based in part on the (measurable, controllable) influence of a central source, but rather by the whims of geography and geology. The golden rule: whoever has the gold, make the rules.
The Great Depression happened while the US was under the confines of the gold standard (read http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_go ... for a take on that you won't hear from your most-awesome Ron Paul). Simply put, the gold standard offers us no security at all.- Hockey13, on 05/08/2008, -5/+15Your argument fails on this most crucial point: gold vs. fiat is not the issue. The real issue here is whether we should all use a single currency enforced (rather brutally) by the government, or whether we should allow currency competition. People tend to go right to gold because in systems with competing currencies throughout the history of mankind, gold tends to come out on top. Silver also tends to come out on top (hence the French word "argent"), but much less often. There are many other options freely available today that could adequately provide us with a stable and liquid storage of wealth (which is after all the most important function of money).
The key principle that most people fail to recognize is that competition in currency yields the same maximum efficiency as other forms of competition. This means that, for example, if the supply of gold becomes too restricted or too large, people will store their wealth in other forms of currency. Because of the freedom to choose, an equilibrium (at any given point in time) is achieved between multiple currencies and the one that has the most predictable money supply (that is, predictable inflation OR deflation) tends to rise to the top.- bryxal, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Do you have more reading material on your ideas? How do other currencies fail to work as competition in currency?
- Akronos, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2If the supply of a currency is unpredictable and inconsistent, then it will fail to work because it's value won't be set and that would obviously prove to be quite a barrier for trade.
- jamesLankford, on 05/08/2008, -6/+4"The real issue here is whether we should all use a single currency enforced (rather brutally) by the government, or whether we should allow currency competition. "
right, cause everyone having their own currency worked so well under the articles of confederation - bc289, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Gresham's law talks about which currency comes out on top. Generally, when more than one currency competes and depending on the exchange rate between the two, only one comes out on top, and it doesn't have to do with which is more valuable, but rather which is overvalued based on what the government deems its real value is.
- bryxal, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Do you have more reading material on your ideas? How do other currencies fail to work as competition in currency?
- bryxal, on 05/08/2008, -9/+6Thank god, finally someone on digg that looks at both points of views. Yes the current system does have some issues but its like democracy its the worst form of government except for all those we tried beforehand. The gold standard in itself is a very foolish idea, there are very good reasons why we switched from it and we should never go back, does that mean the system cannot be improved? Of course not but watching a few hours of videos does not make you an authority on the matter, if you want to make an educated decision take economics classes, read up at your library on economy, find books with different point of views so that you may judge based on the arguments for and against not just a one sided diatribe.
- mystcnurse, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Maybe it isn't the "gold standard" or lack thereof that is the problem. Maybe it is putting the valuation and creation of our currency in the hands of private bankers.
- bryxal, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1For diggs broken link system add these to together to get the link in parent post
http://www.econbrowser.com/
archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html - Rbstr, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2Thank you for stating this.
Having a bunch of currencies out there all willy nilly would be ridiculous.
"Sorry, we accept Capital-Ones and GM-dollars here, not wal-bucks"
You need a standard system. - Funkleft, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I think people like the gold standard for one reason. It's something physical. They can touch it feel it and see it. The idea that money is being kept essentially by raw numbers with no physical worth, is a little intimidating.
- Hockey13, on 05/08/2008, -5/+15Your argument fails on this most crucial point: gold vs. fiat is not the issue. The real issue here is whether we should all use a single currency enforced (rather brutally) by the government, or whether we should allow currency competition. People tend to go right to gold because in systems with competing currencies throughout the history of mankind, gold tends to come out on top. Silver also tends to come out on top (hence the French word "argent"), but much less often. There are many other options freely available today that could adequately provide us with a stable and liquid storage of wealth (which is after all the most important function of money).
- domlachowicz, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6The dollar is backed by the perceived strength (or lack thereof) of the US economy and, ultimately, by any assets/services/whatever that you can purchase in US dollars (land, businesses, ...). Supply, demand, and scarcity are still very much in play.
- kemp34, on 05/08/2008, -1/+11It's backed by U.S. taxpayer labor and the guns of the Federal government...
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3I don't see how valuing currency on an arbitrary precious metal with limited supply is any better than the setup we have now. As long as the money supply is carefully maintained, there is no risk of problems. Additionally, little amounts of inflation work well to keep unemployment at bay and is well worth the small headache it causes (keeping inflation at zero would cause massive unemployment). I suggest all of you who subscribe to this federal reserve conspiracy take a basic course in Macroeconomics...
- jgzman, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7Took one. Basically, money comes out of thin ***** air whenever the Fed wants it to. Additionally, the Fed, who makes these decisions, is a group of rich white men. They are not voted for, they are not answerable to the citizens of them.
I see no reason to expect them to do what is best for themselves and those of their class, i.e. rich white men. I NEVER expect them to do anything that might be good for America at the expense of big businesses. I have, in fact, seen them take action that I am convinced hurts America, but benefits big businesses. (I refer here to the Bear Stearns disaster)
I am in favor of money that is not controlled by people who have no reason to protect my interests.- Funkleft, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4I have no problem with thin air money, but I agree that the dollar should be controlled by a public entity that is legally accountable.
- Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I agree with you and I think people are confusing a democratization of the federal reserve with moving the dollar to gold standard/bimetallism model. They are two completely different issues!
- Funkleft, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4I have no problem with thin air money, but I agree that the dollar should be controlled by a public entity that is legally accountable.
- jgzman, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7Took one. Basically, money comes out of thin ***** air whenever the Fed wants it to. Additionally, the Fed, who makes these decisions, is a group of rich white men. They are not voted for, they are not answerable to the citizens of them.
- Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3No backing? The dollar is on the sawdust and wood-pulp standard. Don't you like trees?
- nitrojunky24, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5actually its a mixture of 75% linen and cotton 25% I guess when us dollars becomes worthless you can make a nice money shirt or something.
- bluesnowmonkey, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Ignorance isn't the problem. Go up to one of those people and tell them that the Fed is a private entity. They could not care less. Most people want to be tended like livestock. If it doesn't affect their own lives in an immediate, impactful way, they DO NOT CARE.
- rlbond86, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1Actually, one only has to accept money for DEBTS. If you are selling something, you're allowed to not accept bills. That's why some places can say "no bills over $20"
- smagilly, on 05/09/2008, -1/+0Please read more closely. I said, "By accepting my money, you are entering into a binding contract with me that is enforceable in a court of law." If we agree to exchange goods or services for US cash, you are bound by law to complete your end of the bargain. No one says you have to accept dollars -- you could demand that I pay you in feathers instead, if that's your preference. It's called barter and it's perfectly legal. It also has nothing to do with my main point.
- jbur816, on 05/08/2008, -8/+51People don't even know what the dollar being backed by gold means. People in this country have absolutely no education in this subject matter. And there is a reason for that.
- duggtodeath, on 05/08/2008, -19/+83The dollar is backed by unicorn farts.
- Conspiracy20, on 05/08/2008, -4/+20:)
- Marijuana, on 05/08/2008, -3/+15I don't why, but I lol'd.
- rezonq3, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5I lol'd as well, I think because you aren't quite sure if he is smiling because he thought the joke was funny, that he is happy that the dollar is backed by unicorn farts, or that he himself just farted...
- Marijuana, on 05/08/2008, -3/+15I don't why, but I lol'd.
- xutopia, on 05/08/2008, -5/+16That can't be! Unicorns never fart!
Omg... this means the dollar is backed by nothing at all!- flogistan, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7Unicorns fart. You're thinking of beautiful women...before the internet.
- BetterOffEd, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084237/
. - Icetype, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i221/erueti/zoom ...
- cheesecake42, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6thats the most awesome comment i have seen on digg evar
- rex84, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6I keep my unicorn farts in a baby food jar, stuffed in my mattress.
- Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5That's actually a very elegant way of putting it.
- ronaldst, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3I used to be entirely against unicorns. But when I started playing with my paladin, it became obvious. Unicorns are made of win.
- Conspiracy20, on 05/08/2008, -4/+20:)
- Heysal, on 05/08/2008, -23/+62This is not true - the dollar is backed by something very solid - US, the slaves - corporate human inventory.
- ultimateMJ, on 05/08/2008, -12/+25Wow, I didn't realize slavery involved benefits, salaries, vacations and the freedom to quit. The history books made slavery sound a lot worse.
- dshPls, on 05/08/2008, -9/+13Hey don't ruin his angst, his ignorant and absurd comparison to real slavery was so nifty, if only it involved Nazism too.
- kemp34, on 05/08/2008, -1/+9What would happen if you tried to work, but not pay for the federal leviathan or a forced retirement ponzi scheme? Did I hear guns and jail time?? DING!
Call it what you want, I call it some form of slavery. - popfrogs, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4Forced retirement ponzi scheme? You do realize you can actually opt out. You sign a waiver saying you'll never collect a dime from Social Security and they stop taxing you.
- Marijuana, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8Link to the form plz.
- kemp34, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Frogs, are you sure about that? I'll take them up for sure if that is true. You are the first person I have ever heard make that claim. Please source, thanks.
- rficwizard, on 05/08/2008, -0/+7@popfrogs: I was not aware of that. Where do I sign up, and how do I get back my past "contributiions"?
- kemp34, on 05/08/2008, -1/+9What would happen if you tried to work, but not pay for the federal leviathan or a forced retirement ponzi scheme? Did I hear guns and jail time?? DING!
- spawnfree, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3you are working a good chunk of your life for free, trouble is thats just not enough for the people who grudgingly hand over your cut for helping them make a fortune.
- dshPls, on 05/08/2008, -9/+13Hey don't ruin his angst, his ignorant and absurd comparison to real slavery was so nifty, if only it involved Nazism too.
- Marijuana, on 05/08/2008, -5/+7Corporate human inventory, I like that. It's like our education system is set-up to continue this consumer fiat empire and maintain a status quo. ***** the corporate world.
- altgeeky1, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6Don't be so cynical.
The Dollar is backed up by China. They won't change that until another country (with more consumer power) eclipses the US consumer.- Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3That will probably be China again.
- ultimateMJ, on 05/08/2008, -12/+25Wow, I didn't realize slavery involved benefits, salaries, vacations and the freedom to quit. The history books made slavery sound a lot worse.
- madfrogurt, on 05/08/2008, -40/+110Dollars are backed by the same force that everything is backed by: supply and demand. Just how gold really shouldn't be worth what it's worth (it's just a shiny metal a neat ability to avoid oxidation), dollars can be exchanged for goods and services even though you can't go to a bank and ask for something physical. And as long as we all agree to use dollars instead of chickens or gold as an exchange, then the system works.
But by all means please assume we're on the precipice of doom as a country just because we don't have a stockpile of shiny metal somewhere. Shiny, shiny metal.- homah, on 05/08/2008, -14/+49The difference is that you can't simply create more gold with the flip of a switch.
- Phate8263, on 05/08/2008, -8/+3You sir are an idiot, the whole point is that it has a set instrinsic value, that isn't dynamic.
And as am I apparently as I meant to reply to mockingdigg. - elhaf, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8YOU can't. (*slinks back to alchemy lab*)
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -4/+5There isn't anything wrong with money creation and inflation. Small amounts of inflation, while inconvenient, help lower unemployment. As one economist put it, inflation is a cold to the economy, and the only cure would be a full frontal lobotomy (massive rise in unemployment). No rational person would treat a cold with a lobotomy.
- nydwarf, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Flick switch, miners go down into the ground pull out more gold. You are wrong.
- Phate8263, on 05/08/2008, -8/+3You sir are an idiot, the whole point is that it has a set instrinsic value, that isn't dynamic.
- ultimateMJ, on 05/08/2008, -13/+32The critics of the federal reserve and the fiat economy never mention why we went off the gold standard. Uncontrollable inflation and price fluctuation isn't better than our current system. Unfortunately gold simply can't keep up with our economy anymore.
- Cerebron, on 05/08/2008, -7/+22"Uncontrollable inflation and price fluctuation" is our current system.
- ultimateMJ, on 05/08/2008, -9/+6Read mockingdig's comment above. Since our economy grows, a gold based currency limits the growth.
- JordanTW90, on 05/08/2008, -4/+4No because the worthiness of currency would grow. Sure your $1 would turn into a $2 bill, but it would buy twice as many candy bars if the supply of dollars was cut in half.
- bc289, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2uncontrollable inflation? Our inflation, when compared to other countries and historical levels of inflation, is extremely low.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3Would you people shut the ***** up? Do you see people running around everywhere and looting stores because of "uncontrollable inflation and price fluctuation"?
- DreKor, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7They also had the goal of removing the east coast's stranglehold on the US economy. If you owned the gold, you owned the money. You could physically alter the inflation rate by buying or selling off your supply. The idea was to help farmers with a silver standard. But then, everyone started hoarding sliver too. Really, you're buying things with your work/service/lending of capital, not glittery metal or green paper.
- roho76, on 05/08/2008, -2/+6There was very little if any inflation when we were on the gold standard. Do some research into the financial markets before 1900. This is why people hedge inflation with gold and silver. Because it always maintains its value. It doesn't go up or down in value it is the Dollar that fluctuates in value and makes the gold and silver seem to go up in value.
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -3/+7I will say it again: MOST ECONOMISTS AGREE THAT SMALL AMOUNTS OF INFLATION IS NOT DAMAGING.
It's universally agreed and demonstrated that cutting inflation to zero would disproportionately raise unemployment. Small amounts of inflation, while annoying, is not the end of the world. - bc289, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2That's not true. There was lots of inflation on the gold standard, but what really hurts is that it fluctuated between inflation and deflation at unpredictable levels. This is what hurts the economy the most. Meanwhile, all you have to do is look at the price of gold in the last year to see that it does not do a good job of price stability.
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -3/+7I will say it again: MOST ECONOMISTS AGREE THAT SMALL AMOUNTS OF INFLATION IS NOT DAMAGING.
- Cerebron, on 05/08/2008, -7/+22"Uncontrollable inflation and price fluctuation" is our current system.
- JustinTX, on 05/08/2008, -10/+18Gold is a commodity. The dollar has become a fiat currency system, not a commodity based system. The problem isn't the lack of a gold standard but a lack of a commodity based standard. It doesn't have to be gold. Once upon a time they used salt.
And by the way, that precipice you speak of is inflation... and we are closer to it than you might want to believe. Even if it weren't a problem the Fed still enables the federal government to operate well beyond it's economic means. The implication of that is that our children and grand children will be paying our bills.- fromonesource, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7Good point. They used to use tally sticks too. It just needs to be a medium that cannot be artificially inflated and produced.
- oldgal, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1And paper isn't a commodity?
- JustinTX, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Not when a $20 uses the same amount as a $1
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/08/2008, -4/+29The problem is not gold backing. We have clearly demonstrated we can more or less manage a fiat money system. The problem is that the Federal Reserve is a private entity. We are paying the Fed to lend us our own money. We are giving away money that belongs to the people to privately owned banks. Our government does not work for the people anymore, it's new employer is the wealthy elite. I wouldn't have a problem with the Fed if it's profits were used to maybe lower taxes or pay for government programs (instead of taxes). Instead it is just being given to financial institutions.
If the printing of money was controlled by the government, then we could hold the government accountable when they abuse the system. The American people could have a direct effect on the stability of their economy by electing people who manage the the money supply responsibly. As it stands we have a group of people in control of the money supply that care primarily about their own profit and are accountable to no one.- ultimateMJ, on 05/08/2008, -8/+6Do you really trust the masses to understand fiscal policy enough to have it controlled by the voters? What would stop them from just printing money willy nilly? I'd certainly vote for the guy who promised me a million bucks, even if it was unsustainable.
- anubis2night, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3I think the masses can understand the principles of fiscal policy as well as many other principle in action today, only they are spoon fed sugary puff in the forms of modern media. It's no accident that the average person cannot explain the world they live in, yet they can tell you who Ronald McDonald is or how to perform some move on GTA. We as humans have the cognitive ability to perform far beyond what we as average citizens do. We merely never are asked to perform at these level nor do we challenge ourselves to do so. Once you do you'll be amazed at what you can accomplish.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Do you really trust the masses to be in charge electing the president? electing Congress?
Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
What I am saying is that in the same way we would not trust the wealthy elite to be the power responsible to choose a president we should also not let them decide how our money supply is managed. We don't trust them to put the interests of the country above their own in regards to running a country (This is why we have democracy), why would we trust them to do exactly that when it comes to the economy?
Maybe the average person is pretty stupid. The whole basis of democracy is that society is collectively smarter than any one man. In the same way that we trust the masses to elect a good president, we should trust them to elect good congressmen and for those congressmen to pass good laws. Obviously this doesn't always happen, but the alternative is an authoritarian government.
And even though you would vote for a guy that promised you a million bucks, Nobody else would vote for a guy who promised ultimateMJ a million bucks. If he promised everyone a million bucks, I would hope that the average citizen would be smart enough to realize that that is just idiotic. - jgzman, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Do you trust the masses to understand foreign policy? Environmental policy? Military spending? Any of the other things the government does?
- ultimateMJ, on 05/09/2008, -2/+0No. I trust them to elect a president who will appoint educated advisors on all the important issues, like those you mentioned. As well as appointing the important members of the federal reserve.
- ultimateMJ, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Sorry for the double post, but this website has some good info on why independent central banks are a good idea. http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/04/centra ...
"The power to create money is precisely the kind of power we never want to have in the hands of Congress or the President. If the politicians had the ability to pay for their programs simply by printing money, there is no question that the outcome would be ferocious inflation. One of the clearest lessons of history is that a central bank that lacks strong independence from the fiscal authorities is a recipe for disaster."
- TheGreat0ne, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3"Obviously this doesn't always happen, but the alternative is an authoritarian government."
false dichotomy. another option is a constitution based republic (or constitution based democracy, if anyone can find a way to make that feasible for a large country), which has the benefit of being changeable by the majority while protecting the minority (the degree to which it protects the minority of course depends on the writing, and i would make that an extremely high priority). i personally do not trust anyone else to be able to make a decision for me about how i should live my life (what currency i should use, etc) whether that person is a common citizen or a wealthy man or a man from washington. by extension i cannot trust a group of common citizens or wealthy men or men from washington because it makes no sense whatsoever to trust a group of people for which i dont trust any of the individual members. and should i choose to trust a person to make such a decision for me, it can only be my decision to trust that person and not my neighbors.- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Would you trust a "a group of people for which [you] don't trust any of the individual members" to create and abide by a constitution that you would be willing to live under?
If not, then my "false dichotomy" is actually a trichotomy where one of the elements is infeasible even according to you.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Would you trust a "a group of people for which [you] don't trust any of the individual members" to create and abide by a constitution that you would be willing to live under?
- jcastillo81, on 05/08/2008, -2/+9Just like we've held Bush accountable for all the lies he's told and crimes against humanity he's committed? I think what he need is competing currency suppliers like the Liberty Dollar. (not saying that is a prime exampe, just one example)
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3If we abandon the idea that government officials can be held accountable then there is no point in ever limiting the power of the government. We might as well sit back and accept our dictatorship.
For Example I could say:
If we had competing currency like the Liberty Dollar, Bush would just steal all the Liberty Dollars. Therefor e it is a bad idea.
Also, it is our job as citizens to keep the government in check. If we were determined enough, the public could force the Congress to hold Bush accountable, but are we willing to vote every congressman out of office that does not support immediate impeachment proceedings? No. That's why it is not happening. It's because of us. It is our (the public's) job to ensure that justice is executed for our politicians.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3If we abandon the idea that government officials can be held accountable then there is no point in ever limiting the power of the government. We might as well sit back and accept our dictatorship.
- chuckDontSurf, on 05/08/2008, -10/+4"The problem is not gold backing." You guys need to get your story straight. Most Ron Paul lunatics insist that going back to the gold standard will solve all the country's problems.
- rficwizard, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7Why listen to "Ron Paul lunatics"? You could just listen to his reasonable supporters. It is pretty easy to tell the difference.
- kemp34, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7Yeah, I'm tired of folks getting all rowdy and charged up over the statements of a small handful of Ron Paul supporters. Look people, most Ron Paul supporters are average, every-day folks just like yourselves. We just happen to believe strongly in individual liberty and limited constitutional government. Is it so hard to figure out?
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Why does my "story" need to match other peoples'? Am I not allowed to have my own opinion? The problem is that you have some kind of problem trying to put everyone into neat little categories so your brain can more easily generalize people.
- rficwizard, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7Why listen to "Ron Paul lunatics"? You could just listen to his reasonable supporters. It is pretty easy to tell the difference.
- Christ0s, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4The government does print money: the US mint is responsible for coins and the bureau of engraving for paper money. The money is then sold to the Fed who in turns loans it out with interest because of the time value of money. The Fed's ability to make a profit is controlled by law.
- anubis2night, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3The Fed may have limits by law on what it can make on profit but I'm sure you'll find that's only limited to those first few steps that the dollar travels in life. The fact that the same monetary system incurs charges for the same dollar over the next several steps should show that it is in fact not limited in how it makes a profit. You have to remember that the Fed is the head of a larger entity made up of smaller banks once you factor in the value of these separate transaction and charges made over the course of the dollars journey you'd be amazed at the profits they make.
- NSResponder, on 05/08/2008, -1/+10". We have clearly demonstrated we can more or less manage a fiat money system. "
No, we've seen very clearly that a fiat money system is unmanageable over the long term. The dollar has been debased continuously since 1913, and is now worth around 4% of what it was when the fed was created.
-jcr- rficwizard, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3No value was just magically created when the new dollars that led to the inflation were created. Value was transferred from those who held dollars to those who were getting the new dollars. That is the only fundamental problem with inflation, even reasonably predictable inflation like we have.
The gold standard is not necessarily the answer, but a system where inflation is the goal is also not the answer. Monetary policy should aim at increasing the money supply just enough (or decreasing it just enough) that inflation is approximately zero. Sometimes they would shoot slightly too high, and sometimes they would shoot slightly too low. On average, they would get it right, and the overshoots and undershoots can be kept reasonably small. Currently, monetary policy is aimed not only at inflation, but also at unemployment and other social goals. Monetary policy should be used for monetary goals, fiscal policy or regulation should be used for all other goals.
Inflation, of course, is not a single number. We could use one of the existing "baskets" such as the consumer price index or the producer price index, or we could come up with a new basket. For instance, a metal commodities basket that included gold, silver, nickel, copper, and platinum, for instance, would have many of the good effects of a gold standard, without being so dependent on the gold market.- NSResponder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3The key to solving our current mess is first repeal the legal tender laws and allow people to transact business in whatever medium they care to use, and secondly to retire the federal reserve notes in an orderly fashion, as we did with the civil war greenbacks.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3The key to solving our current mess is first repeal the legal tender laws and allow people to transact business in whatever medium they care to use, and secondly to retire the federal reserve notes in an orderly fashion, as we did with the civil war greenbacks.
- loki49152, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4rficwizard:
Why try to manually adjust the money supply in an attempt to achieve zero inflation when basing currency on a commodity standard does that automatically, without the possibility of human error?
Human managed money supplies - hell, even computer managed money supplies - can *never* achieve zero inflation consistently. Why? Because the target assumes that:
a) decisions are based on an omniscient knowledge of the state of the economy
b) actions taken to affect the economy are instantaneous, pervasive, and actually effective
c) the other actors within the economy will necessarily react the way the money managers predict
Not a single one of those conditions is achievable. None. But the commodity-based currency system achieves the desired goal - zero inflation - automatically.- rficwizard, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Such a system only achieves zero inflation if inflation is measured against a single commodity (the commodity that is the standard). A reasonable definition of inflation would have to include a large number of products that people actually buy, each of which will be inflated or deflated a different amount as measured in any currency at any given moment. Tying the money supply to gold means that a drastic increase in gold production (a new find, for instance) would lead to a drastic increase in the money supply. I see no reason to think that that is a good thing. The ONLY argument I see for a commodity standard is that it prevents someone from causing inflation (or deflation) to serve their own purposes. This is balanced by the strong argument against, which is that the money supply is then tied to a commodity, whose supply and demand have factors outside of its monetary use.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5I didn't say we are awesome at managing a fiat money system. I said we can "more or less manage it". Meaning that we haven't had a complete collapse of our economy like some countries have. Sure we have inflation problems and that's bad, but theoretical gold and all forms of currency are just as fiat as US dollars.
I see much bigger problems with the Federal Reserve than just lack of gold backing.- NSResponder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3"we haven't had a complete collapse of our economy like some countries have.."
We sure did. Look up the Great Depression.
-jcr - TsuruchiBrian, on 05/09/2008, -3/+2The great depression was NOT a total collapse of our economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gdp20-40.jpg - krusader3z, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1I wouldn't call it a minor bump in the road...
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't either.
But people during the great depression weren't using a wheelbarrow full of hundred dollar bills to buy a sandwich. It was arguably the biggest economic downturn our country has ever seen, but it is small potatoes compared to other countries that really abused their currency.
- NSResponder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3"we haven't had a complete collapse of our economy like some countries have.."
- rficwizard, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3No value was just magically created when the new dollars that led to the inflation were created. Value was transferred from those who held dollars to those who were getting the new dollars. That is the only fundamental problem with inflation, even reasonably predictable inflation like we have.
- krusader3z, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1All money the Federal Reserve earns on interest, save for operating costs, is deposited into the United States Treasury.
- krusader3z, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1By LAW. But of course, this is digg.. so the reality of situations is always blinded by idiocracy.
- ultimateMJ, on 05/08/2008, -8/+6Do you really trust the masses to understand fiscal policy enough to have it controlled by the voters? What would stop them from just printing money willy nilly? I'd certainly vote for the guy who promised me a million bucks, even if it was unsustainable.
- bobartig, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6Anything gold can do platinum can do better!
- VAXcat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6 Except be beaten into thin sheets or conduct electricity...gold is the most maleable element, and is a much better conductor than platinum.
- rficwizard, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Also, I have never seen Platinumschlager in a bar.
- bjornski, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Can you just imagine what a bottle of that would cost? And shots? That'd be what, a $50 shot?
It might get someone laid.
- bjornski, on 05/08/2008, -1/+2Can you just imagine what a bottle of that would cost? And shots? That'd be what, a $50 shot?
- hempydave, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3Both gold and platinum conduct very well .
Platinum is much stronger especially at very high temperatures.
That's why it's worth more.- NSResponder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2No, that's not why it's worth more. If strength at high temperatures determined value, then titanium would beat gold and platinum both.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2No, that's not why it's worth more. If strength at high temperatures determined value, then titanium would beat gold and platinum both.
- rficwizard, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Also, I have never seen Platinumschlager in a bar.
- VAXcat, on 05/08/2008, -0/+6 Except be beaten into thin sheets or conduct electricity...gold is the most maleable element, and is a much better conductor than platinum.
- kemp34, on 05/08/2008, -0/+9Dollars are backed by U.S. citizen labor/profits and the guns to enforce taxpaying.
- Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Actually at the moment the dollar is backed by oil. At the same time we dropped the gold standard (early 1970's) we made a deal with OPEC that oil be priced and sold only in dollars. That way any country that uses oil (i.e. all of them) have to keep dollars in reserve.
Therefore the dollar's value has nothing to do with supply and demand. Dollars are a monopoly.- NSResponder, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1"Dollars are a monopoly."
And like all coercive monopolies, it's created by government interference in the market.
-jcr
- NSResponder, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1"Dollars are a monopoly."
- principle, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2The value of money and gold is determined by supply and demand. This implies that whoever produces money (or gold) is producing value. However, this is false. Because value is only produced by work (i.e., work represents value). For example, gold in the ground is worthless until some one finds it and digs it up. Therefore, if “we the people” produce value (vs. banks that do not) then “we the people” should reap the benefits of printing, and landing money. Fiat money is not the problem, the Federal Reserve is.
"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". - Louis T. McFadden Chairman of the House Banking Committee on June 10, 1932 - krusader3z, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1How dare you make a sensible comment!
Wiki the Triffin Dilemma to understand why gold doesnt work. - principle, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Moneys created by the Fed represent debt, while moneys created by the U.S. government represent value. Debt-based money system requires exponential increase in money supply in order to pay interest on the debt, which is inherently unstable. On the other hand, value-based moneys are produced to pay for government projects (i.e., roads, bridges, power plants, etc.), value of which is stable. Furthermore, the debt-based moneys are true fiat money because they represent debt (i.e., an IOU), while value-based moneys represent tangibles. These are the fundamental differences between the two systems.
- homah, on 05/08/2008, -14/+49The difference is that you can't simply create more gold with the flip of a switch.
- voxtarri, on 05/08/2008, -27/+10the federal reserve is inside my butthole
- hempydave, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3that's gotta hurt.
- crushtheenemy, on 05/08/2008, -20/+19front page worthy get this to the masses!!!
- Evermin7, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1Why is this being dugg down?
- crushtheenemy, on 05/08/2008, -21/+63this is one exact reason why i voted/will be voting again for Ron Paul
- dshPls, on 05/08/2008, -24/+8Yes because you're a tool. You want to talk about worthless money how much did you give to the "revolution"?
- kemp34, on 05/08/2008, -3/+7Nice job trolling buddy!
- chuckDontSurf, on 05/08/2008, -13/+6To quote Kang: "Go ahead, throw your vote away! Mwahahaha!!"
- dsmx, on 05/09/2008, -4/+1The thought occurs that if enough people vote Ron Paul McCain could get in as it would take votes from Obama.
- jeffwmartin, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Only for those voters who hear "Change" and blindly follow whoever said it. Yes, Obama is the most anti-war candidate of the 3 Stooges, but on pretty much everything else, he is almost opposite Ron Paul. As I told a friend (and Obama supporter), if I was forced to vote for one of the 3 Stooges, it would be Obama. Luckily, there will be other candidates and I may just write in Ron Paul.
- dshPls, on 05/08/2008, -24/+8Yes because you're a tool. You want to talk about worthless money how much did you give to the "revolution"?
- wishninja, on 05/08/2008, -19/+4858 minutes ***** that I think I'll just take Ron Paul's at his word.
- BetterOffEd, on 05/08/2008, -7/+13If you take ANYONE at "his word" then you're a lemming and we don't need you.
.- wishninja, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Who is "we"?
I believe in Ron Paul and I think he has it all together when I comes to his economic policies. Just because I do not want to watch every documentary ever made on the FED does not mean I am anything to a lemming. I now feel I have a relationship with Ron Paul and can trust him. So ***** what?
- wishninja, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Who is "we"?
- fromonesource, on 05/08/2008, -3/+12Don't be a sheep. Educate yourself. Ron Paul is smart but he is not god.
- conza88, on 05/08/2008, -7/+4He's my God. :D
I worship him daily! ;) - Idiggapony, on 05/09/2008, -6/+3Yeah, that's *****. Not the sheep part, the "he is not god" part.
- conza88, on 05/08/2008, -7/+4He's my God. :D
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -7/+4Perhaps take a step back and think: Hmm... if Ron Paul is so correct, why are most economists disagreeing with his ideas?
- Funkleft, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7To follow along with an economics teacher of mine "why aren't all economists rich?"
- Mindzai, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Figure it out yet?
- BetterOffEd, on 05/08/2008, -7/+13If you take ANYONE at "his word" then you're a lemming and we don't need you.
- j0ew00ds, on 05/08/2008, -8/+71dugg for making the front page without mentioning Hillary Clinton.
- MrPotato, on 05/08/2008, -5/+18Or, dare I say it, Obama
- Sogui, on 05/08/2008, -5/+4Your point is negated because it includes Ron Paul.
- imightbewrong, on 05/08/2008, -15/+35so apparently digg, just like Hillary, doesn't care about what "elite economists" think
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/08/2008, -4/+14There are plenty of elite economists who think the federal reserve system sucks for different reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Syste ...
The people making those criticisms are elite economists. Even former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan apologized for the role the Federal reserve played in the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent depression.- Akronos, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Actually, I think you're referring to the current chairman of the Fed, Bernanke. Unless Greenspan apologized as well.
- bc289, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Yes they apologized for the federal reserve's actions during the great depression because they did not do ENOUGH to get us out of the depression. They do NOT apologize for the existence of the federal reserve though. Some do debate whether we should have a federal reserve. However, it is in the context of the impossible trinity, and whether we should have one at the cost of fixed exchange rates.
The majority do support the federal reserve.- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2It is NOT just that the Fed didn't do enough once it started. The Fed holds large responsibility for the bubble during the 20's that finally busted in 1929. I think you are right though that they did not apologize for that part of it, although maybe they should have.
And when people either support or do not support the Federal Reserve it is usually ambiguous as to whether they are referring to "A Federal Reserve System" or "our Federal Reserve System". I think our main problem is that our Federal Reserve is controlled by privately owned banks, and that we are being billed for the interest for our own money being loaned to us. Usually when things are Federal they are accountable to the public that is funding them. - bc289, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1I don't think the fed had much to do with the bubble in the 20s. There was a paper by the economist Eugene White that discussed what characteristics were common with stock market bubbles. 1 was that the fundamentals are difficult to assess. This is true both in the 90s and 20s, as both time periods had technologies that drastically improved productivity but also made it difficult to predict the changes it would have on the overall economy. Second of all, the level of sophistication of the investor in both periods declined. You see an increase in the access of investing to the average person, and this simply leads to more inefficient investment decisions.
The federal reserve though, I don't see how they were responsible for the bubble in the 20s.
The federal reserve also pays back the interest that we pay on that money. They keep only a small amount of it, it's largely negligible.
The accountability of the federal reserve is a somewhat controversial issue, but I think it's right. Fed chairmen are largely accountable for their actions as they have to be re-elected, and many of these chairmen are academics that care deeply about their reputation. If it were a government institution and more exposed to political influences, you would see more inflation as there would be political pressure to overstimulate the economy. In this way, just as the supreme court justices are shielded from political pressures, the justices and the economists can make decisions without feeling pressured to act on the behalf of political crap, but rather what they think is truly best for the nation.
If you have an issue with our federal reserve system, you must have an even bigger issue with the central bank of europe, since they have even less accountability than our federal reserve.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2It is NOT just that the Fed didn't do enough once it started. The Fed holds large responsibility for the bubble during the 20's that finally busted in 1929. I think you are right though that they did not apologize for that part of it, although maybe they should have.
- ACityInOhio, on 05/08/2008, -7/+2you probably hear this a lot, but i don't think you're wrong on this one. just wanted to throw that out there.
- imightbewrong, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2just about every comment i make, its the title of a great radiohead song
- TsuruchiBrian, on 05/08/2008, -4/+14There are plenty of elite economists who think the federal reserve system sucks for different reasons.
- KragTheDigger, on 05/08/2008, -9/+25Thought this was going to be about the Italian carmaker...
- JanYpe, on 05/08/2008, -4/+7Yeah. Total letdown.
- WNW3, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6I thought the same thing. Fix it again, Tony.
- jnordb, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3My mom drove a small fiat 4-door back in the 70s. I liked it as a kid; wish I had that funky little car now.
- Idiggapony, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Yeah, you know, you're right. In the 70's Fiats were all over the place. Now I can't remember the last time I've seen one. Does Fiat still make cars? I live in the U.S., so maybe they just don't export them here anymore. I think that's what happened with Peugeot and Citroen -- I haven't seen one of those in a long time either.
- KragTheDigger, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Fiat is still int he business. They own the Ferrari brand too (and, as odd as it may sound, they're one of the main sponsor of the Yamaha Motorcycle World Championship team). Peugeot and Citroen should also still be around. Incidentally, Alfa Romeo should be coming back to the US market later this year or next year.
- Slitchy, on 05/08/2008, -17/+50It amazes me how many people can talk on this subject without having a graduate level constitutional law class or even an college economics class....
- andy314159pi, on 05/08/2008, -4/+17Economics is a fairly accessible discipline. The underlying concepts of the various schools of thought are not too terribly complicated and everyone takes part in the economy. Some of that argument applies to understanding and interpreting our constitution.
- Slitchy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Well first, you are right, economics is extremely accessible as long as the person speaking has gone out and tried to access it. Basing an opinion, however, on the notion that everyone takes part in it is not the proper attitude.
Anything can be used to interpret the constitution but starting at the words of the document itself is a good start. After the text, its good to read the relevant with Supreme Court decisions, and here that would end the debate since numerous opinions have dealt with Congress's right to coin money and that which is necessary and proper to that right. - Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3The constitution is not a living document. It's much better used as a useful guide of basing what rules the United States follows. For god sakes, the guys who wrote it were slave owners living in a time without electricity, modern medicine, internet and space travel. I think it's OK to be liberal in its interpretation...
- Funkleft, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1I'd like to think the basics still apply even with electricity. Yes they owned slaves, but that's one of the reasons we can amend the constitution. However it really just took us recognizing black people as "men" also.
- bc289, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Right. The constitution says many things, but when it comes to economics, I don't put all trust in there. Even if the federal reserve isn't constitutional, then hell, that means we need to amend it to make it constitutional. Their economic understanding was nowhere near our understanding today. Don't treat it as if it's the bible.
- Funkleft, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Well obviously economics operated a little differently. It's to my understanding that it was on a smaller more local level. You know a business would not function if they didn't treat customers well or provided a bad product. I think the age of corporate enterprise has changed things. So has suburbia.
- Slitchy, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3Well first, you are right, economics is extremely accessible as long as the person speaking has gone out and tried to access it. Basing an opinion, however, on the notion that everyone takes part in it is not the proper attitude.
- Cerebron, on 05/08/2008, -1/+10Sounds like the majority of our legislators.
- jcastillo81, on 05/08/2008, -6/+15Maybe none of us are economics scholars but it doesn't take one to realize printing little notes of paper and telling people its worth what you say it is, without anything to back it up with, probably isn't the best solution out there.
- Trigonometron, on 05/08/2008, -5/+5settle down Russ
- docliberty, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2LOL. Nice quote
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -3/+4Nor is backing our money against an arbitrary metal that we value only because of its interesting properties..
As long is the money supply is strictly controlled, our system of currency will continue to work great. If there's an apocalypse, I'm sure we'll have greater things to worry about than our financial ability to trade arbitrary metals...- 0nslaught, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2"53 trillion dollars in the hole" is working great?
Source: David Walker, U.S. comptroller general, the nation's top budget auditor and head of the Government Accountability Office
"Within the next five years, if nothing is done, this country faces a serious economic catastrophe because it is addicted to debt," Walker said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-16u9x3tfE- Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2That's not a failure of fiat currency, that's a failure of your government for recklessly borrowing money.
- 0nslaught, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2"53 trillion dollars in the hole" is working great?
- Trigonometron, on 05/08/2008, -5/+5settle down Russ
- randumbusername, on 05/08/2008, -2/+14its amazing that one would or should have to go to educational indoctrination to understand the constituition
- PHiZ187, on 05/08/2008, -8/+4No, but I'm amazed you can operate a keyboard.
- Slitchy, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5Why is that amazing? This wasn't written today. It isnt a Civil Code - laying out exactly what the rules and laws in laymens' terms. Its a document written in the searing Philadelphia heat based off of Common law notions of law. Notions developed through years of implementation of judicial decisions. Add in elements of natural law fresh with the founders new sense of ideals based heavily on experiences with the British. Throw in the Amendments which change some aspects of the law and not others; and you can see that even the most informed legal minds (the Supreme Court Justices themselves) struggle to understand the Constitution. Maybe not ideal, but its part of living in a common law country.
After Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court has determined what the Constitution does and does not mean. Arguing that something is against the Constitution when the Supreme Court has expanded the Necessary and Proper clause far beyond that needed to justify the FED is just wasting breath.- PHiZ187, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3I think the U.S. Constitutional Reporter, that reports the judicial opinions of Supreme Court cases, is up to 500+ volumes. At 1000+ pages per volume, it is laughable whenever anyone says that the Constitution is self-evident. Or what about all those 5-4 splits, where very very intelligent people disagree as to what the Constitution mandates. Are these people just frivolously wasting their time? Ha.
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3The guys who wrote it were slave owners living in a time without electricity, modern medicine, rapid communication and space travel. I think it's OK to be liberal in its interpretation when we need to do what's best...
- fromonesource, on 05/08/2008, -5/+9Economics and the constitution are not difficult to understand. The Federal Reserve would like us to believe that economics is too advanced for our proletariat minds because if we actually understood what they were doing, the gig would be up. The constitution is easy to understand as well, you don't need to take a class to understand freedom.
- Slitchy, on 05/08/2008, -4/+4Yes, now the FED is leading a conspiracy to make the Constitution hard to understand? I guess all the great legal minds before and after the Fed R have just been secretly acting confused. From Civil Rights litigation to understanding Due Process, everyone has been faking Constitutional confusion just so the Government can try to set interest rates and control inflation.
**sarcasm intended- fromonesource, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3No, those were two separate statements, smart guy.
- Slitchy, on 05/08/2008, -4/+4Yes, now the FED is leading a conspiracy to make the Constitution hard to understand? I guess all the great legal minds before and after the Fed R have just been secretly acting confused. From Civil Rights litigation to understanding Due Process, everyone has been faking Constitutional confusion just so the Government can try to set interest rates and control inflation.
- dagwood, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1You must be new here.
- mofw, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7It amazes me how many people can talk about politics without ever taking a graduate level political science class...
It amazes me how many people can talk about the weather without having a graduate level meteorology class...
Weak.- staticx57, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Talk is cheap. It doesnt mean the person talking about the weather has an deep understanding of all of the ocean currents and air currents.
- loki49152, on 05/08/2008, -2/+7You'll be even more amazed when you find out that the Founding Fathers managed to write the damn document without a graduate level constitutional law class or a PhD in economics...
- dofe, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1The founding fathers weren't exactly average joes. John Adams (the main architect of the Constitution) was a lawyer, and the other participants were all at the high end of the societal strata at the time and had extensive political experience in the Continental Congress. As far needing a graduate level con law understanding...of course they didn't need it at time; but bring the founders to today's world and they would be lost without learning about the developments in con law during the past 200 years.
- krusader3z, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2I suggest you read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography to truely grasp how far from "ordinary" the man was.
- kuantan97, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3It amazes me how some minds can be so institutionalized, and that a simple appeal to authority logical fallacy can sucker so many digging morons.
- Hangly, on 05/08/2008, -1/+7Yeah, and what's with these people without degrees in constitutional law being allowed to vote?
- oldgal, on 05/09/2008, -4/+2Your point is well taken in that I can find no comments that mention credit, debt, or margins...all of which would be applicable in the same manner whether fiat or gold standard.
- bc289, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4In a survey conducted by Robert Shiller (he was my professor in econ 252, financial markets), 77% of the general public agreed that their “biggest gripe about inflation” was that “inflation hurts my real buying power, it makes me poorer,” whereas only 12% of economists agreed.
Economics is an extremely complicated issue. The fact that so many people think inflation is bad, but only 12% of economists agree, show how not-so-obvious it is.- Hangly, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2What's complicated about that? Inflation increases the amount of available credit making rapid expansion possible. At the same time it debases the currency and makes the savings of ordinary people worth less.
Like so many other things most economists seem to like like, inflation is good for big business and usually bad for everyone else. See also conscription and taxation.- Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1No, inflation helps to keep unemployment down. This inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment is the main reason why inflation is still kept to low but tolerable levels.
- bc289, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2I don't agree with that. Your savings increase at the rate of inflation. Nominal interest rate equals the real interest rate plus inflation. Inflation doesn't hurt your savings at all, unless it is unexpected. However, given the low rates of inflation, the unexpected inflation isn't too high either. In addition, social security is tied to the CPI, so you don't lose any of that either.
So, explain to me how inflation is a bad thing. It doesn't reduce the value of your savings.- Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Thank you for explaining basic macroeconomics to these people! Another thing: Inflation is inversely related to unemployment, meaning that low levels of inflation help keep unemployment lower.
One thing that is of concern about inflation is that it is detrimental to people if their wages don't rise as fast as inflation. I really think we should have a minimum wage tied to inflation, because once this happens, nearly every argument against inflation loses merit.
- Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Thank you for explaining basic macroeconomics to these people! Another thing: Inflation is inversely related to unemployment, meaning that low levels of inflation help keep unemployment lower.
- Hangly, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2What's complicated about that? Inflation increases the amount of available credit making rapid expansion possible. At the same time it debases the currency and makes the savings of ordinary people worth less.
- jeffwmartin, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2The framers' goal was to write the Constitution so that the average citizen could understand it. It wasn't a modern legal contract that requires 1,000 words just to establish who the document is addressing. Everything was stated clearly and concisely. The problems that we have now, and the reason we have to have graduate level constitutional law classes is that a) the English language has evolved and b) different groups have tried to change the obvious interpretation of basic statements, which have set precedents and now the water is muddied.
- RationalXubrnce, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2 It amazes me that anyone think it necessary to study a subject in college before being able to discuss it intelligently. This isn't particle physics.
- andy314159pi, on 05/08/2008, -4/+17Economics is a fairly accessible discipline. The underlying concepts of the various schools of thought are not too terribly complicated and everyone takes part in the economy. Some of that argument applies to understanding and interpreting our constitution.
- Quick2822, on 05/08/2008, -12/+42Sadly if any candidate were to talk about the Federal Reserve, our fiat money system, they would be ignored and mocked much like Ron Paul was.
I don't want to claim a media/government conspiracy, but it is obvious that this type of talk gets you no where in the political world, no matter how true it is.- mike17032, on 05/08/2008, -10/+3Old Paul was mocked because he proved he was an idiot every time he opened his mouth
- MarkDTS, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Please list an example if you wish to discuss something. Without an example you're just a flamer.
- maxpower17@digg, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1***** off mike
- MarkDTS, on 05/08/2008, -1/+5Please list an example if you wish to discuss something. Without an example you're just a flamer.
- popfrogs, on 05/08/2008, -0/+4Figure 1: Politician runs on a platform denouncing the Federal Reserve.
Figure 2: All big backers pull out leaving Politician penniless.
Face it, bankers love banks, especially one run as poorly as the Federal Reserve. You can thank huge and frequent percentage rate cuts for the ever devaluing dollar, which consequently has caused oil to rise in value. - Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -5/+1When Ron Paulers get it wrong, they REALLY get it wrong. You guys have this arrogance that "if only" the masses could hear Paul's messages, that he would rise in popular support. Well let me tell you something, anyone with any competence in the political world knows and fully understands what Ron Paul represents. They disagree with his libertarian ideology. There is no conspiracy. It's democracy at its finest, and in this case, the people have rejected your ideology on legitimate grounds. Accept it.
- BDOUG, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4You think this is a Democracy under George II? You aren't paying attention.
- mike17032, on 05/08/2008, -10/+3Old Paul was mocked because he proved he was an idiot every time he opened his mouth
- waluum, on 05/08/2008, -22/+42Is the Obama bury brigade going to make sure this video gets dugg down because it (a) makes sense and (b) Ron Paul supports it?
F*ck electability, my vote sides with the strongest principle and integrity to the end! You have my vote Ron Paul!- daggah, on 05/08/2008, -10/+2Ron Paul is a fanatical Christian reconstructionist. Integrity and principles aren't exactly top priority for that crowd.
- Amiga500, on 05/08/2008, -8/+4Ron Paul can't win. Your vote is as worthless as you are.
- Akronos, on 05/08/2008, -0/+8Keep thinking that voting with the crowd for the popular man is a meaningful vote. You know, instead of voting for what you stand for and the candidate who most closely represents that, vote for the lesser evil. So that way, you encourage mediocrity in the pool of presidential candidates and remove candidates with policies you actually like.
- robbiemuffin, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1you should have seen the video BEFORE they found a politician who backed it! oh man, was that a hoot! ... saddest, bleakest possible movie.
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1Paul was popular because many social liberals found some agreement with his libertarian stance on social issues. They were new to libertarianism and didn't truly understand its failings. Ron Paul doesn't agree with expanding the freedom of people because he cares for their social welfare, he only does so because his ideology is about survival of the fittest. If Ron Paul ran this world, you would see the complete erosion of any middle class and the rise of inequality. Pure free markets benefit those who have the money to take advantage of them. It doesn't work to your advantage when you're born into a poor family with no rich connections.
- nydwarf, on 05/09/2008, -4/+1Wasn't this Dugg by the Ron Paul Tinfoil Hat Brigade?
- suzywang3000, on 05/08/2008, -18/+3there is no such thing as fiat money. more at:
http://www.csun.edu/~hceco008/realbills.htm- hempydave, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3still a good read despite stupid comment
- r3yzor, on 05/08/2008, -10/+11I don't get it... when I want to buy something I just give them my credit card.
sarcasm
The mindless drones that many great historical figures fought to protect and allow this type of stupidity have become the brethren horde of the americanus ignoramous.
Be Well and Obey. - ceredron, on 05/08/2008, -49/+51...... The Federal Reserve is a pretty ***** necessary part of monetary oversight. I usually am not one for extreme opinionated stances, but take away the Fed and the US economy will crumble. I say that because it will, honestly, fall apart like nothing you've ever seen before. The Fed is an integral, crucial part of the economy, and nobody who has any serious care for the economy's state as it is would possibly think about abolishing it. If you think otherwise, than you don't understand what it does. It's that simple.
Now digg me down because I'm not a libertarian-leaning economically conservative minded fool. Or a rabid Ron Paul supporter. "Oh, let's just listen to Ron Paul cause he is angry and likes to bash on existing facets of the government that aren't specifically demanded in the very first copy of the constitution. Oh wait, the elastic clause doesn't exist, we shouldn't try to change our constitution to better suit the times and needs, no, we should just stick by our guns and hope that everything turns out ok"
Shut up, Ron Paul. Your goals are admirably independent but completely unrealistic and unecessary.
Rant over.- Akairenn, on 05/08/2008, -12/+13Wow - you completely kill your argument with one sentence of pure idiocy. "Oh wait, the elastic clause doesn't exist, we shouldn't try to change our constitution to better suit the times and needs" - you do know there's a legal method of amending the Constitution, correct? The fact that our representatives choose to enact illegal laws instead should tell you something.
- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -10/+3What the ***** are you talking about? The "elastic clause" (I prefer the term "necessary and proper" clause ALREADY EXISTS. You would only have to amend the constitution if you wanted to TAKE IT OUT. Ron Paul and all his idiot followers who think the Fed is unconstitutional are the idiots who pretend it doesn't exist. They're the ones who would read entire clauses out of the constitution without actually amending it.
They also like to pretend that the commerce clause and the general welfare clause don't exist. And they cling to some bizarre belief that the nondelegation doctrine is inscribed into the constitution somewhere, even though no one actually find it anywhere in that document.
Go back to school, Akairenn.- Phlake, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6By some interpretations, such as mine, the "necessary and proper" clause exists only to allow the government to what what is absolutely necessary. These absolute needs, if not fulfilled, would lead to the dissolution of the government. Any other powers requested by Congress that are not absolutely necessary would then have to be added legally through the amendment process.
The "commerce" clause, by my reading, exists solely to prevent the states from placing taxes on interstate trade, not to regulate anything that is supposed to fall under the domain of the states. Case in point: I do not believe that education is a form of interstate commerce; however, the federal government regulates it through this clause.
The "general welfare" clause should exist only to, as the rest of the clause read, help "provide for the common defence." The general welfare of the United States in maintained by keeping the nation free from foreign attacks. Any other aid or powers so quickly adopted by Congress are to be reserved to the States or to the people.
I am sure that most of us here are well educated individuals. A differing opinion about Constitutional interpretations is not necessarily "bizarre," just different.- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3"By some interpretations, such as mine"
Oh, great! Let's just dump 200+ years of constitutional jurisprudence and leave everything up to Phlake on Digg!!
"the "necessary and proper" clause exists only to allow the government to what what is absolutely necessary. These absolute needs, if not fulfilled, would lead to the dissolution of the government "
Funny, that's not what the constitution says. It says congress has all powers necessary proper carry out its enumerated powers. But that's ok, because we're using Phlake's constitution now, and his constitution might phrase things differently.
" I do not believe that education is a form of interstate commerce; however, the federal government regulates it through this clause."
Wrong. States are not required to follow Department of Education regulations. They are free to run their schools as they please. They only have to folllow DOE regulations if they accept DOE funding.
"The "general welfare" clause should exist only to, as the rest of the clause read, help "provide for the common defence.""
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
Pay attention to the language. "common Defence AND general Welfare." What does the word "and" mean in your constitution, Phlake? Are you suggesting that the founding fathers were just being redundant? - kemp34, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3So how exactly does a debt-based, fiat monetary system provide for the general welfare? I'd like to hear it.
- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -4/+3"By some interpretations, such as mine"
- Phlake, on 05/08/2008, -1/+6By some interpretations, such as mine, the "necessary and proper" clause exists only to allow the government to what what is absolutely necessary. These absolute needs, if not fulfilled, would lead to the dissolution of the government. Any other powers requested by Congress that are not absolutely necessary would then have to be added legally through the amendment process.
- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -10/+3What the ***** are you talking about? The "elastic clause" (I prefer the term "necessary and proper" clause ALREADY EXISTS. You would only have to amend the constitution if you wanted to TAKE IT OUT. Ron Paul and all his idiot followers who think the Fed is unconstitutional are the idiots who pretend it doesn't exist. They're the ones who would read entire clauses out of the constitution without actually amending it.
- Marijuana, on 05/08/2008, -7/+18Monetary oversight? So bailing out private banks is monetary oversight? Give me a break.
- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -8/+3Why isn't it?
- mikemil828, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1It is if not bailing out those private banks means an economic collapse, look at Japan.
- ralphthemagi, on 05/08/2008, -7/+8The thing is, Ron Paul doesn't actually think abolishing the Fed is a good idea. He knows better, and when directly asked his response is always much more realistic. He just says those things in debates to get people's attention and rile his fanbase, which then turns around and preaches it as the gospel.
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3While on the topics of misleading things about Ron Paul. I am sick of Paulites touting his closeness with Reagan as a selling point. Reagan's economics were in complete opposition to Ron Paul's and Paul at one point even denounced Reagan for how he was a betrayal for overspending.
- logicet, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2While it is true Reagan's actual policies were in opposition to Ron Paul's.. He did talk the talk, he just didn't walk the walk...
Here is a quote from Reagan -
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."
- logicet, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2While it is true Reagan's actual policies were in opposition to Ron Paul's.. He did talk the talk, he just didn't walk the walk...
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -2/+3While on the topics of misleading things about Ron Paul. I am sick of Paulites touting his closeness with Reagan as a selling point. Reagan's economics were in complete opposition to Ron Paul's and Paul at one point even denounced Reagan for how he was a betrayal for overspending.
- SchmuckofNI, on 05/08/2008, -9/+4Just wait until gas hits 8 dollars a gallon and it costs 6 dollars for a gallon of milk then you will eat your words. Don't forget the Fed did cause the Great Depression and even admitted to doing it..
- themakasu, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8NO. The Fed was one of the things that made the depression worse but it sure as hell didn't cause it. Apparently, diggers failed both remedial history and economics.
- SchmuckofNI, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You are a dumbass, the fed reserve DID not do what it was supposed to do by bailing out failing bankers. Instead, they increased the interest rate on loans. So have fun paying 4 dollar gasoline cause its going to happen again as long as that institution exists.
- SchmuckofNI, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You are a dumbass, the fed reserve DID not do what it was supposed to do by bailing out failing bankers. Instead, they increased the interest rate on loans. So have fun paying 4 dollar gasoline cause its going to happen again as long as that institution exists.
- themakasu, on 05/08/2008, -2/+8NO. The Fed was one of the things that made the depression worse but it sure as hell didn't cause it. Apparently, diggers failed both remedial history and economics.
- NSResponder, on 05/08/2008, -8/+5"The Federal Reserve is a pretty ***** necessary part of monetary oversight."
*****. We got along quite well without it for more than half of this country's history.
-jcr- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5But then we stopped being a nation of farmers and built a modern, advanced economy and the federal reserve became a useful and important component of the financial apparatus that we established to manage and sustain that economy.
Of course, it's possible that you grew up in some southern backwater where people are still living in poverty and filth, so you can be excused for not being aware that this transformation took place.- Marijuana, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Wow, suck the feds dick already.
- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4Yes, only blind sycophancy could ever cause one to see the wisdom of way we've organized our modern financial system. The fact that the U.S. economy has been the single greatest force driving world economic growth has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. That every advanced industrial economy has some form of central bank and that all have abandoned the gold standard is simply a historical fluke. The guy with the marijuana leaf logo understands!
- Marijuana, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Tell me what you think: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4492945648 ...
- Marijuana, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1Wow, suck the feds dick already.
- loki49152, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1The Fed was actually established as an element of Socialist ideological platform, not to "build a modern, advanced economy". The only reason we have such an economy is the fact that The Fed has been largely hands-off, allowing the economy to develop naturally, not because their management has made the economy better in some way.
We have our advanced society in spite of, not because of, the Fed - and only because the backlash from their original escapades largely hamstrung them from doing any more harm.- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1I never claimed that the fed "managed our economy." I said it was an important component of the financial aparratus that we erected to manage the economy.
Perhaps you can explain to everyone how the Fed facilitates socialism. While you're at it, tell us who these socialists were that were running congress in 1913. Be specific. The Federal Reserve Bank was the brainchild of the National Monetary Commission, which was charged with the responsibility of developing a means of averting currency panic when European creditors called in their debts. You will note that the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson, not ordinarily regarded as a socialist.
I fail to see how any of the above actors and organizations can be characterized as the least bit "socialist." But I'm sure you'll enlighten us all.
- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1I never claimed that the fed "managed our economy." I said it was an important component of the financial aparratus that we erected to manage the economy.
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2Yeah got along well without modern medicine, universal education and human rights for most human history too, but that doesn't mean we should go back.
- mikemil828, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1//*****. We got along quite well without it for more than half of this country's history.//
Sure we got along perfectly well without the Fed before it came into existance, except the times that we did not, Like 1819-1823, 1837-1842, 1857, 1873-1877, 1893-1896, 1901 and 1907- dysfunction, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Yeah, and everything was much smoother after the Fed came into existence, except for when it wasn't- like 1929-1939. I'm not really arguing for either side here, just pointing out that fact.
- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -2/+5But then we stopped being a nation of farmers and built a modern, advanced economy and the federal reserve became a useful and important component of the financial apparatus that we established to manage and sustain that economy.
- lilSears, on 05/08/2008, -3/+6the economy is going to crumble or our way of life as we know it will crumble. Something will give. People are able to buy 3 story houses and own 2 brand new cars with $100k /year income. THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE LIVING. Claim bankruptcy and you stole all that crap. Devalues the dollar more and more and it's only a matter of time before another crash, especially when we run out of oil. We'll be hunting deer in the jungles of rockefeller center.
- andreegal, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1"We'll be hunting deer in the jungles of rockefeller center." while the Rockefellers watch us and amuse themselves....
- atarijedi, on 05/08/2008, -3/+0You can have a Federal Bank, just make it publicly funded, publicly run, publicly owned, essentially a Government Institution, like the Bank of Canada. :)
- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1The Federal Reserve directors are directly appointed by the President. He can remove them at any time and replace them with anyone he wants.
- Marijuana, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1So what do you do when you have a president like Bush?
- Akronos, on 05/08/2008, -0/+5Incorrect, again Petrodollar. Have you ever been right?
Coming from the Fed's St. Louis website:
"Where do the Reserve Bank boards of directors come from? Each board consists of nine members. A board member serves for a three-year term, which can be renewed for an additional three-year term. Six of the nine members are elected by the member banks within the Federal Reserve district; the other three are public members recommended by the local Federal Reserve Bank and appointed by the Board of Governors in Washington. The board of director's chairman and deputy chairman are drawn from the three public members and named by the Board of Governors. "
Nowhere does that mention the president. But, perhaps you meant the board of governors, who ARE appointed by the president. In that case, you're STILL WRONG.
From the same website: "The President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; each member has a 14-year term. A term expires every other year. A member may serve one full 14-year term, or a partial term when a vacancy arises followed by a full 14-year term upon reappointment and Senate confirmation. Once appointed, a member may not be removed by the President but only through the impeachment process defined in the Constitution. "
A president CANNOT remove them anytime.
http://www.stlouisfed.org/news/speeches/1999/04_28 ...
Try again. Maybe one day, by sheer coincidence, I'll see a post by you that happens to be correct. I'm still waiting though.
- hempydave, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3FAIL
Canada's money supply was privatized in the late 1970's and our dollar crumbled to BELOW your dollar.
Now your dollar has fallen to meet ours.
welcome to the Mexico of the North.- Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Umm... no it isn't. It's controlled by the Bank of Canada.
- Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -0/+2Actually you're wrong, the Bank of Canada does not have to follow the advice of the Minister of Finance and is completely independent from the ruling government of the day. If you're an American who had problems with the Federal Reserve, you would have problems with the Bank of Canada for the same reasons too.
- petrodollar, on 05/08/2008, -3/+1The Federal Reserve directors are directly appointed by the President. He can remove them at any time and replace them with anyone he wants.
- sloppychris, on 05/08/2008, -2/+2You have to provide reasons for things.
- spawnfree, on 05/08/2008, -1/+3well the fed does manage the current system of scams, without it they may well fall apart along with the rot that grew around them.
There was a time before the Fed you see, and things were quite good.
the great depression happened just after the Fed was set up. In fact it was engineered by the fed to destroy the small banks and buy them up.
Stop sucking off the Fed, they can afford their own people for that. - roho76, on 05/08/2008, -4/+1They changed it from the gold standard to the current system and it didn't "fall apart like nothing you've ever seen before." Your rederic is ***** poor and unsubstantiated.
Also "the very first copy of the constitution." What do you think this is? A Harry Potter book you ***** moron? - Spudster, on 05/08/2008, -3/+2Thank you so much for your comment. I'm glad to see that the political atmosphere of Digg is regaining its sensibility. The Paulites have gamed Digg for too long!
- p0tent1al, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4So you suggest that are childrens childrens children put up with this *****? That's the MUCH better solution right? The best solution is to rectify the problem, because guess what? If you haven't noticed, everything is going up in flames as it is buddy.
Oh by the way, Ron Paul never suggested to immediately remove the Federal Reserve. He has said time and time again that our country depends on it, so we have to shut it down little by little. I mean I wouldn't expect you to know that, you are one of the many people that don't agree with Ron Paul, but don't have a clue as to what you really think you are really disagreeing with. You listen for 5 seconds, gain a skewed perspective, and then spit out uneducated theory on why he's wrong.
What you SHOULD do, is actually go to one of his appearances, unlike most candidates, he usually answers all questions, I guarantee you if you posed that to him, just like any other question he has fully defended, he would break down your argument for what it really is.- Spudster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul has shown support for bimetallism, which is why people scoff at him,
- Akairenn, on 05/08/2008, -12/+13Wow - you completely kill your argument with one sentence of pure idiocy. "Oh wait, the elastic clause doesn't exist, we shouldn't try to change our constitution to better suit the times and needs" - you do know there's a legal method of amending the Constitution, correct? The fact that our representatives choose to enact illegal laws instead should tell you something.
- OsirisO, on 05/08/2008, -32/+33Buried as inaccurate. The Founding Fathers helped institute the first national banking system, and I'm pretty sure they knew what they intended when they wrote the Constitution.
- vexingmodstwo, on 05/08/2008, -14/+9... thank you. I was reading down all these moronic comments just wondering if there was someone with a little sense here at Digg.
- OsirisO, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3No, move along. It's really just a setup for a rickroll.
Sorry.
- OsirisO, on 05/08/2008, -3/+3No, move along. It's really just a setup for a rickroll.
- Low023, on 05/08/2008, -7/+16He is wrong though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_ba ...- vexingmodstwo, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/bank.html
Look through this timeline and you'll see that while there was some disagreement, the concept of a national banking system started with Washington's administration and essentially became "permanent" during Lincoln's adminstration (with few hiccups along the way afterwards until the Federal Reserve Act)... - OsirisO, on 05/08/2008, -2/+9Yes, because Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and the First Congress clearly don't represent our founding generation. You could argue Jefferson and Madison, but then I'd just say that then you can't throw this "The Founding Fathers said" crap around at all, because there wasn't even political consensus then.
- consonance, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1This is a major point people seem to forget. It's not like in the 1790s everyone was happy and hating the banks. It's not like Thomas Jefferson was the most moral man who ever lived. That's *****, and anyone who tells you that needs to have their arguments critically examined before you can say they're telling the truth. For instance, Thomas Jefferson made known his hate of banks and corporations, but he was ***** president for eight years, and he never abolished the Bank of the United States or said anything about it during his presidency.
Also, the premise of this film is woefully inaccurate. The video cites Article I, Section 10, but that section only applies to the states, not the federal government. yeah, a lot of ***** has happened in the U.S. financial system, but the Constitution wasn't violated and the Supreme Court hasn't declared a central bank unconstitutional, even in McCulloch v. Maryland or any case like it 200 years later.
- consonance, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1This is a major point people seem to forget. It's not like in the 1790s everyone was happy and hating the banks. It's not like Thomas Jefferson was the most moral man who ever lived. That's *****, and anyone who tells you that needs to have their arguments critically examined before you can say they're telling the truth. For instance, Thomas Jefferson made known his hate of banks and corporations, but he was ***** president for eight years, and he never abolished the Bank of the United States or said anything about it during his presidency.
- Low023, on 05/08/2008, -2/+4The first attempt From the Wiki Posted.
"For example, it was partly owned by foreigners, who would share from its profits. It was also not solely responsible for the country's money supply; its share was only 20%, while private banks accounted for the rest. The Bank was bitterly opposed by several founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who saw it as an engine for speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption."- OsirisO, on 05/08/2008, -2/+1It's almost like I just addressed that above you. ;)
- vexingmodstwo, on 05/08/2008, -1/+4http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/bank.html
- BetterOffEd, on 05/08/2008, -4/+16Exactly where in the Constitution is the Federal Reserve System established?
- vexingmodstwo, on 05/08/2008, -14/+9... thank you. I was reading down all these moronic comments just wondering if there was someone with a little sense here at Digg.
