What can be done to realistically make the FED vanish?

therefore, the ones who caused the leveraged credit bubble and profited the most, need to make even more, so that the bubble will not burst, and people's lives won't be damaged.
Your care for the little guy is overwhelming.

 

I think the value of various currencies would be tracked by the same people that currently track the value of various national currencies, wouldn't they? And if you're holding currency that someone won't accept (sort of like these days if you've only got credit cards and you walk into a store that doesn't take them), then you have to count that as a very practical reduction in the value of that currency.

 

You could ask all sorts of obtuse questions about any good or service.

What if the manufacturer of a car gives you a dysfunctional automobile? What if a food seller poisons your food? What if a meteor comes hurtling through the sky and destroys your house?

It's all just obfuscation and dissembling from an ideologue.

Supply and demand is how it would work, the same as ANY other good or service that markets price and allocate.

 

Your math is wrong. It's closer to 3 1/2% per year.

Who's "we"? And why do "we" want it at that rate?

Stable prices.

The USA was the economy powerhouse of the world before the Fed existed.

It's just as persuasive as your opinion. The burden of proof is on you to show that central economic planning regulates prices better than the free market does.

 

The money supply contracts as a method of self correction. Besides, there is no evidence that non-negligible recessions occur when people are free to use receipt gold as money. You have been asked to prove otherwise time and time again, and you have failed to do so.

When they are distorted by false signals given by central economic planning, I agree that this is the case. In the absence of central economic planning, there is zero evidence to back up this claim.

 

There is no measurable difference in real GDP growth rates pre- and post-Fed. I already demonstrated this.

 

There is plenty of evidence that bigger recessions occur when people use a currency based on gold.

You have been asked to prove that non-negligible recessions occur when people are free to use receipt gold as money and you have failed to do so.

When did our government start "central economic planning"?

 

Presumably in a similar way that you keep track of various currencies today.

Why should the seller accept the currency you have if he doesn't want to?
The IRS would presumably accept tender in dollars or any other gold currency recognized by government.

What's a Madoff dollar?

 

But there is in the size and legnth of recessions. This has been demonstrated too.

 

We don't. Everything is demoniated in a dollar.

Gee, so you can buy stuff?

Why should the govt recognize any other currencies?

Just what it sounds like. A dollar issued by Madoff. Legal tender.

But worthless after the fraud was exposed.

 

I agree. Too bad that has nothing to do with what I said in my previous post.

1913 was when it took off.

 

So the entire world uses the Dollar in every transaction?

Please explain how competing currencies would prevent me from buying stuff.

It could if you amended it. Right now, the only one it can legally recognize is gold and silver per the Constitution.

The government wouldn't make a Madoff dollar legal tender. It seems you are still confused about what Free Banking is.

 

So you are arguing that prior to 1913, markets acted in ways that were in the best interest of the economy as a whole, but they stopped doing that in 1913?

 

So we have to check with a broker every time you want to buy something.

And if you have that currency that is not accepted, then "you" are "(*)(*)(*)(*)ed".

What if your currency isn't on the list?

No. Then you are "(*)(*)(*)(*)ed".

 

That's not what I am arguing. I'm arguing that in the absence of major central economic planning like what we have today, markets act rationally in the best interests of the individual, thus the whole economy.

 

The flaw in your reasoning is that what is in the best interest of the individual, or at least the perceived best interest in of the individual, is in the best interest of the whole economy.

In a recession, for example, the best interest of an individuals is to liquidate investements and hold cash. That is not the best interest of the economy.

 

That's true. The most major periods of economic downturn, including the Great Depression and the most recent recession, have occured on the Fed's watch. And the Fed was directly responsible for the Great Depression.

Yet another reason to abolish the Fed.

 

If there's anything akphidelt is known for, it's honesty.

 

Of course not. X amount of gold or silver would be worth Y amount of goods and/or services. It's not rocket science.

So what?

 

How do you know it's not in the best interest of the "economy"?

 

Then show it to me.

 

OK. Show me that GDP growth has been about the same.

 

How can something which harms every single individual in the economy (causing higher prices and destroying the purchasing power of savings) be good for the "economy"? The "economy" is an abstract concept that describes transactions between individuals. You can't harm individuals while helping the economy.

You need to get away from the Collectivist propaganda machine.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Your turn.

 

Wait... "causing higher prices" is harmful to everyone? So what about the person selling the goods getting the higher prices? How does it harm them?

What about the home owner selling his house for much more than he bought it for, or a gold owner selling his gold for much more than he bought it for. You are only focusing on the purchaser.